Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 May 6

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 01:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Chon

Justin Chon – (View AfD) Vanity page. This actor's work is insubstantial and does not warrant an article. 601 hits in google search. Actor has no public following. Prod tag was removed by someone with a bare IP. Quatloo 09:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep That IMDB page proves some notability. Adding stub tag. Corpx 16:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I argue that it does exactly the opposite. Quatloo 21:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm not sure how this qualifies under WP:BIO. First, the coverage is not "substantial" nor are there multiple sources. Second, and this is a judgment call, I don't think he has been in a significant role. Third there is no large fan base and, third, there is no unique contribution to the entertainment world. JodyB _talk 00:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Certainly not a vanity page, and is notable. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 01:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not a vanity page? The guy is a total nobody. Quatloo 04:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Expand - Article needs to be expanded to better illustrate the subjects notability and importance. If that can not be established, then the article should be deleted. ---Ozgod 01:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep/Expand - Very close to the wrong edge of WP:N but if expanded it could be okay. If there is not much further information to be had then Delete. --tennisman ^{sign here!} 01:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and let it be recreated when this gentlemen satisfies WP:BIO with a significant role in a notable production. the_undertow ^talk 02:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete noting that imdb and the like do not constitute non-trivial coverage. They are simply the sign that this guy has an agent. I currently see no hope of using reliable sources to move this article beyond a stub. No problem with recreating in the future if that state of affairs changes. Pascal.Tesson 04:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, secondary roles & no sources. --Dhartung | Talk 05:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, and expand. Not a vanity, its quite difficult for this article to pass notability guidelines since the article is vague. Terence 06:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be expanded because nothing has ever been published on this guy. Quatloo 06:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, obviously. Fails WP:BIO miserably. Having a profile on IMDB is not a claim to notability (it is internet users that supply information to that website). There are no multiple, secondary, independent and reliable sources available on the subject. --Zamkudi 09:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Zamkudi.Montco 15:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He's just an extra. Fails WP:BIO because there isn't anything to source it. EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He is not notable, even though he is more than just an extra. The Peter Wu role was substantial, but one good TV movie role is not enough for notability. I found no published articles about him. --Bejnar 02:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Infrangible 18:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as attack page. Slavlin 15:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Jorgenson

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

profanity Mseliw 00:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominated for speedy. Someguy1221 16:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. –Pomte 05:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

===A New Star===

I nominated this for deletion because: 1) Possible Copyvio. 2) Notability; It's just an interview with Sports Illustrated. It's not like he won an award for it or anything. 3) Possible advertisement, in that he is trying to advertise himself, to show how good he is. SuperDT 15:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC) ... I made this out of mistake. Please remove it. Sorry. SuperDT 16:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (CSD G1). If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About inventors

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

This article is an unnecessary fork of Inventor. John254 00:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Doesn't this fit some speedy criterion? -Amarkov moo! 00:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 00:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• In answer to Amarkov, yes. Speedy Delete G1, it's utter nonsense. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yes, it's utter nonsense. And an un-needed fork. Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 01:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What's the point of it? Inventors states things about them. --Lemonflash|_{(speak out)} 01:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Poorly written. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 01:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Absolute pointless nonsense. Sahmeditor 01:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 02:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to The Chronicles of Riddick. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furyan

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

Delete Non notable movie element; not much info is know about it anyway. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 00:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to The Chronicles of Riddick. Does not stand on its own. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to The Chronicles of Riddick per WP:FICT and WP:N. Does not deserve its own article. Sr13 (T|C) 08:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect seems best in light of WP:FICT. It needs a thorough rewrite as well. --JodyB _talk 10:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect - I don't think that all this work should be deleted and tossed down the drain...but then again, it's not the most notable thing ever. ;-) Cheers, RelentlessRecusant 12:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect & merge salvagable info. /Blaxthos 15:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect: Per RelentlessRecusant. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 21:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect Per mutiple above comments. --Random ^{Say it here!} 00:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, as additional influx may overwhelm rest of article. Otherwise, merge and redirect. Abeg92contribs 19:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The claims to notability aren't clearly substantiated and the article has insufficient legitimate sources. Srikeit 04:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Pollack

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

This is a borderline case. The guy seems like he would be notable, and thus have sources on him. The problem is, the only sources I can find on this Henry Pollack are the article cited in the references section and various copies of a Department of Justice press release. I'm not sure that's enough to have an article, but it's kinda ambiguous. So I formally have no opinion, leaning towards delete. It just needs some discussion. Amarkov moo! 00:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: A fair chunk of the article was contributed by the article's subject (editing as User:Enriquepollack). As a result, there is a fair bit of POV present but it should be presumed that to some extent the facts are accurate. Tabercil 00:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Based on the sources that I can find, the only thing I have been able to verify is that the legal aspect to the article is correct. However, since wikipedia is not a newspaper, I would have to see the sources that lend credence to his other activities. the_undertow ^talk 02:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep seems notable for the radio show. The criminal matter is in my opinion trivial (As a Federal employee, he tried to get the health insurance program to pay for human growth hormone) , and despite being a conviction, I'm dubious about the fairness of including it. Should be sourcable. DGG 04:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only legitimate claims to notability (the radio program) are unsourced. As for the health care fraud, cases like these are of the everyday ilk, even for political staffers. Fails WP:AUTO, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:BIO. Caknuck 04:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Caknuck. Apart from the run-of-the-mill health care case this is VSCA. --Dhartung | Talk 06:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hosting a radio talk show to a small area without any acclaim from non-trivial sources and being convicted of fraud does not assert notability. Sr13 (T|C) 08:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The claim of notability is unsubstantiated. --JodyB _talk 10:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - As per above. ;-) I'd like more credible references. ;-) Cheers, RelentlessRecusant 12:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lack of sources usually means there are notability issues as well. /Blaxthos 15:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Barely meets the threshold of notability Corpx 16:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: There are other references than the US press release. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. FNMF 06:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article has been controversial, and being a BLP, needs more sources to justify it. nadav 07:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak KeepHe is a personality in South Florida and should be kept. As it has been edited now with all things verifiable I think it meets the requirements. Callelinea 15:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete very POV article in my mind.BeckyAnne 17:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete; I personally think he's notable enough due to the radio showe and anti-Castro activism, but there are not multiple independent reliable sources for the article. All there is right now is a DOJ press release and a law publication that reprinted it. (The books about Cuba are very general references not really showing the subject's personal notability.) If someone can add good sources on his career, political activities, and a collateral reference for the criminal case, I would support keeping the article, but as of now it does not meet WP:BIO. --MCB 23:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's no way for a reader to easily verify the information in this article. It's a bunch of gossip. After being listed for five days, nobody has been able to add reliable sources. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 20:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rush (band) equipment

Rush (band) equipment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A list of what it says on the cover. BanyanTree 00:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow. Does exactly what it says on the tin, this one. Still, Delete, with a very remote merge to Rush (band). --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Rush (band). No point in making a whole article. Lemonflash|_{(speak out)} 01:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Maybe this is mroe important than it seems to music people. It seems very trivial. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 02:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as indiscriminate, uncited information. If I'm missing something and this is actually relevant to the band AND sources can be found for all this, then merge it. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete it seems like cataloging for the sake of cataloging, instead of summarizing and presenting material that contributes to an understanding of the topic. If the specific choices make a difference, then they should be presented with prose for context. I think a history of their equipment with context and explanations would be acceptable, but its current form is just no good, and without sources or much good content, I'm not sure if this is worth keeping. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I am having a hard time seeing the notability of a list of instruments whose only uniting characteristic is their being used by a given band. If there is something significant here, then it would be better mentioned in Rush (band). --EMS | Talk 03:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most of the pertinent info already exists at Alex Lifeson, Geddy Lee etc... I don't see the need for this fork (any precedent here?), especially with the non-standard naming. Caknuck 04:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and absolutely do not merge this trivial cruft into the Rush article. RFerreira 06:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without merge. Pointless trivia. Resolute 06:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:ATT and I can't see how any of it passes WP:N. --Charlene 06:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NOT#DIR and WP:N. The article only lists instument specs; unnecessary fork. Sr13 (T|C) 09:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Concur with EMS. No reason to exist. JodyB _talk 10:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect - My inclusionism tells me that I don't want it deleted, although it is entirely un-notable. ;-) Cheers, RelentlessRecusant 12:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & Do Not Redirect crufty goodness... if there is referenced material it can be put into the band page, however there is no need to keep the redirect... no one is going to search for "Rush (band) equipment". /Blaxthos 15:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article serves no real purpose. --Random ^{Say it here!} 00:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article is beyond pointless. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Miskatonic (talk • contribs) 04:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 & cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vets For Freedom Action Fund

Vets For Freedom Action Fund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, this article seems to exist solely to promote this organization and its adopted viewpoint. The "sources" are either the organization itself, or editorials produced by its membership about political issues (not about the organization itself). Wikipedia isn't the place to push an agenda or promote a non-notable political group. /Blaxthos 00:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos 00:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. No reputable source to back up notability. Main contributers Jason Lynn and Ellie Cy seem to be single purpose contributers. --Work permit 02:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nom has it - rather spammy. We are not a means of promotion. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:ATT and WP:ORG. Not only is this not attributed, from searches I'm not sure if it's attributable. --Charlene 06:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails notability according to the various guidelines. JodyB _talk 11:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Keep if article gets major cleanup and becomes NPOV. Corpx 16:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The version of July 13, 2006 shows a non-spammy version of this. As for "not attributed", this isn't exactly a made-up group; there are plenty of references to it by other than the founders - see, for example, this page by SourceWatch. I agree that the article is not NPOV, but that is NOT a criteria for deletion. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but please remove non-reliable secondary sources: blogs and other external jumps that do not describe the subject. I found some newspaper articles though that I consider them reliable. — Indon (reply) — 18:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It has sufficient notability. -- Randy2063 21:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep The only thing this COI-ridden piece manages is to at least convey some sort of notability. However, the article requires a complete rewrite. I expect the revised version to be less than half the current length. nadav 00:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Alert (Star Trek)

Blue Alert (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about what amounts to some blinking lights and a siren. While the circumstances that lead to "blue alert" may be notable, the term/condition itself does not warrant its own article. The condition occurs most frequently in Star Trek: Voyager; I'd recommend redirecting either to that article or, more appropriately, USS Voyager (Star Trek). --EEMeltonIV 00:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because, like "blue alert," "yellow alert" amounts to some lights and sound effects; minor significance to the shows' in-universe plots, and can't fathom any real-world (i.e. of-interest-to-Wikipedia) notability. No particular recommendation on where, if anywhere, to redirect.

Yellow Alert (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--EEMeltonIV 01:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep All. MA seems to cover things a little better about these, thus a weak keep - I'm willing to defer these to MA. The only real problem that I have is that the nom effectively trivializes the article; while it's granted these are suspense elements (and in the structure of the script, little more), seeing these as such is equivalent to seeing the forest for only the trees. Moving on, though, yellow alert also has kind of crept into general usage, whereas blue alert... well, it's unusual, but for blue alert I'm willing to ignore the rules as necessary. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's entirely in-universe and doesn't even have reliable sources for that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete even in terms of the comprehensive coverage for Star Trek in WP, this seems really trivial.DGG 04:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Night Gyr —A • D ^Torque 05:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, WP:FICT breach detected. --Dhartung | Talk 06:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. Blue Alert was shown on (IIRC) one episode of ST:V, so redirecting to that show would be somewhat useless, and Yellow Alert, while more common in Trek, would be better described at Memory Alpha, the actual Star Trek wiki. --Charlene 06:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both This is a curiosity at best, nothing more. It's already on the Star Trek wiki so let's just leave it there. JodyB _talk 11:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & Redirect - I hate to see anything deleted. ;-) I'd just recommend adding it as a trivia section to the appropriate real-life alert page. ;-) Cheers, Relentless∞Recusant ^[iTalk] ♥ _[iMessage] 13:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as original research. Let's try to keep wikipedia articles on significant nonfiction instead of blurring the line between notable elements of a notable tv show and fancruft trivia on otherwise uncodified/unclear effects elements. /Blaxthos 15:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Blue Alert, which is trivia; Strong Keep Yellow Alert, which is quite famous as an idiom in American English now, besides it's Star Trek roots. Note my objection to the grouping of these two articles. They are vastly different: one concerns a tiny bit of trivia, while the other (Yellow Alert) concerns a concept essential to Star Trek from its beginning, now well-enmeshed in popular culture. Xoloz 16:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Uh, "quite famous as an idiom in American English now", how? I can safely say that I've never heard it outside of a Trek or sf context. --Dhartung | Talk 00:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all Both articles are in my opinion far too trivial to have encyclopedic value. Pax:Vobiscum 16:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. There's a Star Trek wiki for these, I don't think there's much of a reason for them here. --Sable232 23:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into more general articles. This information is somewhat important.--Mars2035 01:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Set phasers to delete per above. RFerreira 06:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Fire the proton deletors It's an alert. That's all it is. There's nothing notable about a generalized "Oh crap" alert on a ship. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 14:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Deserves a tricobalt sendoff DELETE with phasers set to vaporize. 132.205.44.134 22:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Blue Alert! Engage cloaking device! And while you're at it, mask your warp trail --Work permit 00:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Alerts are a notable aspect of the Star Trek universe. But 3 different articles? Too much. Should be one article called Readiness alert (Star Trek) or Alert state (Star Trek) or similar. There are a lot of potential sources for such an article. God knows there's a Library of Congress size stack of ST Technical Manuals out there. nadav 00:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. — Caknuck 03:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)W.marsh 00:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Night at the Museum

The Night at the Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not a notable book besides being the base of the movie, hardly any contributors-most recent was in Febuary. Lemonflash|_{(speak out)} 01:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep So presumably it IS notable because it was the 'base' of the movie? Valid stubs should be expanded, not deleted. Nick mallory 01:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion state: The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country. the_undertow ^talk 02:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand, notable author plus notable movie adaptation, the book definitely deserves an article. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 05:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the movie article. make a section about how the movie was based on the book. Either that, or some how incorporate it into the text (in the introduction?) —A • D ^Torque 05:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Needs to be expanded, not deleted. Clearly notable book as it has been adapted into a movie. Resolute 06:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The book is notable since the film is notable, if that wasn't the case then they wouldn't get mentioned together so often in my googly results. Here's one good source - Interview with the author, it even contains an image for the infobox which the article doesn't have yet. Author has own site (primary source). Even if the two eventually do get merged, the film article doesn't look too hot and adding two lines about the book isn't going to encourage anyone to write on it. QuagmireDog 06:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, this is barely a WP:STUB, but it seems valid per WP:BK and all. --Dhartung | Talk 06:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - If this book was the base for a rather well-popularized movie, then keep. ;-) Cheers, R∞R ^[iTalk] 14:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If the book wasn't notable, then there wouldn't be a movie, now would there? The Hippie 20:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I rewrote the article to emphasize notability. - Freechild 20:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep supposed reason for deletion is actually a criteria for keeping. i kan reed 21:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there wouldn't be a movie on it if it wasn't notable, there has been expansion done to it since nominated. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 22:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. The article seems to be more of a stub, which means that there is room for expansion, not deletion. Aquatics ^{Guard Alert} 22:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above arguments. --Sable232 23:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Oh give me a fucking break. RFerreira 07:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dhartung & Aquatics. This is a stub and it is notable.--Cailil ^talk 15:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - err... (need I say more?) Matthew 20:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Inquisition (myths and misconceptions)

The Inquisition (myths and misconceptions) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

• Delete: POV fork from Inquisition, poorly written, little or no salvageable content. Peter G Werner 01:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Entirely OR. the_undertow ^talk 02:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Strong Delete. Unsalvageable OR. EditingManiac (contribs) 02:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundancy, probably merge to Inquisition. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 05:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The rationale for it was written in the "talk page" at the start. Creating a stub article seemed like the best way of clearly showing what the suggestion was about and to check for any interest. I could certainly find references to most of these myths, I just don't think anyone would care. DanielDemaret 07:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just to point out, User:DanielDemaret is the sole author of the article in question, and he's on record as supporting deletion. Peter G Werner 16:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is original research and not from a neutral point of view. Sr13 (T|C) 09:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As Sr13 notes, it's OR that completely violates NPOV. /Blaxthos 15:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - NPOV, OR. The Hippie 20:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & Redirect - Well, this ain't exactly NPOV, if you catch my drift. ;-) Furthermore, most of this can't really be proven...just take some of the confirmed stuffelz and put it in the Inquisition article. Later! ;-) Cheers, RR ^[iTalk] 21:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment merging doesn't seem like a great idea. articles shouldn't have trivia style sections. Documented false claims that have published work about them could go into Inquisition, but this stuff is unsourced and in an improper format. i kan reed 21:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete particularly along the lines of WP:TRIVIA and the random collection of information rules of WP:NOT. i kan reed 21:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; the talk page establishes that this is a PoV fork. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: POV fork from Inquisition, poorly written, little or no salvageable content as per Peter G Werner 01:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Hobomojo 03:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 07:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this attempt at apologetics and WP:OR with no WP:CITE. IZAK 07:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence that the topic of myths and misconceptions about the Inquisition (as distinct from the inquisition itself) has any notability. For all we know based on what's been shown, a Wikipedia editor might have invented the topic, putting together various primary pieces of information to form an original synthesis. There are currently no sources. --Shirahadasha 04:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge This information needs to be merged into Inquisition along with references to back it up. Aspenocean 10:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WWF Kuwaiti Cup

WWF Kuwaiti Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable wretling tournament, no evidence of multiple independent non trivial reliable sources about it so fails WP:N, and Wikipedia is not a directory of wrestling results. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, this isn't even an article, let alone something fit for an encyclopedia. RFerreira 06:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--VS ^talk 10:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no useful content. /Blaxthos 15:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Everything I make gets deleted anyway. -- FPAtl (holla, holla, holla) 06:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Breed Entertainment

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

Non-notable music label that fails all points of WP:MUSIC. The label has yet to release any albums, nor does it have any notable artists. No reliable sources provided, and it's doubtful that any exist. Speedy tag was deleted by author last month.

I'm also nominating the article for the label's forthcoming album...

The Dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — Caknuck 02:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete They have not produced anything, as far as I can tell - non notable.the_undertow ^talk 02:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spam. "16 year old C.E.O." is kind of obvious, the article creator's name is a shortened version of the main subject of the article. I found this MySpace thing. Google results speak for themselves. QuagmireDog 06:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Shameless selfpromotion. /Blaxthos 15:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both Borderline Speedy Delete per A7. Pax:Vobiscum 16:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable Corpx 16:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it fails notability. Aquatics ^{Guard Alert} 23:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Frag obviously fails even basic notability requirements. David Fuchs^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 01:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 02:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mundana Quartet

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

Prodded with "Not notable, not referenced, not encyclopedic tone." Prod removed by creator with argument "Article improved. Having been elected to represent a country at Expo 2000, is definetely an enyclopedic". There are still no references for the article, the tone is very unencyclopedic, and playing at a single big event doesn't make one notable - does it? Update: this article was also deleted from Polish Wikipedia (see pl:Wikipedia:SDU/Mundana Quartet for Polish AfD); the reason was the same as mine above - participation in a single event does not made them notable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So how many big single events do you need to draw a line in the sand to be notable and encyclopedic, Piotrus? And the reason to delete this article in Polish version wasn't the same. I would call that action a bias against diversity. Just look at the votes: 15 : 7 to delete by everybody, but only 1 : 4 by more tolerant administrators. Doesn't ring a bell? And what about if I were to publish an article about "Hypernova" - the first Iranian rock group ever? They ain't even got no single big event yet; they just play at the Lower East Side bar. So how come that the New York Times wrote about them a full page story? What about 1/4 page in wiki by me? Where will you be there when I'll do that? Writing AfDs or what? Or maybe you are more selective? Sorry, pal, I think that's it. Greg park avenue 02:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I deleted the abusive comments per WP:BLP. I'm not sure about these girls' notability since I'm not in Poland and don't read Polish, but vandalism/abusive comments should be deleted from all articles and should not be considered part of a reason to delete. --Charlene 20:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Charlene, for polishing my rough English. Besides, I fully agree with your comment. Greg park avenue 02:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep If this were a US group, it wouldn't even be up for deletion. This is a well-known quartet that has performed in major venues and has even done a soundtrack. -t h b 20:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well-known? Google test: [1]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.6.59.121 (talk) 07:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Google has been sterilized. Using Google it's like trying to catch a French movie on American TV with "Jean Paul Belmondo", "Louis de Funes" or "Alain Delon". Try any European web search engine like let's say German magazine Das Bild and you'll find out, that Mundana is a very well known Polish band throughout Europe, just like "Kwartet Jorgi" or "Taklamakan Trio". greg park avenue 01:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete we have a guideline for this over at WP:MUSIC by which measure, this fails. When they have better grounds for notability, recreate the article then. Eusebeus 15:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • An abstract from WP:MUSIC guidelines: A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries. greg park avenue 17:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can elaborate on how that piece of policy pertains to this string quartet I'll think of changing my vote. As it is, I am at a loss as to what you intend to accomplish since that, as it were, was my very point. Eusebeus 23:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted some references regarding newspaper articles about Mundana. Gazeta Poznańska is a major national daily; Głos Wielkopolski - a local daily reaching population about size of Quebec population - you can find this article here but it's only an abstract. Just like in New York Times, to read the full text of the archived article, one must become a member and pay for it. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, so I cannot use this link on main page. It relates to a big event - International Music Day in 2005 Poland - televised nationwide by Channel II Polish TV at prime time with footings broadcast across Europe and South America. It took place in downtown Poznań - the only city in Poland which partcipate in it for the first time. Mundana Quartet not only participate in it together with many well established ensembles including Poznańskie Słowiki with Stefan Stuligrosz, but also organized it and does it now each year. If not for Mundana this event never would happen. You can check that out with another reference on main page in Gazeta Wyborcza. If this event is not encyclopedic, Live 8, Concert for Bangladesh and Woodstock 69' also should qualify for AfD. greg park avenue 10:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a bit weak but ... something different from that less tolerant part of EU. Positive news for a change! greg park avenue 20:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Mundana, 4 Non Blondes - It's OK! ;) . Budzix form Poznan.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 16:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep just because it's in Europe doesn't mean it's less notable than a similar US group. Wikipedia isn't just for United States. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 05:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Four hotties apparently have three newspaper stories, satisfying WP:N and WP:A. Edison 07:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - putting up links to Polish newspapers in the English Wiki is not really a way of asserting notability. I mean the articles might be saying they are imposters for all we know. Are there English references?--VS ^talk 10:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Playing's devil advocate, I'd like to note that per WP:AGF, WP:RS and WP:V foreign newspapers are reliable. That said, are few newspapers articles enough to make the group notable?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• In Poland the group is not widely known either. This is probably the reason why it failed an AfD vote on pl.wiki... Jotempe 12:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Polish wiki has different AfD procedure, their AfD is indistinguishable from a majority vote, if you go to the link and take a look. In English wiki, we don't count votes for AfD. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 14:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is a vote (not quite majority through), and the article failed by 2:1 (no:yes) votes. It is also true, that the author appears to have a very strong personal interest in promoting the band and its members. During the vote he had to be blocked on pl.wiki for a week because of personal and abusive attacks towards persons who voted against the article. Jotempe 14:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, for someone who didn't contibute to English wiki not even a single edition except creating his own user page and starts the editing career from AfD complains, he doesn't seem very credible to me; it looks more like a personal attack which, by the way, Polish AfD was all about, however, the other way around than stated above. And here we've got a typical sample of that activity. And yes, I have a strong personal interest to promote the only band in Poland which is 100% tolerant, just for want of the others. greg park avenue 15:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually someone as experienced on wiki as you, should have noticed that I do have several edits in the main space (admitted, mostly minor ones). But, most important, I'm not complaining here, I'm explaining the backgroud of article deletion on pl.wiki to people, who don't know Polish. You may notice, that I did not put forth my opinion about the article, just described what happened with it there. BTW: I consider the claim that it is the only band in Poland which is 100% tolerant a gross overstatement. Jotempe 16:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT a forum. Concentrate on article. Nobody in here cares about Polish bias. greg park avenue 16:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no significant notability, there are no real references. This just doesn't meet our requirements for inclusion -- hotness doesn't trump WP:V and WP:OR. /Blaxthos 15:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you at least either a musician or music expert or fan? An abstract from WP:MUSIC guidelines: A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries. greg park avenue 16:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Mundana Quartet article has been removed from the Polish Wiki.
• Gazeta Poznańska is a local daily.Xx236 10:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is, but what has that to do with Mundana? Though, while we at Sarc1 I took a freedom to correct German spelling on your user page - instead of "mucken auf" it supposed to be "aufzumucken". greg park avenue 13:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 02:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodlust Software Universe

Bloodlust Software Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previous AfD - not sure what originally happened here, the AfD seemed to result in merge but I'm struggling to understand what was merged to where if anything, and the closing admin isn't editing any more, at least with that account. Seems to be mostly original research, and there's no real evidence of notability either. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without regard to the previous AfD, there's just nothing here worth keeping (it's all OR). /Blaxthos 15:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing comes up on a google search either. Corpx 16:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a place for all information, and in my view this falls short of being of general encyclopedic interest. I'm also doubting there is a way to source it properly. Pax:Vobiscum 16:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I wouldn't say that any of that is notable. Aquatics ^{Guard Alert} 22:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - massive original research. I have no idea why it was kept previously. --Haemo 06:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was blam blam blam blam click... gone. DS 15:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting (2008 film)

No reference whatsoever to this movie on IMDB, Google or Yahoo. Plus, "Night Sky Films" doesn't appear to be a company capable of producing a film of this scale, based on their Web site. And neither of the stars exist. Bottom line--a possible hoax. Blueboy96 03:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete. At best, fails WP:N. No citations as well. The article basically says it's not notable: " It has been confirmed that the MPAA will of course not give this film a rating , All that is known is that the movie involves a shooting that causes all hell to break loose. Let's wait for june and see if its notable when it's released --Work permit 04:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above; this film may not be a hoax but at any rate is too unknown to warrant an article at this stage of pre-production. The claim that the film will not be given a rating makes it sound like the producers have too low a budget to pay for the rating fee. --Metropolitan90 05:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Simply no real clarification of the films existence (or potential existence). Almost all of the people involved in the 'film' are redlinked as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anonymous Dissident (talk • contribs) 05:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Speedy delete No notability asserted at all. If not speediable, fails WP:NOT#CBALL. Sr13 (T|C) 09:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per above. /Blaxthos 15:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 09:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youthfire

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

(contested PROD) This website does not appear to meet WP:WEB guidelines. Joyous! | Talk 03:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete, per WP:CSD#G11 (spam), almost every sentence in the intro ends in an !, it has 25 external links to the website in it, "Youthfire also has an AWESOME radio," and "And is one of the best ministries based on the web!" To pull out all instances of spam-ness in this, I could just copy and paste the article. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete G11 (spam) A7 (web). So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction, make it an A7. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per Mr.Z-man. Obvious COI problem, as author Jtmcgee is also listed as one of the tech guys in the article. Caknuck 03:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per Mr.Z-man. Gobonobo ^{T C} 03:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Huntsville, Alabama, nothing of particular note to merge. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Gap Middle School

Mountain Gap Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable, what may be notable is potentially slanderous Chris 03:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While consensus has been that high schools have some measure of inherent notability, the same is not true of middle schools. Even the (unsourced) statements in the article at current, if verified, seem insufficient to distinguish this sufficiently from other middle schools. Serpent's Choice 03:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete School articles that devote most of the article to the floor plan of the building are a reasonable sign of true non-notability.DGG 04:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable school that is even rated worse than other ones. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 05:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all three above —A • D ^Torque 05:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Huntsville, Alabama per WP:LOCAL and various proposed school guidelines. RFerreira 06:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable school ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 09:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Very little encyclopedia info in that article. I would also support Merging as nominated by previous editor. Corpx 16:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per WP:LOCAL.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect as per above. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 19:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overhaul. I'm not entirely sure why this isn't a part of Wikipedia: WikiProject Schools. The article could really use a major overhaul to bring it up to encyclopedic standards, but I wouldn't say that it isn't notable. Aquatics ^{Guard Alert} 22:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to Huntsville, Alabama, pending creation of article for school district. Only some middle schools will have adequate material to demonstrate notability, and a review of the school's website, Google and Google News/Archive has uncovered some additional information, but not enough to establish notability. Alansohn 15:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 17:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it tries, but I don't see notability.--Wizardman 17:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect per WP:LOCAL. --Myles Long 17:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Note that WP:LOCAL is no longer policy, and is historical more than anything, so I'm not sure what the value is of !votes done solely "per it".--Wizardman 18:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N and do not merge per WP:A. Also, I have removed the "worst school in Alabama" sentence as poorly sourced and potentially defamatory. The newspaper in question is defunct, and I can't find any other reference to such a poll. Something like that might fly if we had at least an issue date or other corroboration, but I believe it's too dubious to stand on its own. --Butseriouslyfolks 07:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect Georgewilliamherbert 23:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Huntsville, Alabama or whatever the school district is. The school doesn't meet WP:N. I'm unable to find any non-trivial independent reliable sources. I'm unable to find any claims of any notable alumni or succesful teams at the school or anything else that might approximate a claim of notability. We should therefore redirect since none of the information is worth adding to the main article on Huntsville. JoshuaZ 01:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per various bastardized school guidelines. Silensor 00:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Huntsville, Alabama per WP:LOCAL and WP:SCHOOLS. Vegaswikian 02:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and move to Arbuthnot and Ambrister incident. Sr13 02:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander George Arbuthnot

Alexander George Arbuthnot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable shopkeeper, no evidence of multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Somewhat unfair article description in the nomination. Florida Indian trader 1803-1818, tried in absentia by Andrew Jackson for aiding hostile Indians, and hanged from the mast of his trading schooner. Apparent Congress passed a resolution condemning the executions as a result of foreign pressure. The family tree which is the only mentioned source does cite a contemporary newspaper--I've added it to the article--my remote access doesn't want to connect to the likely source for it, Gale's Early American Newspapers)

But let's keep an eye out for other Arbuthnots of much lesser interest or importance. DGG 04:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm only going by the article - He had a store near St Augustine. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, it is quite possibly that the incident and trial is notable, however the sources are very poor and not from recognised reliable sources, however I dont believe that the individual himself is notable.--Vintagekits 16:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a figure in a notable enough historical incident. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 05:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although it would seem more prudent to move to Arbuthnot and Ambrister Incident.e.g. Biographical information on both is slim and of questionable encyclopedic value, but the trial and execution continue to be important and have resonance e.g. for the current Guantanamo military commission. It gets about 4 pages in this 71-page document prepared for Congress in 2004.--Dhartung | Talk 06:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think that's a good option. There's a lack of independent information available about Arbuthnot himself, but some on the case. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, just spotted this after I had proposed the same. As I said below, the incident is notable but not the person.--Vintagekits 13:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Oh good. So the person is totally detached from the incident. I wish you'd apply this rule to some of your IRA articles. David Lauder 13:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:N and WP:A, not to mention WP:BIO. Being named ARBUTHNOT is not sufficient reason to have a Wikipedia aricle. Edison 07:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: notable as an interesting historical figure who should be recorded in an encyclopaedia where the editors are aware, as we now are. This is currently a stub and needs expanding, with further references if possible, not deletion. It is a pity that the team running around flagging up AfDs on anyone they can locate with the surname Arbuthnot did not spend more time engaging in constructive work for Wikipedia, rather than destructive. David Lauder 07:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's existed for a year, so perhaps instead of attacking the nominator you'd like to expand the article now? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: I'm afraid that sneering remarks such as "non notable shopkeeper" speak for themselves. David Lauder 08:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Query:David Lauder, what do you think of my proposal to make it an article about the incident including both men, rather than a biography of just one? --Dhartung | Talk 09:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: May be a good idea. I had no input into the article myself but he seems an interesting historical figure who should not be deleted altogether. David Lauder 09:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is there a Wikiproject that might be suitable for this topic? It looks like something that could be both notable and attributable, but it might not be possible to find online sources. --Charlene 07:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: Agreed. Even today, most of the billions of academic and historical writings are simply not available in the Internet. Books remain the basis of knowledge. Whatever we can uplift and transfer on-line is a bonus for everyone. David Lauder 08:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Charlene, WikiProject Military history seems appropriate, as the case was a notable event during the Seminole War. It would probably fit within the purview of WikiProject Florida as well. --Dhartung | Talk 09:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does fall within the WikiProject Florida scope and Kittybrewster notified the membership there (thanks!). --Kimon^talk 16:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Very notable incident during the Seminole War. International repercussions and had permanent effect on General Jackson's reputation. No replies required from my shadow trolls. - Kittybrewster (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, "International repercussions and had permanent effect on General Jackson's reputation" - yes the incident caused this not the person. Is there any chance the you could start being a little more objective when it comes to articles that you have created about your own family - remember WP:COI--Vintagekits 13:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Clear demonstration, if it were needed, of the malice motivating these AfDs against anyone with the surname Arbuthnot. David Lauder 16:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, What?!?! I didnt nominate this AfD. Kittybrewster has been warned about his WP:COI when ity comes to editing articles the he has created about members of his own family (and probably shouldnt havent !voted here either). I dont see the malice in that. Additionally he was been warned before about breaching WP:CANVAS yet he has posted this messege here.--Vintagekits 16:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Ambrister and Arbuthnot incident (alphabetical order) - This article is not really about Alexander George Arbuthnot it is more about the incident which seems notable but not the person.--Vintagekits 13:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Repeat: you've already said that above. David Lauder 16:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, are you trying to say that I am double voting? (like someone did in the last AfD! no names mentioned!) I was argeeing with a comment above, this is my official !vote.--Vintagekits 16:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per DGG and Kittybrewster. As noted, the article needs a good re-write to make historical importance clear in the introductory paragraph. — ERcheck (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unattributed with questionable notability. No opposition to a properly sourced & verifiable article about the incident itself. /Blaxthos 15:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think it would be a whole lot easier to gain consensus by making this article about the incident and mention the person in a section. If enough attributable information is added, then it may be spun off into an article of its own. --Kimon^talk 16:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt anyone has a problem with somebody producing an article on the incident. The article we have does not breach copywrite. - Kittybrewster (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The incident provides a fascinating glimpse into the period in American history. The fact that this person is central to the incident makes him notable. --Bill Reid | Talk 17:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Arbuthnot and Ambrister incident - AG Arbuthnot is not notable other than for the fact that he wasn't at his own trial and then got hanged causing some international repercussions. The rest of his life is not commented upon and thus I can only conclude was neglible to the course of history. An article of his own is therefore unjustified, however, as noted by others, this incident is however probably notable. --New Progressive 17:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. I'd like to see more reliable sources provided, too, but for now the document from Congress tends to support the notion that this was a notable incident. --kingboyk 20:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete or rename and rewrite The incident is notable; this Arbuthnot isn't (not, for instance, mentioned in DNB.) The only data not related to the incident are the genealogical notes; are these likely to interest non-Arbuthnots? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually the sons were involved. "But the prey had been forewarned. A letter from Arbuthnot to his son had reached the place and had been explained to Bowlegs, who had been ever since employed in sending the women and children across the broad Suwanee into those inaccessible retreats which render Florida the best place in the world for such warfare as Indians wage. The troops reached the vicinity of the town, and in a few minutes drove out the enemy and captured the place. The pursuit was continued on the following morning by General Gaines; but the foe had vanished by a hundred paths, and were no more seen." - Kittybrewster (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Arbuthnot and Ambrister incident (note that "incident" should not be capitalized). This was a major diplomatic incident involving Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, Lord Castlereagh, et. al. Pick up any book on Andrew Jackson or the Seminole Wars (e.g. Andrew Jackson and His Indian Wars) and you're likely to find this discussed. If someone at some point finds significant published, reliable info on Arbuthnot, his bio can always be spun out in a separate article again. —Kevin Myers 20:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - legitimate encyclopedic content, and should not become embroiled in any way in the controversy about other "Arbuthnot" articles. Newyorkbrad 21:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep- clearly a disruptive bad faith nomination as part of the nominator's campaign against the Arbuthnot family. Astrotrain 08:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Clearly a notable character of the Seminole War, although the opening para needs rewriting to assert notability. DGG's comment near the top emphasises that this is a clearly bad faith nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. ONIH has now nominated another article in bad faith. Namely the notable founder of a successful merchant bank, John Alves Arbuthnot. - Kittybrewster (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The fact that some editors want the article renamed to Arbuthnot and Ambrister incident demonstrates in itself the notability of this Arbuthnot. --Bill Reid | Talk 16:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Nonsense, these criminals were killed for breaking the law in an incident that was notable, it was not the individuals that is notable its the incident.--Vintagekits 19:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Interesting parallel we have here, don't you think? Here is a man who set out to help the indigenous population against the new "incomers" who he perceived were giving them a pretty raw deal. I would have thought that you would have appreciated such a person. Does this resonate? Think Ireland here. --Bill Reid | Talk 20:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - what are you on about? Please try and stick to the notability issue this is not the United Nations.--Vintagekits 20:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Your statement "these criminals were killed for breaking the law" yet "[Congress] did pass a resolution condemning the executions". --Bill Reid | Talk 20:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, the convictions were not questioned - the punishment for these crims was what was questioned. This is not the place for this discussion - if you want to carry on please do it on the articles talkpage.--Vintagekits 20:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Arbuthnot and Ambrister incident. Per comments above, the incident is notable while the individual criminals are not. -Will Beback · † · 17:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not criminals. Unlawfully tried by military courts. - Kittybrewster (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: simply not notable. --Domer48 19:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as appears notabl;e, SqueakBox 20:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appear to be notable as an incident in history. Bios and incident should be merged with redirects to each. --Tbeatty 05:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and verify the refs. Seems historically notable. Shyamal 09:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/merge. Non-notable individual. The incident itself is worth a combined article.GiollaUidir 09:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think it would be great to have an article about the whole incident including the other injured party, but it doesn't look like such an article exists at the moment. After its creation an argument could be made to merge this into some more comprehensive coverage. As it stands this person is notable for his ultimate end in the incident even if nothing else was known about him. A sitting president overriding a military tribunal to see to the execution of a Scottish trader because of his involvement with natives? You can't say an incident such as this is notable and still claim the people involved are not. How about this for an article: "non-notable person A executed by non-notable person B for involvement with non-notable group C at a non-notable time in the history of a non-notable country." Why should anyone care that a person was killed? The history of many people would be lost if not for their involvement in some incident. Be honest. How many people knew who Custer was before they were told of his involvement in a certain "incident?" Sometimes the incident is massive in scale and sometimes it is just a stepping stone to larger conflict. You just can't reasonably edit history on that basis. Aspenocean 09:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BHG and Aspenocean. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although, following Dhartung, it would be OK to to move to Arbuthnot and Ambrister Incident. The nomination does not seem to represent a fair summary of the article, which is worrying. Drmaik 10:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above Catchpole 10:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge possibly to Seminole Wars. Not notable individual. Incident interesting, especially if uproar in various capitals can be sourced. --Dweller 11:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but Move to Arbuthnot and Ambrister Incident, orsom simialr term. The incident is notable, the individuals appear almost totally undocumeted except for the incident, and threfore a more general biographical article is impossible. Consider a merge into Seminole Wars. Do not leave as a bio article in the current location. DES ^(talk) 15:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Petros471 14:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WAH Theater

This organization is not notable. The article's creator appears to be using Wikipedia as a form of free advertising for an unknown, amateur theatre company. It appears to be a vanity article. KindSould 10:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. Serpent's Choice 03:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WAH Theater is part of a professional not for profit organization, whose building is on the National Register of Historic Places. The WAH Center has had numerous article written about it including a full page article in the New York Times. Kindsould is making assumptions about the motives of the article's creator saying that he is" using wiki as a form of free advertising." Kindsould has access to no information on the creators motives. It is suspected that Kindsould is an indvidual with hostile intent or a grudge and his/her opinion is not credible. The WAH Center and the WAH Theater are notable. KEEP article. 24.215.156.154 14:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appologize for my misuse of the term vanity article. I have no knowlege what-so-ever of the creator of this article. Nor do I have any sort of grudge. I simply have recently come accross a number of theatre articles for non-union theatres, which do not appear to be notable within the industry. Wikipedia needs to maintain some sort of standard for professionalism when it comes to theatre articles. If small non-union theatre companies are to be included simply because they are located in New York, then amateur community theatres throughout the country should also be given articles. KindSould 20:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WAH Center is a notable building. The WAH theatre does not appear to share that notoriety. KindSould 21:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is a more reasonable presentation of your view. i might even agree. What other theater articles have you suggested that wiki delete? That way i can determine whether you have a particular grudge or are objective. Also, you say the WAh Builkding is notable. Is the WAH Center notable in your opinion, or should that article be deleted too? They just got a $100,000 grant from the City of New York. Sincerely24.215.156.154 22:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KindSould: I just looked at your record. You appear to be legitimate. Let s then see what other Wikipedians think. I believe in fairness. Best regards. 24.215.156.154 22:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Williamsburg Art & Historical Center. Although it may be possible to write separate articles for the historical building and the off-off theater that performs in that building, the state of both articles strongly suggests that a higher quality work would address them as a cogent whole. Serpent's Choice 03:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, Merge to WAHC. The historical building is the Kings County Savings Bank24.215.156.154 13:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Let's stick to the merits of the article itself, instead of questioning the motives and/or history of the nominator and/or editors commenting. The building itself may be notable, if there are reliable sources to which we may attribute statements regarding the history and notability. The article as it stands now is little more than a list of theater productions, not really in line with our guidelines for inclusion. /Blaxthos 15:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still say merge. What is notable to one person is not notable to the next. The Metropolitan Opera is not notable in Timbuktu. In fact there are few articles if any in major press as of yet on WAH Theater, so by that standard it is not notable. On the other hand, the Williamsburg Art & Historical Center is important. The Center has major collections, and the center's directors are world reknowned. As for the building's notability, it is considered one of the finest examples of 19th century architecture in America. It was the 7th building in all of New York City to be landmarked, so that is an odd statement that it "may" be notable.24.215.156.154 20:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Williamsburg Art & Historical Center per Serpent's Choice. Vegaswikian 02:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, but moved to Welsh independence --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 09:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh Independence

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

A stub for a principal that is already explictly mentioned in Plaid Cymru - Party of Wales article already. This article, at this state, serves only to explictly state the goal of the Party of Wales, advocating Welsh independence - violating NPOV already. Granted that a well-rounded article may potentially develop, I previously nominated this article be speedily deleted in March 2007 under CSD - but withdrew the notice after the article creator cited natural article growth for keeping it. Since that time, this stub continues to provide little to no encyclopedic value, that otherwise couldn't be found in other articles. Wikipedia should not be used to progress political agendas. If the intent of this article is to create an informed article on Welsh Independance, then may I suggest a new section in the Plaid Cymru article - as is the case with Quebec independence in Canada Luke! 03:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• support creation of new section withing Plaid Cymru per nom. Chris 06:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep no reason to delete this. Notable concept - the stub can grow.-Doc^g 13:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & merge into Plaid Cymru if appropriate. As nominator states, we're not a place to promote political ideas. /Blaxthos 16:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, but move to Welsh independence. The suggestion of a merger would be perfectly valid if Plaid Cymru was the only group advocating Welsh independence. However, this is not the case - other political groups and parties also favour Welsh independence, and quite a number vocally oppose it. As such, this article can be expanded quite considerably and certainly does not belong as a section in an article on only one - albeit the most vocal - party which advocates Welsh Independence. What's more, there is a long history of calls for Welsh independence - longer than the history of Plaid Cymru. This too could be amalgamated into this article. I note that the comparison given in the nomination is also flawed - Quebec independence is not a subsection of the page of the Parti Québecois - it is a subsection on the article for Quebec itself, and also represented by the articles Quebec nationalism and Quebec sovereignty movement. If it were to bve merged anywhere, Welsh nationalism would be a far better target. A far fairer comparison would be the lengthy and encyclopaedic article on Scottish independence, It may be a stub now, but there is no reason to suggest that this article could not grow to far more than that - and now that it is actually stubbed as a {{Wales-stub}} it might. Grutness...wha? 07:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable concept, politically and historically (see e.g. [2]). The article can and should be expanded. Stammer 09:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep I noticed an anti-nationalist comment on the Wales discussion page, it is wrong to play "Bash the Nationalists" on Wikipedia. This article isn't even POV I don't think. Yeah, a strong keep it is! Amlder20 22:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Vincent mazzaro

The result was already speedy deleted,, non-admin closing. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 19:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article about a minor league baseball player that has never made the majors--current precedent dictates that baseball players without a significant career in MLB are non-notable. Blueboy96 03:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable athlete. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 04:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails notability. /Blaxthos 16:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - Added speedy tag. Corpx 16:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looks like it's been speedied--can someone close this? Blueboy96 18:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GLJ

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

An unsourced article on a non-notable neologism. Contested prod. MER-C 03:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I consider it likely that this is, instead, a hoax. Jan Mohammad is a linguist ... at the University of Arizona. I find no evidence suggesting he published Urdu and Cute Idioms or anything similar. This seems to be an inside joke of some sort by a couple of LUMS students. Serpent's Choice 04:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. In addition, does an Urdu neologism even belong in the english wikipedia? --Work permit 08:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neologism and/or hoax. /Blaxthos 16:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The phrase by itself is not a hoax and is commonly used amongst urdu/hindi speakers. But Mr. Jan Mohammad, his authored book(s) and the story about the phrase definitely is a hoax. The joke seems to be on a student named Jan Mohammad who uses the term under discussion quite often. I am a LUMS student myself and do get how this is an insiders joke. --farqis 16:38, 8 May 2007

With this in mind, can this be speedied G10? Serpent's Choice 11:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Xenosaga. WjBscribe 03:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of terms in Xenosaga

List of terms in Xenosaga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This was nominated and kept in January: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terms in Xenosaga. False promises to cleanup were made: and never came through. The article is a huge mess 3 months later. In my opinion, 3 months is more than enough to at least do some cleanup. Little to none was done by the looks of the edit history/current state of the article. RobJ1981 03:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I do not see any mess. — Quin 05:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki please. I don't think any false promises were given, it was worth a try. There hasn't been a lot of movement on the article, though, it's still devoid of citations and scarcely readable. The real problem with it, for me, is that it's completely impenetrable gabble - how is someone not intimately familiar with the series supposed to make any use of this? This list of terms needs a wikilinked glossary. There was a case for a stay of execution, and I'm glad it was taken up. But now that a reasonable period of time has passed I think it's equally important to cut away unsuitable material that isn't improving. Not doing so will just make it harder to convince the community to give other articles a chance. QuagmireDog 05:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where to? Wikibooks doesn't take game guides anymore. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Encyclopedia Gamia or Xenosaga Wikia. To be honest I've never so much as looked at wikibooks so it didn't enter my head. I think the information could be very useful in the right place but should be somewhere where it can continue to fill-out and expand. QuagmireDog 11:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was transwikied two months ago; see my comment below. — Deckiller 12:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Split somehow into separarte articles, or Keep. No mess I can see. Just a little large. —A • D ^Torque 08:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (see below). per what Wikipedia is not, or at the very least Transwiki. The previous AfD is revealing - one editor of the article in the previous AfD stated: "don't rush to AfD articles if someone is planning on revamping the article(s) in question ... If, two months from now, the articles are in the same state ... a deletion may be best". EliminatorJR ^Talk 10:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I transwikied every section of every Xenosaga list, including this one, more than two months ago; I did not redirect the article because of all the fierce fanboys who would've reverted me, and I had far more important things to do across the project at the time. (Thus, I only got as far as redirecting the transwikied Xenogears cruft lists, which were more or less dead). Also, I find it insulting that one is telling me I've been giving "false promises". If my timetable doesn't satisfy yours, then that's just how things work. Wikipedia is not a place where people can use coercion to force editors to reorganize their priorities; it usually works better in certain workplaces, not a volunteer project. Besides, I had already fixed the problem two months ago by transwiking the article to a Xenosaga Wikia I created; the redirect was saved for a later point, perhaps this AfD, where I wouldn't have to open up another front in my already busy timetable at that time. The article needs to be redirected to preserve edit history per the GFDL (since it's been transwikied); therefore, I recommend closing this AfD early to led the redirect be placed sooner rather than later. — Deckiller 11:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Per Deckiller. He's done the job of actually preserving the information in a more suitable place. That taken care of, there's little reason to keep an article that goes into levels of detail not required and which has scarcely progressed in more than three months. QuagmireDog 13:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Per Deckiller, good work. EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This isnt' really encyclopaedic content... obviously a lot of work has gone into the article, however in the end Wikipedia isn't a place to catalogue a bunch of terms or concepts used in fiction. This really doesn't belong in an encyclopedia... perhaps a more suitable home could be found. /Blaxthos 16:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can't really delete the article because transwikied material needs to link to the history page of articles, which is preserved with redirects but removed with pure deletion. — Deckiller 21:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Deckiller's work on moving the content eslewhere. I'd suggest protecting the redirect per the fanboy revert concerns he brought up, though. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Deckiller. Quadzilla99 22:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per Deckiller. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 22:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I wanted to know more about Xenosaga, and this article really helped me out. It's much more organized than the Xenosaga Wiki (and it has not even been transcluded there). Also, the Xenosaga Wiki does not even appear on Google. Rook 01:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it has, and the Xenosaga Wikia appears on Google. — Deckiller 02:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Deckiller. Plus, Wikipedia is not working to a deadline. — Bluerです。 ^なにか? 18:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Petros471 14:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Echo Chernik

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletions. -- —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 04:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not Notable. This article's content is mostly from three single purpose editors (two registered and one IP). I've tried to improve the article myself by adding some references, but all I can find are primary sources that the subject's directly affiliated with. The article's been tagged with {{primarysources}} since February without any improvement. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 04:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Not notable. Suspect author HollyTeacher is Echo Chernik or some relative, since only contributions by this editor is this article and editing other articles to include her name.--Work permit 05:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete definitely not speedy, but borderlines non-notability. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 05:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This article appears to be a violation WP:AUTO, in addition of course to the WP:N issue the nominator gave. The article was created by a user named Echochernik, who also uploaded an image of Echo Chernik and asserted that the user created the image. It's fair to assume Echochernik, the original author, is Echo Chernik, the subject of this article. Echochernik's contributions to this article and wikipedia ended last year on dec 21, just when HollyTeacher's began. Most of HollyTeacher's contributions were regarding Echo Chernik. This would lead one to suspect Hollyteacher is Echochernik as well. In addition, it appears 71.3.245.65 may be a sockpuppet of Echo Chernik/HollyTeacher. Most contributions made by 71.3.245.65 was adding Echo Chernik info to other pages. 71.3.245.65 even added Echo Cherniks Birthday to pages such as August 30.--Work permit 06:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete under the assumption there are not independent reviews. Weak because the work seems like it might possibly have been reviewed. One of the problems with people doing their own articles is that sometimes they don't do them very well-- she is also included in the Pen & Paper database under Heather McKinney Chernik, and I added the reference. DGG 21:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - This is the artist. I'm not sure where to make notes on this. The person who posted this article under Echochernik, did so from a student interview (for their school) and is not the artist. All my online accounts are under echox, which is my screenname whenever possible (including on wikipedia). I was emailed today to come here and help clear this up. I believe Holly was a student of mine a long time ago (I used to teach illustration at Skidmore and Pratt); and I believe it's the same person. I'm not sure if it's the same person who wrote the article - I don't think so. Either way, neither are me (me being the artist), nor are any of the other screennames. I guess they don't want their article deleted, which is why they wrote to me to clear it up. I go by echox whenever possible.

So, let me know if you need to talk, or whatever - to verify that I am indeed me (the artist) and I did not write the article - in fact, I didn't know about it until today. It looks like the information from the interview. I do about ten or twelve interviews a year.

Email me if you want to clarify the authorship of this. ((I think that's why they wanted me to post)). But, no the person who wrote this is not a relative - and we have never met (beyond the email interview). Let me know if you need any other information from me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Echox (talk • contribs) 11:42, May 7, 2007

• Comment I'd like to thank Mrs. Chernik for writing to clarify the authorship of the article. The notability issue still remains in that I continue to be unable to find independent references for this article. There have been three new articles listed under the references section- without any additions to the article's text or an indication of which parts of the text are supported by the references. Two of them still don't seem to be independent sources (Mrs. Chernik is listed as a member on both publications' websites) and the third is from an as of yet unpublished book. While I am sure that Mrs. Chernik is a fine and in demand illustrator, it doesn't seem she has as of yet passed the threshold of notability for inclusion. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 17:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster, Prescott and Russell United Counties, Ontario

Westminster, Prescott and Russell United Counties, Ontario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not listed on official Website of United Counties of Prescott and Russell--so possibly a hoax. Even if it did exist, this is a hamlet of only 50 people--not nearly enough to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Blueboy96 04:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Listed at the Atlas of Canada site http://atlas.gc.ca operated by the Canadian federal government, so not a hoax. Suspected hoax articles about geographical locations should always be checked against the relevant country's national atlas or geographic information authority, such as the Ordnance Survey in the United Kingdom or http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic in the United States. All villages are automatically notable. --Eastmain 06:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. All communities, small or large, are considered notable per Wikipedia precedent. --Charlene 06:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable as per policy. --Phoenix (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Not a hoax. Communities are inherently notable regardless of size. --Oakshade 16:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Living Platform

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

Unreferenced and may be non-notable, and the website itself is a dead link, probably a non-existent website. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 04:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Kill and redirect to Green Party of Canada. (see this)--Ioannes Pragensis 12:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt if necessary. Completely unreferenced soapbox. /Blaxthos 16:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redirect if you must, but reads like a soapbox advert. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 22:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, as so often happens with these mass nominations. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MCW Cruiserweight Championship

MCW Cruiserweight Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about a title held in a minor league wrestling promotion, simply not notable or encyclopedic. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:[reply]

MCW Heavyweight Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

MCW Light Heavyweight Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

MCW Rage Television Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

MCW Tag Team Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Keep the Heavyweight and Tag Team Titles, no opinion on the others. MCW is one of the bigger indy feds out there, so their titles are pretty notable. TJ Spyke 06:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Evidence of the titles being notable please? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Independent, pre-determined, low-level fake wrestling titles are not notable. Biggspowd 06:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The titles are real. Unless you are showing your bias torwards professional wrestling, whether wrestling is real or not doesn't make any difference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TJ Spyke (talk • contribs) 08:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete all Rabid wrestling fan objections aside, this is neither notable nor referenced. As an editor stated above, "Independent, pre-determined, low-level fake wrestling titles are not notable". /Blaxthos 16:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've provided independent, non-trivial and reliable sources, specifically Gary Will's "Wrestling Title Histories" and supported by the Puroresu Dojo and Solie's Title Histories, for all the nominated articles in question (these sources are used as reliable references on most wrestling-related articles including featured list, List of WWE Champions). As for the status of Maryland Championship Wrestling, the promotion itself was previously deleted due to an expired prod tag in regards to its lack of content as opposed to being non notable and is presently on WikiProject Professional wrestling's to do list to be recreated at a later date. MadMax 05:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If the sources are non-trivial, why is there so little information about the actual titles in the articles? All I'm seeing is a directory of who held the title. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Also the claim of multiple sources is technically incorrect, as the sources are all the same directory information repeated across the sources, thus failing WP:N. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nominator, sources provided thus far appear to be trivial in nature. RFerreira 07:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment For me even to consider keeping these there would need to be a main article for the organization Maryland Championship Wrestling as you can see it's red! So I am going to abstain for the moment. Govvy 12:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per inability to provide reliable non-trivial sources about the subject. Burntsauce 17:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All as per reasons outlined by MadMax. I would agree though that someone needs to put together an article for the promotion (something I'm not willing to do at this time.Theophilus75 05:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Added CommentOne of the stated reasons of the Wikiproject Professional Wrestling is: "To create and edit featured article quality professional wrestling articles on Wikipedia, with the intent of making Wikipedia an accurate and valued reference for pro wrestling information." Note the last half of that! In order for me to view Wikipedia as a valued reference for pro wrestling information I would expect to find this type of information. Theophilus75 05:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In that case, they would be better served making sure the information they add meets notability guidelines. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All - reliable non-trivial souce has been provided, the fact that the articles aren't that very detailed right now is not a matter of notability, nor a legit reason for deletion MPJ-DK 18:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No, a directory entry source has been provided, that's simply repeated by the other sources. This is not sufficient to meet WP:N, which requires multiple sources, not sources that are restatements of each other. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've restored Maryland Championship Wrestling which, I feel at this point, is referenced enough to the point that it establishes these titles as part of a notable professional wrestling organization. MadMax 20:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep These are just lists really, they seem to do the job, but like One Night In Hackney said, they aren't very notable or have much citation. But they are recognisable. Govvy 14:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of OVW Light Heavyweight Championship reigns by length

List of OVW Light Heavyweight Championship reigns by length (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

trivial list for a short-lived title in a low/mid level independent wrestling promotion. The whole concept of how long someone held a professional wrestling title, a predetermined event, is pretty trivial in itself, I surely don't think a separate article is needed for this. Biggspowd 06:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There's no encyclopedic content in a list of how long someone held a minor league wrestling title. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This should have been rolled up into the AfD debate above. Same non-notability, as well as an indiscriminant list of a fictional "championship". /Blaxthos 16:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the comments above. RFerreira 07:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per comments above Bulldog123 11:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Govvy 13:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Burntsauce 17:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 pertinent information back into The A-Team, per both the delete and merge arguments; article kept as redirect to preserve GFDL history. Krimpet (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural effects of The A-Team

Cultural effects of The A-Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

trivia fork, full of various mentions of a-team in other media. Not necessary for own article. Biggspowd 06:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - User has history of vandalism. He had placed a PROD on the page, which I removed on the basis of his history as a vandal. As the creator of the article, I also did not recieve a notice of the PROD on my talk page, as recommended for PRODs. On these bases, I do not feel this AfD is a serious action, and smacks of a bicycle shed issue. - BillCJ 06:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see this diff for an example of either vandalism or a violation of WP:POINT. I'm sorry for leaving the "point" part out of the above comment, but it is in my removal of his PROD here. Because I did not recieve a notification of the PROD as reconmmended, the action seemed consistent with his previous pattern of behavior, which I did check before removing the PROD. - BillCJ 07:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - Nominator removed this comment as "slander" however looking over his talk page history backs up all the history of vandalism claims, including a one week block. –– Lid^(Talk) 06:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I made the vandalism/POINT claim on the basis of the usere's prior edits. As it turns out I was wrong, I apologize. I do appreciate the user first posting a PROD, as most trivia-article-deletionist that I have been involved with lack the courtesyt to discuss their concerns first, as someone with a good respect for the WP:AGF guideline would do. Please don't let my assumption of continued bad behaivor on your part push you into bad behavior of another sort. Thanks. - BillCJ 20:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Yes, the article needs work to add more references, but it does have them. The A-Team is a very notable subject, and the article covers that in detail. Its subject is beyond the scope of the main article, and thus suitable for its own article. As the creator of the page, I do keep watch over the article, and it is not just a dump for marginal trivia items. Also, I am fully aware of such as WP:NOT, WP:TRIV, and other such guidelines, but do not feel they apply in this case. In addition, as a regular editor, I am often involved in splitting off sections when the main aritlce becomes too large. We should not be limited in our ability to fork off sections just because some users consider the section trivial. Otherwise the result would eventually be a main article composed soley of {{main}} links and a trivia sections, which would then be AfDed itself as being trivial! - BillCJ 06:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• merge back into The A-Team. While we can all agree the cultural effects of The A-Team are many and vast, this really belongs in the parent article. Chris 06:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Bad idea. That would make The A-Team article too large and messy again. We (BillCJ and I) made this into a separate article in order to keep the parent article to have a reasonable length (Note that there are thousands of such "daughter articles" on Wikipedia!). See also Emperor's comments below. →EdGl 13:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've worked on a number of "in popular culture" and "cultural depictions of" entries (see Category:In popular culture) and this fits perfectly well with those entries (perhaps a name change might make this explicit?). It can be improved (can't they all) but that is something that can be done with identifying problematic additions to the page and flagging or removing them (As I've recently been doing with Edgar Allan Poe in popular culture - see talk page). So leaving aside whether this is or isn't a bad faith nomination I wanted to say that it is a solid entry that fits well within the remit of Wikipedia. On the merge suggestion: The A-Team entry is already flagged as being 31kb so merging back into the entry would only result in it being split back out again to its own entry (as has happened on numerous occasions - the Poe example I gave being the msot recent one I've worked on). (Emperor 12:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Comment: whatever happens this needs renames. It is full of cultural and media references to the A-team, but it isn't about the cultural effects whatsoever. Doesn't do what it says on the tine. In fact, perhaps best deleting this as an indiscriminate collection of fancruft.--Doc^g 13:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would support a move to The A-Team in popular culture. →EdGl 13:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup per precident (we have thousands of "daughter articles" and thousands of "in popular culture" articles). I know we are to avoid keep votes with the reason "because article xxxx exists", but really there is nothing different from this article and similar articles. What is lacking we can improve (Thanks Emperor for suggestions on the talk page!). This article needs time to go through the "wiki process" and to continue to be improved by me, BillCJ, and others interested in helping. →EdGl 13:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - over the last several months we have deleted innumerable "in popular culture" articles on topics ranging from TV shows to films to people to weapons to bands. Precedent does not support the automatic keeping of these articles. Otto4711 16:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Okay then, so ignore the first two sentences in my vote explanation. The main idea I was trying to get across is that there are at least two users (BillCJ and I) who are willing to put effort into this article to improve it. This article needs a chance to improve, which is what Wikipedia is all about. What ever happened to eventualism? →EdGl 17:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is nothing to improve... there are no reliable sources that discuss the significance of the A-Team in popular culture because, when you get down to it, there is no real impact -- this has simply become a place for everyone to list where they've seen A-Team references... far past the mission and guidelines of Wikipedia. /Blaxthos 17:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply One of the ways to improve this article is to find reliable sources for the statements in the article. For example, one could probably find a movie review that mentions an A-Team reference in that particular movie. This is what I had in mind when I said "improvement," along with eliminating entries that are too trivial even for a "trivia page!" (Meaning ones that are truly impossible to find sources for. I believe there are some sources out there for several of those entries.) →EdGl 17:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've posted a number of suggestions on the talk page based on experience gained from working on other entries within the general in popular culture area (that is just an opening salvo and there is more that can be done). I'd also contest the notion that there has been no cultural impact - there are at least 4 classic stereotypes arising from the series which are instantly recognisable: The distinctive foursome, the tune, the van and their constructing impossible machines from a random selection of found objects. (Emperor 00:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I think you guys are missing the point... this content is simply not information appropriate for Wikipedia... we're not a place to house every pop culture reference. If it's notable, incorporate it into the main article (A-Team or whatever)... but this is why it got moved out of the article -- it's not appropriate content. /Blaxthos 02:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You see I don't think I am missing the point. From your coments it appears you also think that some of this information is relevant (as you think it shouls be put back into the main entry). I also agree there is informaiton in the entry under discussion which shouldn't be there and relevant information that should remain in Wikipedia. The difference seems to be that I think we can clean up the current entry and make it useful - the presence of some suspect information should be dealt with by an attempt to tdy things up before going straight for deletion. Putting it back into the main entry will end up with it expanding again, growing too big for the entry and getting split off again (the reason I thought this was split off in the first place [3]). What I'd rather do is address the problems here and now (rather than shoving them around) and work up a consensus on what should and shouldn't be kept and devise a way forward that works to everyone's satisfaction so we have a long term solution. Now I might be misreading what you have said but I suspect our positions aren't actually that different ;) (Emperor 02:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Merge the last two sections only to another article on the A-Team as somewhat notable instances of the surviving cast members. The first section, chock full as it is of such incredibly important tidbits as how Stephen Colbert asked a fictional president to pardon them or that a picture of them appeared on someone's desk in a TV show, is unadulterated and irredeemable trivial garbage and should not be preserved in any form. Otto4711 16:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as largely unreferenced and original research. "there is an article about so-and-so" is absolutely not a valid argument for keeping more of the same -- bottom line, it fails a large number of our core policies/guidelines... WP:ATT (WP:V), WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, etc. Wikipedia isn't the place for fans to list how they think a TV series has affected their lives or popular culture. /Blaxthos 16:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As already mentioned, every article must be judged on its own, the existence of similar articles is not a valid argument. In fact countless articles like this have been deleted. The article is not useful in any sort of encyclopedic way (in my opinion of course) consisting entirely of minute trivia. "That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia" (WP:NOT#IINFO). Pax:Vobiscum 16:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As already mentioned, every article must be judged on its own. The deletions of similar articles is not a valid argument. In fact, numerous articles like this have been kept. - BillCJ 16:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are quite right. :) I only mentioned it to emphasize the problem with using existing articles as arguments. Pax:Vobiscum 07:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are indeed problems with the entry (a lot of those mentions are so trivial as to not be worthy of mentioning) but the various parodies (notably Brian Goes Back to College which forms the bulk of the episode) are notable. The classic four man line up (and the theme tune) has had a pop cultural impact and are instantly recognisable. Bring Back... The A-Team is just the most striking recent example of this. (Emperor 18:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete I have no problems with articles like this, but editors need to realize that when they create one it needs to be well-referenced and carefully constructed to avoid OR. If it's a pile of unreferenced cruft like this it's gonna get deleted, especially if the show is borderline in terms of cultural impact. Quadzilla99 22:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it needs work, but there's enough stuff there to make a proper article out of. Merging would bloat The A Team too much - the very definition of a need to fork. --h2g2bob (talk) 08:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge relevant info back to the main "The A-Team" article. While I have spent hours cleaning up this list (when it was still part of the A-Team article), I am by no means attached to it. I think the relevant stuff could be merged into the main article, such as:

  As well as having huge ratings and being especially popular amongst children, there was countless merchandise available, including action figures of the characters, as well as their famous van and car. A cola flavored popsicle in the shape of Mr. T was also on the market at the show's height. Marvel Comics even produced a three issue A-Team comic book series. Mr. T has also appeared in his own comic books.

...There could be a simple paragraph about the cultural impact of "The A-Team" on the main article without all the "The A-Team was referenced on this Family Guy episode..." garbage. I also think the last section about the reunion show should be put on the main article, rather than tagged on to the end of this list. Wavy G 04:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - An encyclopaedic subject, I've no problem with documenting real-world impact. (WP:NOT#PAPER) Matthew 20:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Selket ^Talk 06:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multimedia Applications Development Environment

Multimedia Applications Development Environment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I hate this article! Its presence is annoying me! I mean, do we really need an article about something that is not notable!? Get rid of this article! Especially since it was not edited in 2006!

• Comment: I have fixed this AfD for the nominator, User:Jc iindyysgvxc. I have No opinion. However, editors should see the previous AfD, which is a little odd. EliminatorJR ^Talk 11:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Game engines are relevant, although content is lacking for that article. I added a stub tag. Corpx 16:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a source or two would be nice, but this seems sufficiently stubworthy. /Blaxthos 16:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Outcome would almost certainly be the same if left for the full 5 days, and we take WP:BLP concerns very seriously round here. I think it's best if we close the debate early. kingboyk 20:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Chiba

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

being someone's girlfriend does not make someone notable. If she was a murder suspect in an ongoing, highly publicized trial, it might be different, but at present there is no justification for this article Chris 06:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is there a WP:BLP violation on this page? "She has never been ruled out" - well, neither have I, and neither has the mayor of Inuvik. Is this some kind of feeble smear-by-association campaign? --Charlene 06:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Aside from being a girlfriend fo the current front page FA, she doesn't have any notability that isn't covered by that article on the Warlocks. I catagorised this AfD for you, by the way. SGGH ^speak! 10:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• There are a number of reliable sources from this revision and Elliott Smith that discuss her role in the murder investigation, and that is a notable topic with her playing a main role, but it may be redundant spread across two articles. The Elliott Smith article addressed BLP concerns by cutting out a lot of sourced but disputed info. Any POV that slips in here means this article should be watched more closely... or deleted. –Pomte 10:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notability with minor BLP concerns. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - although she's a musician, she doesn't (yet) appear too notable as such in her own right. -Geoff NoNick 16:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per lack of notability. Corpx 16:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete completely non-notable. /Blaxthos 16:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Consensus was obviously clearer on the related articles, but also one the main one when taking into account the strength of arguments presented. Petros471 14:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NWA Shockwave

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

Contested prod, "in honor of the great Billy "whatshisname" Firehawk". Non notable independent wrestling promotion, no evidence of multiple independent non trivial reliable sources, fails WP:CORP. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]

NWA Shockwave Heavyweight Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NWA Shockwave Internet Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NWA Shockwave Women's Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NWA Shockwave Tag Team Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NWA Shockwave Cruiser X Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete all more wrestling fancruft. Non-notable wrestling promotions... even if this had sources (it doesn't) it's not worth keeping. /Blaxthos 16:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain The main article NWA Shockwave seems okay, I personally wouldn't delete it, but I don't think you need all those other articles about the belts. Govvy 13:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep main article, delete the article regarding the belts. Wildthing61476 15:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Perhaps you'd like to provde some independent non trivial sources for the main article then? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Main article Delete the articles regarding the belts.--Unopeneddoor 03:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Again, the article has no independent sources, so saying keep without providing sources does not address the reasons it has been nominated. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all of the articles, none of them provide any reliable non-trivial sources. Burntsauce 23:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 12:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demonica Deadwater

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

nn independent wrestling manager, gets less than 200 Ghits, no WP:RS Biggspowd 06:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons Article Should NOT Be Deleted Biggspowd already tried to nominate this article as a Candidate for Speedy Deletion and it was DENIED. Now Biggspowd is trying to have this article deleted again based on the same generally unfounded claims of non-notability.

This article is about a notable female independent professional wrestling manager. Cause for Demonica Deadwater's notability is listed on the article's talk page and in the article itself. The article asserts the subject's importance and significance, and that is why Biggspowd's attempt to have it speedy deleted was DENIED.

Ghits are irrelevant. It is a new article and if ghits are the measure of the importance of an article, then lots of valuable resources would be lost from Wikipedia.

The article has reliable sources. Threat's Official Fan Site has photos, videos, and news articles that have been around as long (and in some cases longer) than Wikipedia itself and Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.because the authors of the articles at Threat's Official Fan Site are first person witnesses to Demonica Deadwater's professional wrestling managerial career. You can get no more authoritative than that.

If Biggspowd doesn't care for the article, then Biggspowd can go edit pages elsewhere on Wikipedia. Biggspowd's claim that Demonica Deadwater is non-notable is generally unfounded. Kotterpin 08:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Kotterpin — Kotterpin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Just because it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion doesn't mean the article should be kept. 2)The article has no reliable sources (fan sites are usually not reliable sources). TJ Spyke 08:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable sources, no evidence of notability, she appears to be nothing more than another indy manager. TJ Spyke 08:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, if you had read the talk page, you would see the only reason the admin declined the speedy delete request is because their is a CLAIM of notability. WP:CSD says an article can't be speedy deleted if their is a claim of notability (that doesn't mean it is notable, just that whoever wrote the article says it is). TJ Spyke 08:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The usual poor to non-existent secondary sources, I don't see notability here, I'm afraid. Only 17 unique Ghits [4]EliminatorJR ^Talk 11:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete wrestlecruft... google hits (or lack thereof) doesn't change the fact that this doesn't meet the guidelines for inclusion. Also, I suggest reading the reliable source guidelines to determine what is actually a reliable source (fansites don't cut it). /Blaxthos 16:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Delete I did read what a reliable source was, and it said nothing about fansites, especially a fan site that has newspaper-length articles written by a staff of writers. Again, Threat's Official Fan Site is more than just a typical fan site, it is a news site- a repository of photos, videos, and news articles detailing his career and the careers of those who he works most closest with, written by a staff of news writers independent of the subject who cover the matches in similar (and usually in even more) detail as other pro-wrestling news sites. His fan site is independent of the subject of the article. His fan site is authoritative in relation to the subject at hand, and that is the exact definition of a reliable source. Shelly Martinez has fewer cited sources than Demonica Deadwater and there is no dicussion about her reliable sources. Demonica Deadwater has been around longer than Shelly Martinez (she's been around since TJ Spyke was a freshman in high school, years before TJ Spyke could drive, and for 3 years while TJ Spyke had to take parents so TJ Spyke could watch a Rated-R movie at the theater), and "fame" or "importance" are not the definition of notability so you can't say just because Martinez is on ECW and Demonica isn't, then that makes Martinez notable and Demonica "nothing more than an indy manager" because Demonica has more cited sources from news articles archived on the Internet for years written by trustworthy authors who have covered her career in it's entirety so far. "Nothing more than an indy manager" is an opinionated statement and therefore should not be considered when dedciding on whether to delete the article or not. Definition: A topic is notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". Go and look at Shelly Martinez' article. No reliable sources whatsoever for the bulk of the article including stats. On Martinez' page it claims she performed as the (kayfabe) sister of Melina Perez. Where is the only place on the entire Internet where you can find a news article detailing the fact that Martinez performed as the (kayfabe) sister of Melina Perez? Threat's Official Fan Site. It covers her match vs. Perez in detail and provides photographic and video coverage as well. That's the only place to find that information listed on Martinez' page so I believe that makes Threat's Official Fan (News) Site a credible, very reliable source for Wikipedia information. Thank you. If "fame" or "importance" is not the true definition of notability, then the statement "Nothing more than an indy manager" has no bearing on the topic at hand because the Demonica Deadwater article has plenty of cited sources in the form of news articles written by various news writers and archived at a news site which is labeled a fan site because that is the bulk of the readers- fans. Just like any other pro-wrestling news site. Do not delete this article. Kotterpin 17:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Kotterpin — Kotterpin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete, no notability. Kotterpin, please also give WP:WAX a good read, and at the risk of WP:BEANS, might I also point you at WP:LAWYER as well, since you also seem to see fit to quote policy that this very article violates? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Delete I don't spend my life on Wikipedia, I don't pride myself on censoring other people's articles, and I don't appreciate people on power trips trying to shove their Wiki-prowess and terminology down my throat. If the administrators feel this article should be deleted then so be it, but I am not going to participate in a Wiki-trial against people who spend their lives on this board to feel some sort of sense of accomplishment and get off on spewing "I suggest you read this..." and "You're a Wiki-cliche" at me for being new here. I read it and adhered the criteria, stated good cause for the article not to be deleted, and someone comes on here and tells me that the rules don't apply to my article because there are rules that state my valid argument is a cliche. This is a whirlwind of negativity over an article if you people didn't like, then you didn't have to read.

Goodbye and whatever happens, happens, but this attack has made Wikipedia a very negative experience for me. Enjoy your Wiki-obsessed lives and have a nice day. I doubt I will be participating much anymore here because of the elitist, snobbish attitudes presented by censors. Kotterpin 22:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Kotterpin — Kotterpin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment - I only obsess because I care. If you don't care...well, I can't control that, dude. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Blaxthos. No reliable sources. And I am kinda pissed at you guys for running this person's fan off. I was looking forward to a 300 word rebuttal of my own.  ;) Resolute 04:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - No reliable sources means no article, no matter how minor the subject. Ignoring (rightfully) the totallty non-indepedent official articles just leaves a single source which in turn is also non-independent. Wikipedia calls for mutiple sources. DarkSaber2k 17:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• TJ Spyke is a hypocrite. I was sent a link from a Wikipedian who'd rather not expose himself to this petty debate and it lists pages User:TJ Spyke has edited for pro-wrestlers who have absolutely NO cited soures whatsoever.

• Biggspowd is a hypocrite. Same situation as TJ Spyke. He heavily edits unsourced articles.

• EliminatorJR has 0 experience with pro-wrestling articles and AfD guidelines suggest he stay away from articles like this one for that very reason.

• blaxthos has almost no experience with pro-wrestling articles and AfD guidelines suggest he stay away from articles like this one for that very reason.

• Dennisthe2 has 0 experience with pro-wrestling articles and AfD guidelines suggest he stay away from articles like this one for that very reason.

• DarkSaber2k has 0 experience with pro-wrestling articles and AfD guidelines suggest he stay away from articles like this one for that very reason.

• Resolute has 0 experience with pro-wrestling articles and AfD guidelines suggest he stay away from articles like this one for that very reason.

• Nobody in this discussion except TJ Spyke and Biggspowd (who both edit a heavy amount of unsources articles on a regular basis) have any experience with pro-wrestling articles and if they did they'd know that 95% of all of them have absolutely NO sources whatsoever. The only two who do have experience with wrestling articles ([User:TJ Spyke]] and User:Biggspowd, if you research their edits (I have no time for that, I'm taking my informants word on this), you'd see they actively participates on articles that have absoluetley NO sources whatsoever. None. Why? I am sure there is no response to that question other than a Wiki-cliche link. TJ Spyke had the audacity to edit this DD article and request source citations. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

Please take this 300 word rebuttal into consideration when deciding on deleting this pro-wrestling article and Threat (Wrestler) which both actually have sources, the latter, multiple. Save the Wiki-cliche comments because I won't be back for over a week, when I return to see if these two articles have been deleted when 99% of all independent pro-wrestling articles on Wikipedia are not.

Respond with all the Wiki-cliche links you want. They're coming from people who have a track record of editing unsourced articles or people who have no clue that just about every independent pro-wrestler article is unsourced, that is every article except Demonica Deadwater and Threat (Wrestler)

Thank you to the Wikipedian who exposed to me that every person on this list as being unqualified to rate the merits of a pro-wrestling article nominated for deletion. Kotterpin 06:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Kotterpin[reply]

• It doesn't matter whether the article is about pro-wrestling, atomic physics or the Guatemalan Tree Frog. Unsourced is unsourced and it doesn't need an expert in any field to appreciate that. EliminatorJR ^Talk 11:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Kotterpin, please do not make personal attacks against the editors here, such as what you did to TJ Spyke by calling him a hypocrite. Also, please do not be a wikilawyer and pedantically quote policy and guidelines outside of their spirit. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, even the pro-wrestling crowd agree on this one. RFerreira 07:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Non-notable. And I do have experience with pro wrestling articles. --Unopeneddoor 03:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films and television shows shot in Pittsburgh

List of films and television shows shot in Pittsburgh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Probable violation of WP:NOT#DIR. --Tinctorius 07:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Don't see any reason to delete this page, please enlighten me. Only thing I can figure is listing films IN Pittsburgh, the films are famous, they have famous people in them and Pittsburgh is famous is combining those a problem? I agree we shouldn't be a "phone book" or a site of constant lists but I think a lot of the category pages are worse offenders of just raw lists then a content page that puts a list in context with other data. Thanks and hope to hear other views on this. Hholt01 07:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I don't see how this fits the stated deletion criteria. This is a discriminate listing of encyclopedic articles connected by a verifiable fact. Needs sourcing, but does not qualify for deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 07:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - Not the most significant thing ever, but if it includes famous peoples in a rather famous city, then...sure. ;-) Cheers, R∞R ^[iTalk] 14:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete however no opposition to making these two categories instead. /Blaxthos 16:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would be inappropriate to give films categories based on where they were filmed. Some films would have many such categories. A list is better for this reason. --Dhartung | Talk 23:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm sorry for the extremely weak nomination reason (and the AfD could be closed per Dhartung), but this (Blaxthos' comment) is exactly what I had in mind: we don't need a list page for this, a category suffices. --Tinctorius 21:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a worthwhile list, and list pages are preferable to categories anyway. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (again)- I agree with ChrisGriswold, it may be personal bias but I much prefer a list page to a category page, category pages have their place but it is like a maze of different data hitting you, without much context or priority at all. I would be all for improving adding more data to each list item but IMHO a list like this serves important data purposes. Hholt01 22:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 19:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, mainly to Theodor Mommsen and perhaps a bit also to Getica (Jordanes) to exapand the phrase in that article "...was destroyed in a fire at Mommsen's house..." to include perhaps the date at least. It's not a long article and I may not merge the whole thing into the Mommsen article, so this is a deletey kind of merge, I guess. Herostratus 16:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fire at Theodor Mommsen house

This incredibly poorly written article fails to assert any notability of the subject, is poorly written, and completely fails to meet manual of style guidelines. I originally speedied it, but the author promptly recreated it and complained on my talk. I'd like to close this matter once and for all, and I suggest that we delete it. alphachimp 07:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've restored old versions of the article. The closing admin can delete them. Note that this has been speedied twice. I don't object to another speedy, but I'm not going to do it. alphachimp 07:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Smerge and redirect a couple of sentences into Theodor Mommsen or better yet, Getica. Tragic but unnotable. Sadly, historical documents and artworks are destroyed by intent or accident all the time. --Dhartung | Talk 07:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1) Why not merge with the arts for the particular manuscripts?

  2) But don’t you think it will be redundant to merge it to Getica, to Momsen (which I don’t think is good idea), and to each art for the manuscript? What is important is that the manuscripts burn down not the workroom of Mommsen.

  3)Do Mommsen in his publication provide explicit list of his sources, and the information which book was burn down completely, which one partially? I can’t find it!

Fact every fire is tragic but how many Noble laureates publish works based on by them destroyed sources? His daughter clearly saying, that the fire was initiated (accidentally) by him. I’m not saying (like Aldux falsely accuse me) that Mommsen staged the fire, or I not hypothesize that 'Car of Russia ohrona send an agent/terminator for sake of Pan-Slavism' :) It was a fire: tragic, ironic ... we may say whatever emotional description? I’m far from labeling it - I don’t know; anyway it will be not neutral. The information is scattered... when we have 3 different titles just in top of art Getica (Jordanes) and the first one unreferenced, when I did provided 3 different meaning of the word Getica found just in one source - W Smith dictionary, when is not clear what was the source of Mommsen critical edition, then I believe it will be good to keep the art until by cooperation of Wikipedia Editors (like you) the question which manuscripts was burn down and which were the sources for Mommsen publication, will be answered.

Nasz 12:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Incoherent. From what I can tell, the only claim of notability is that three manuscripts were lost. One of them "was not, apparently, an indispensable or even a very important authority for the texts (Jordanes, the Antonine Itinerary, etc.)." Seems maybe a mauscript of Jordanes from Heidelberg University could have been lost. Salt it, since it had two previous deletes.--Work permit 07:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I must admit, the author, though cordial, is quite determined. It was recreated very soon after I deleted it. I don't think salting is in order, as I doubt he'd recreate it after an afd. alphachimp 07:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Theodor Mommsen. This content will become much more concise once it is "de-listified" and the long quotations are excluded from the footnotes (they can be retained in the history and/or put on the talkpage in case somebody wants to check them, but there is usually no reason to quote entire passages of sources in the footnotes unless the interpretation of those passages has been a subject of scholarly debate in itself). Pharamond 08:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• contribute I stared this art and I want to contribute. Nasz 08:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--about notability--

Two years after the fire in 1882 critical edition of the Jordanes manuscripts was published under title Iordanis Romana et Getica the major source for allochtonic argumentation in politicized debate used in Drang nach Osten. 'Controversial arguments' reverberated in WW1 and WW2 and cost millions of lives. If the manuscripts will not be burned, it may be possible to show them in autochtonic/allochtonic debate.

If you think that the Fire at Theodor Mommsen house it is pure nonsense ….but it is a notable - documented and not curious fact

Nasz 08:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't a clue what you mean by this. "Allochtonic argumentation in politicized debate" - what does that mean in standard English? Perhaps this is the problem - the article is as difficult (or impossible) to understand as your comment. --Charlene 08:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the link and scroll up, there is introduction. ((Do you need separated article ;) it will be deleted/able like this one). I like to keep the subject apart form other subjects. There is tendency in Wikipedia to merge huge articles. The people just forgetting the idea of wiki. Nasz 09:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nasz, you seem not to be a native speaker of English, and you are also using academic words whose context is unclear. You seem to be arguing that the loss of the historical texts led to the deaths of millions of people, which makes very little sense. I can certainly see that this was a notable event in Mommsen's career, but I can't understand why it needs a separate article. --Dhartung | Talk 09:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Because the information is better encapsulated. One subject/event one article. It may be summary of articles consisting of review of knowledge, but can you imagine(?) wrote in Professor Mommsen article all the details about the fire? That 3 daughters slept in the room under Mommsen work room when the fire begins. That the father had burned hairs. That other newspaper reported a gas explosion unnoticed at least one hour by the sleeping 3 daughters under the work room of hers father. There is a lot of information to collect, I just started to review the sources and to reson of special [animosity of Al-baragit(he mark this art for deletion) days of may work will be lost (but I hired a programmer to write a soft to protect my editions in case like this.So you can now debate about my case). Othervise all will be lost if I will belived in wiki promise. I tought that wiki want to collect knowledge I believe that hard drive space is so chip that should be not limit for details of important events. Look 500 GB HD cost $130 but one hour of time $30(US average). It is a ratio 1:e+8. I was thinking to start a concurrent project of better wiki society, but I hope you have a few kB for this, describetdas to delete event.

Nasz 10:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? --Tractorkingsfan 15:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Nasz, you seem to argue at the end that Wikipedia can include even minor topics, which is what we mean when we say that Wikipedia is not paper, but we still should have a reasonable rationale for inclusion of an article. Is this fire separately notable from Mommsen's career or the work itself? Nothing you have said shows this. Sorry about the days of work you put into this (it's not that long, though), but every edit page on this site says If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. Wikipedia editors don't own their work. --Dhartung | Talk 23:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rewrite and Merge into Theodor Mommsen. Text provides meaningful information, and subject appears notable. But it's fair to say a lot of cleanup is necessary; the article simply can't stand as it currently is, and I understand the previous speedies. Any relevant information could be included concisely and informatively in the above-mentioned, already well-written article. --Tractorkingsfan 09:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - all this originates by Nasz bizzarre idea that Getica was discovered by Mommsen, even if legions of editions had been made starting from 1515, and that in truth Mommsen forged the work. The Heidelberg manuscript, as the quote itself remembers, is not the single or even the archetypical manuscript of the Jordanes' Getica, as many other manuscripts of the work survive in perfect conditiions. He also seems to be convinced, and has been long pushing in several articles the OR (for which he has yet to provide a reliable source) that the Getica work "the major source for allochtonic argumentation in politicized debate used in Drang nach Osten. 'Controversial arguments' reverberated in WW1 and WW2 and cost millions of lives. If the manuscripts will not be burned, it may be possible to show them in autochtonic/allochtonic debate". Now, Nasz has utterly failed to explain how reprinting a well known book makes Mommsen the starter of this allocthonic/autocthonic debate. As for the "That 3 daughters slept in the room under Mommsen work room when the fire begins. That the father had burned hairs. That other newspaper reported a gas explosion unnoticed at least one hour by the sleeping 3 daughters under the work room of hers father.", passages like these are exactly what should be ment when we say that something is not notable.--Aldux 13:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A: has been long pushing in several articles the OR (for which he has yet to provide a reliable source
• N: Is in this art an element of not documented fantasy? Every sentence is referenced.
• A: ..as many other manuscripts of the work survive in perfect conditiions..
• N: I asked you Aldux long before, show me one of this manuscripts. Give a source . All your references bounce to nowhere. Just Shove the manuscript. All your sources are burnt down?
• A: Mommsen forged the work
• N: I never say this. I just can not find the sources your reference point to. The "Jordanes Manuscript" sorce edited by Mommsen.
• A;something is not notable
• N: I cant find the list of manuscript burned in Mommsen House. Are you interested what was there burned completly and what partialy? What is recoverable what we never recover? Or you dont care about burned books? As you dont care about the truth... did you commented you revert ~"Who care what is in Wikipedia?" ' ?

Nasz 19:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per User:Tractorkingsfan. This is a badly written article of dubious notability. It needs copy-editing and should also be merged with the Theodor Mommsen article.--Cailil ^talk 17:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Theodor Mommsen. The fire isn't particularly notable in and of itself. Anything that can be said about it can be said better (because in context) in the article Theodor Mommsen. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article can be improved, but it covers a significant episode in the life of a very notable and influential personality. The event is described in detail also here under the heading "Der Brand in Mommsens Arbeitszimmer". Stammer 09:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The German version of the Theodor Mommsen article doesn't even mention the fire. It's kind of curious that we have a separate article here, when the German Wikipedia doesn't have a separate article or a mention. That doesn't give much of a reason to keep Fire at Theodor Mommsen house, or even a reason to merge it. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, let our German friends do our thinking for us. Stammer 10:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Petros471 14:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Right!

Yeah Right! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Came across this when reading up on Owen Wilson, who apparently made a cameo appearance in this. This movie looks to be a production put out by a skateboard manufacturer based in southern California. Biggest problem with searching is that the phrase "Yeah Right!" turns up an impossible number of search items, making this one a hard one to dig stuff up for. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep relatively famous cult video. Owen Wilson Spike Jonze = notability. Skaters are pros (Eric Koston, etc.). Clearly meets notability standards, follow the wikilinks. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 09:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "The article includes wikilinks to several notable subjects" is not a keep criterion in any guideline. Evidence of coverage by reliable sources would be more convincing. GassyGuy 06:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Absolutely meets notability standards. This is a landmark film in the skateboard genre and one user's ignorance of it should not keep it off of wikipedia. Director Spike Jonze, actor Owen Wilson, and professional skateboarders Eric Koston and Paul Rodriguez Jr. are all on board. MMBKG 01:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has a sizeable reputation according to Rotten Tomatoes, and there's the entry at All Movie Guide. I also agree with what User:MMBKG said, this is an evidently notable skateboarding video. PeaceNT 13:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Sppedied as vandalism. -Doc^g 13:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Rhys-Einhorn, Count of Einhorn

This is most likely a hoax. Google shows not a single non-Wikipedia hit for "Rhys-Einhorn" or "Count of Einhorn", which would be remarkable if this family was real and extant. This and John Rhys-Einhorn, Marquess of Meleros and San Elias of the Cardona were both created by User:NobilityFan. Unless some verification is offered, any other contributions of this user should also be deleted. Pharamond 22:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Patent hoax. There is no record of an Austrian Graf Einhorn, or indeed of any Austrain ennobled family with the Einhorn name. Furthermore, a marquessate of "Meleros y San Elias de la Cardona" seems impossible; no place of significance is named Meleros. "San Elias de la Cardona" is a place in Mexico, not Europe. Cardona does exist in Spain; there was no Marquis of Cardona, but rather a Duke. There was a Cardona family that held a marquessate (Marquis of Guadalest), but that title moved to the Marquis of Ariza following the family's extinction in 1699. And, of course, nothing from these articles generates even a single non-Wikipedia Ghit. Serpent's Choice 08:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have taken the liberty of removing the associated references from Einhorn and Spanish nobility. If, somehow, I am wrong, they can be easily enough reverted. There are quite a few redirects which the closing admin will want to take note of if deleting. Serpent's Choice 08:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Western Investor

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

This was a contested speedydelete that gradually devolved into an irreconcilable argument between a somewhat-inclusionist admin and a somewhat-deletionist editor over the interpretation of WP's notability guidelines. See the article's Talk page for the main points. To summarize my main arguments for deletion, the article has one real, third-party source (a blog post [5]), saying this band made "#1" on a station's chart -- which I suspect is code for their internal user-request playlist. The vaunted "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" apparently either does not exist or cannot be found. The band may one day satisfy WP:NOTE, but that day won't be today. --Dynaflow 08:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[To clarify terms, the chart referred to is CBC Radio 3's R3-30 indie-rock singles listing. --Dynaflow 08:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)][reply]

A national radio network's Top 30 chart is a national radio network's Top 30 chart, and therefore meets WP:MUSIC criteria #3#2 and #11. No amount of whining about whether or not you personally like the standards by which said chart is compiled entitles you to dismiss the fact that it's a national radio network's Top 30 chart, and therefore a band which reaches #1 on it is notable enough for inclusion here. It doesn't matter whether the chart is compiled by airplay or by sales or by listener requests or by dangling chickens off the roof of a yurt or by factoring in all of the above at once — it's still a national radio network's Top 30 chart, and therefore satisfies our inclusion criteria. And for that matter, the supposed "blog post" is CBC Radio 3's official publication of its weekly charts on its own website, and is therefore the most definitive source that can possibly be provided for a statement about its charts. There's simply no valid argument to be had here; the band meets sufficient criteria at WP:MUSIC. Keep. (And would you care to explain to me how a broadcast radio network has "internal users" rather than listeners? Because I'm at a total loss as to what you mean by that.) Bearcat 08:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Bearcat. It has been on an extremely important radio show on a national radio network. They meets WP:MUSIC. GreenJoe 15:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I am sure that you meant criteria #2 rather than #3, as I can find no indication this band has been awarded a gold record. The problem here is that CBC Radio 3 is a satellite radio station, not a national network. Even though it has the CBC brand on it, I do not believe that makes it any more special than any other satellite station. As such, I do not belive it passes Criteria #2 or #11 for WP:MUSIC. Further, there are a complete lack of independent sources for this band. The only two links I can find are their myspace page, and their page on CBC Radio 3's website - which is rather obviously also updated by the band itself. Resolute 15:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you're correct; I meant criterion #2. Apologies. However, a satellite radio station does not fail to meet the qualification of being a national radio network. The fundamental distinction between "station" and "network", when it comes to radio, is not "one station" vs. "many stations" — it's whether the audience is local or national. If an entire country (two entire countries, in fact) have the ability to hear a broadcast, then it counts as a network whether it's one transmission or 500. And no, CBC Radio 3 is not more special than any other satellite radio station — all satellite radio stations do qualify for WP:MUSIC criterion #2, because all satellite radio stations do meet the standard of being national radio networks. Bearcat 17:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Through the magic of the internet, I can listen to nearly every terrestrial radio station as well. One could argue that nearly any radio station potentially has a national audience. Personally, I do not believe that the broadcast medium creates a significant enough difference to qualify this as a major national network. Resolute 18:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then how would you define what does constitute a major national radio network? Bearcat 18:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • A station or group of stations with a significant national footprint. That CBC Radio 3 is broadcast everywhere because it is a satellite station does not automatically prove to me that it is a major station/network. It is basically akin to being a random minor cable channel, as opposed to something like CTV or CBC-TV. Regardless, there is still the problem of a complete lack of Reliable sources surrounding this band, which is a far more sigificant problem, IMO. Resolute 18:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Being on satellite radio = "significant national footprint". Being on satellite radio is equivalent to being TSN or Showcase (things which are notable enough for Wikipedia), not to being "Rogers Community Channel 22". Bearcat 20:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as promotional... Bands are generally easy to discern and verify true notability (with regards to our guidelines). "One day" isn't today. /Blaxthos 16:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it satisfies WP:MUSIC criteria #2 and #11. CBC Radio 3 qualifies as a national network, rather than simply another satellite station, because of its developmental history, previously broadcasting on CBC Radio Two, its CBC branding, its reputation, and its multiple modes (satellite, Internet, and podcasting).--Paul Erik 16:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about the sources? Reliable sources are far more important. We can be flexible on notability but never on sources. Please read and understand WP:RS and WP:V to see how vital these are to our goals here. --kingboyk 20:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not mean to give the impression that I was not appreciating the importance of reliable sources. As the article stub currently stands, there is one independent reliable source (which establishes notability) and two more questionable sources. If an article is asserting notability and had no independent source to back the assertion, then yes it must go. But in a case where the assertion is sourced, and the article as a whole needs more citing of sources, I do not think it is completely counter to our goals to let the article stub stay, tag it with something like {{More sources}} and thus encourage other editors to seek out better sources, perhaps beyond what we are able to find by Googling.--Paul Erik 02:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless multiple, non-trivial, independent and reliable sources are provided, per WP:RS. You can argue all day about notability, but if the sources aren't available the article must go. --kingboyk 20:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bearcat's comments - Dynaflow is intentionally understating things and disparaging them in the AfD in order to support his argument, such as his statement that 'this band made "#1" on a station's chart' and his suspicions about that. This AfD is seriously POV driven by someone who admits that he's never listened to Canadian stations, and is therefore not in a position to make such statements. Dynaflow has gotten too wrapped up in the argument instead of in the interests of Wikipedia. --Thespian 09:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that we know your opinion about me, please give us your opinion on the article subject's notability. That will be a lot more useful to this discussion. --Dynaflow 09:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • cough. I said, 'per Bearcat's comments', because I agree with them, and repeating them is silly. That's a standard AfD method of commentia. But you missed that, it seems? And nothing personal, but you're simply not in a position to pass judgement on the notability of this, because of your other public comments about never listening to Canadian stations. Further, by virtue of the text of your AfD itself, and the biases you reveal there, I think it's a valid argument to say that this is not a neutrally thought out AfD. Wikipedia is an international project, and there are times where you just have to admit that WP:NOTE can sometimes apply to things that lie outside of your own culture, but that doesn't make them not-notable. Also, you said you would put it for AfD and let it stand, but you're continuing to argue with people in the AfD, which leads me to believe this has ceased to be about the betterment of Wikipedia. --Thespian 14:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you look at this AfD (look up), you'll see that, far from continuing to argue, I wrote my blurb and didn't touch it again until last night (other than by adding a line that links to the WP article on the chart in question), at which time you stepped over the WP:NPA line ever so slightly by attacking me, rather than the issue I raised: the dearth of sources on this band. I don't care much one way or the other if the community wants to let this article stand or delete it without prejudice to future recreation. That's why we have AfD, so we can remove a contested decision to keep or delete from the unilateral whims of one editor or admin. However, your impugning of my motivations and accusations of skewed neutrality and some sort of Americocentrism are something that I do take rather personally. If you would like to comment on my character, do so at my Talk page, not at an AfD.

If more good sources on the article subject were forthcoming, I would drop my objection to the article's inclusion (and, indeed, the article's sourcing has gotten slightly better since this was taken to AfD), but the sources are still thin, as per WP:NOTE, and the comments of other editors show that this is a legitimate area of concern. I shall now resume leaving this AfD alone to let it take its course. --Dynaflow 19:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for stepping over WP:NPA; I didn't feel that I was, in my first comment, though I can see how you would feel I did, and I think you're right, I did in my second. I am sorry. I do feel there are many other bands with fewer and thinner cites that have been accepted as satisfying WP:NOTE in the past.--Thespian 21:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright. Things do get a bit heated around here. I also apologize for the tone of my response. I had been fighting off attacks by sockpuppets all weekend and was still in combat mode when I responded to your comment. --Dynaflow 21:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While not a well known band under the criteria put forth by WP:MUSIC, it passes nobility standards. :shrug: I don't really see why some editors are taking this personally, if they feel that the nobility standards under WP:MUSIC are too low they should ask that it be changed, but under current standards it stays. MrMacMan ^Talk 19:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to meet nationaly noted staus.cmacd 17:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete kingboyk has hit the nail on the head. There are no decent non trivial external sources quoted, and I can't find any either. Unless these can be added before the end of this AfD the band fails WP:Music plain and simple. A1octopus 14:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted by User:Anthony.bradbury. --kingboyk 20:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Greer

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

This biography of a "Biological Reasearcher from Manteca, California, [who] is widely regarded by the scientific community as the first person to successfully domesticate a wild North American Buffalo" was prodded as a hoax. The prod was contested, but among other unlikely things in the article, there is no such thing as a "Nobel Prize from the Biological Committee of Interactive Research". Pharamond 08:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as original prod'er. The whole article is full of obvious nonsense. Choess 15:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - Added speedy tag. Corpx 16:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Reitano

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

Contested PROD. Unclear on this fellow, but seems of quite dubious notability. Flash animation maker. Has done work for musicians, but in the "underground", not stars. One interview, but at an online site. One review, but on a Flash-specific online site. Herostratus 08:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral as nominator, procedural nomination of contested PROD, I really have no knowledge of this area. Herostratus 08:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unreferenced self-promotion. Simply not notable, as indicated by the lack of reliable sources. /Blaxthos 16:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete as blatant admitted self-promotion. MKoltnow 19:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. Just a petty self-promotion. —A • D ^Torque 21:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 11:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lack of evidence of reliable independent sources, plus blatant self-promotion. Off with its head. Guy (Help!) 13:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. The smell of fish surrounds it. The basic argument is the we don't know what it is. Until somebody can figure out just exactly what the heck it is, it probably shouldn't have an article. 15:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Brexgata University Academy

Brexgata University Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There appears to be strong elements of hoax or pseudo-history in the history of the article and in the contributions of its main authors/editors.

It has been on Wikipedia since December 2004, and the history shows that it originally contained extravagant claims to originate in the Carolingian period: "The ancestor school of Brexgata was founded in 798 by a small group of Carolingian noblemen."[6] This claim was disputed by User:Stbalbach and removed (see talkpage and history), but it still seriously weakens the credibility of the article.

A number of closely related IPs edited this article:

• Special:Contributions/83.134.243.110
• Special:Contributions/83.134.243.179
• Special:Contributions/83.134.240.60

These also added links to it in various places, as did

• User:ActaCarolingiana (Special:Contributions/ActaCarolingiana)

That user also added the sentence "Another school, nowadays embodied by the Brexgata University Academy, was founded in the year 798 by Carolingian leaders." to the "University" article in May 2006[7]. This sentence is still there. User:ActaCarolingiana later removed a tag requesting a source for the statement.

There appears to be no evidence that it is in any way connected to an institution founded in 798. Even the official website which describe the historical claims says that "To ensure ease of reading, the detailed references and sources are not listed in this Executive Summary".[8] Instead it just lists a number of people, which does not really make the information verifiable.

I can find no evidence that this Brexgata University Academy is a real institution of higher education of any kind. The only three hits in Google Books are for books advertising MBA programmes. There is not a single hit on Google Scholar for an individual associated with it. Using the most general searches possible, I find no hits for "brexgata" in the catalogues of Library of Congress, the British Library, the Royal Library of Belgium, the German National Library or the Bibliothèque nationale de France. If there had been any publication obviously about Brexgata or even any publication (journal, publication series et or even individual publication) associated with this institution such hits would have been found.

A real institution surviving since the Carolingian period is unlikely, to say the least, to completely have evaded being covered in scholarly publications. A real institution of higher education and research, regardless of age, would have been mentioned somewhere among all the posts of the national library catalogues of five nations. Pharamond 09:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reserve opinion for now, unitl I can find more. This institution and the inexorably linked Thierry Graduate School of Leadership are quite confusing. First, regarding the 798 establishment, the current Thierry/Brexgata has nothing to do with the period college in any real sense. There was (according to their website, at least), a Carolingian-period leadership school of some sort. Some thousand years later, the current institution was established, and claims it is the reopening or somesuch of that prior institution.[9] Saying something doesn't make it so; their own evidence indicates it was actually absorbed (or at least its library was) by the Université de Paris.[10] But beyond that, I can't figure out just what sort of institution this place is. Thierry is apparently real, because there are a lot of people citing Thierry degrees in their bios online.[11][12] And that means Brexgata is real, since the two organizations' websites are littered with cross-references and veiled discussion of a "merger-integration". But someone else, for example, should review this, because I cannot for the life of me parse that text well enough to conclude whether or not this place is even accredited, or by whom! Brexgata is listed, as part of Thierry, in Peterson's MBA Programs 2006[13], but I, too, am unable to find any actual discussion or analysis of this school or its programs or, frankly, just what is going on with this place at all. Serpent's Choice 11:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm glad someone else noticed this peculiar article. My sense is this is a real entity, but very small and virtual. We have removed any mention of the Carolingian claim, probably the only thing to do is watch it carefully so the "regular editors" don't slip it back in. There are many small private schools that are not accredited, the entry in Peterson's should give it some credibility as not being a hoax and actually existing. -- Stbalbach 12:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep and merge into this the article for the Thierry Graduate School. This is an umbrella organization for the combination of the school --which does exists as a sort of a glorified business school (giving a PhD although its director does not have one himself) with a notional accrediting agency called USRED -- http://edu.univ.be/brexgata/ucred/home.htm, formerly known as the Inter-collegiate Advisory Council for International Programmes (IACIP). According to the UCRED website, "In order to prevent possible fraudulent use of information made available to the general public by means of the internet , the Council no longer publishes an open-access list of accredited programmes." The preposterous medieval origins continue to be the major theme of their website. It should be possible to disentangle & present the material properly when done by unaffiliated editors. Once the articles are combined I will add this and some other quotations from their website so that the readers can figure out what is going on and evaluate it themselves. There are occasional articles where a person or organization does a respectable job, but this is not one of them. DGG 22:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm baffled by this institution. The fact that the word "Brexgata" does not appear in a single Google News or Google News Archive search, in any context, does not fill me with confidence. "Thierry Graduate School" appears in one archive search. The web sites create an aura of notability, but there seems to be a sense of a disconnect going on here. The fact that no individual on the board or faculty, or any alumnus connected to either entity has a link to either article, just doesn't instill me with confidence. If I'm looking in the wrong place or missing something, I don't see it, but I am willing to be convinced otherwise. Alansohn 15:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have found the reasons why the organization is probably somewhere between a con and a diploma mill, but the School does seem to have a staff. DGG 01:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since no independent sources establish notability --Work permit 01:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, WP:CSD#A7. {{Hangon}}s do not preclude speedy deletion. Sandstein 14:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Approach on living

An Approach on living (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A band with one demo and one band member with an preexisting article. Contested speedy; procedural listing. BanyanTree 10:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mhatai

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

Hoax. 9 ghits. Fails WP:V, no sources. MER-C 12:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, hoax. Wikipedia is not for fictional islands. Sandstein 14:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, clear hoax. Jacek Kendysz 14:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. --Oakshade 23:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, clearly a hoax. --Russ (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, OK, maybe it was a hoax... but you've got to admit, it was fairly realistic! Stranger than fiction! No? - J.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Krimpet (talk) 06:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warbears

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

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

Fairly unremarkable flash animation. No case is made for passing WP:WEB and I could only find a passing mention in Der Spiegel. Article is of a in-universe game guide nature and is completely unsourced. MER-C 12:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -Ahem. www.warbears.com. I would also like to remember most of the online games and communities are owning a wikipedia page. — MrRobot256 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • When you go fishing, do you ever catch all the fish? MER-C 13:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you provide us a proper location to place the warbears article, I will be glad to move it. — MrRobot256 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment -Jimmy23 (From warbears) [14] That is a link to help against deletion
• Keep I respect the fact that the Wikipedia staff take their job seriously about keeping Wikipedia clean but i find that deleting this for no apperent reason will anger those who have sacrificed their spare time to keep this to the point, clean of spam and informational at the same time. This Page is sourced with information from the Offical Warbears site and therefore is a credible soure of information. Although we do get some spam from certain individuals we know that this can be easiliy beaten with a upgrade to level 2 security. So we as a whole belive this is a suitable page that has necessary information for those who wish to seek it and those who need guidence and links.I therefore place my support in the effort to keep this page active. Sincerly O==[::::::::> (AShinySword). AShinySword 13:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)— AShinySword (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete if no WP:RS can be found. I did not (yet) do an exhaustive search, but the only news source I found has exactly one paragraph on it [15], which ain't much to build an encyclopedia article from. RTucker 13:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon further review, the article I found was the exact same one MER-C posted above, so you can save time and ignore my link. :-) RTucker 14:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Hehe, obviously someone didn't look at the actual website listed by MrRobot256. If you looked on there, you'd find all the information needed. Besides, this article is about the actual GAME of warbears, not the warbears themself. It would also be nice if someone made an article on Bedtime City (The name for the warbears community). — Darthwarbear (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete. Webcruft, fails WP:WEB for lack of substantial, reliable, independent sources. Sandstein 14:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Warbears Wiki-page is for Warbears game, not for website. Waaaak— Waaaak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete - Thirty seconds on Fox News (for more than half of that, the commentators were talking about different "memes" anyway) and one passing mention in Der Spiegel do not notability make.  ⋐⋑ REDVEЯS 15:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The site has barely any notability, and this Wiki article reads like a news post on the site itself. It doesn't fit into Wikipedia. There's also the fact that the community has little respect around here, which leads to the wiki page being vandalized quite often.--151.197.61.103 19:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply request partial protection. ~MrRobot256
• Delete - Hell if the article on a well known webcomic got deleted why should this stick around? It's complete fluff and doesn't serve a real purpose. 20:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Please stay on topic. I don't see what's the point with the well known webcomic.
• Delete - Doesn't pass WP:WEB. The game appeared a little more than a year ago and didn't really gain a huge popularity. The website appeared a few months ago and has no history to report on, and isn't very notable either. Only people who already know the game read the article, which is nothing more than a faq and few trivias accessible from the game, what purpose does it serve? Xfxfxs 03:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean, seriously; its ranking on Alexa is somewhere below 180,000.--151.197.169.132 06:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- For those of you who keep commenting there's no reliable source or WP:RS the information supplied by the creator of Warbears via the forum, news and privet messages the purpose of this page is to gather that information into one easily acsessable place that new folk can reach easily. Those of you are commenting about Spammers, yes we are aware of that problem this can be easily be righted by adding security to the page. Those of you commenting that Warbears isn't popular enough we are a growing community so views will increase. Those of you commenting there isn't any appopriate information if this is the case we shall modify the page to inculde articles like Parental questions, Security and Rules, Links and contacts, Detailed information on the game etc...I hope this answers your questions/statements. AShinySword 06:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This page should not include parental information. It is not a portal for Warbears. It is not an article on Warbears.com, so the fact that Warbears.com has a low rank should not matter. It has been mentioned all over the internet, played by many people, and has a few reliable sources. Don't delete it. Fix it. 151.197.169.59 10:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -I would like to request Semi-Protection to Warbears article. It would help keeping article away from spam. And then it could be fixed and everybody would be happy, except spammers. EDIT: And, I know that here is also article of Frets on Fire, which is fan-made little game... And nooney is trying to delete it.Fippe (usurped) 14:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)— Fippe (usurped) (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Vandalism (you erroneously call it spam) is not a criterion for deletion, so don't worry about that. Conversely, the existence of another article which you deem similar to Warbears is not a good argument (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) for keeping the article. Also, this is not the place to request protection against vandalism.--Atlan 15:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wp:WEB says that notability must be proved before an article can remain. AShinySword should understand that this means that reliable, secondary sources should already have discussed the topic before Wikipedia can have anything to do with it. nadav 00:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Geek News

Your Geek News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Lacks notability. Is written by the owner of Your Geek News, Zymaseman (Matt Campagna), which makes NPOV questionable at best. Furthermore, his past edits (mostly linkspams) shows he's basically looking for free advertisement for his website and, by extension, himself. Atlan 12:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:WEB for lack of substantial coverage; possible speedy for blatant advertising. Sandstein 14:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Have no clue what the heck it is. Probably meets a CSD though. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 23:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I've re-directed to Culture and menstruation for now, this isn't meant to imply that more merging can't be done (that's an editorial, not deletion decision). Petros471 14:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Menstruation and the origins of culture (2nd nomination)

Menstruation and the origins of culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable theory. The first AfD ended with no consensus. The only recent editor uses a dynamic IP address; from comments on the talk page I suspect (but am not sure) that the dynamic IP and the page's original authors (Martinklopstock and Chris d knight} are all one person.

An important consideration in the first AfD was the heavy citation the work of Knight, Power, and Watts has received in scientific journals, though examples of how the citation was used could not be found. I now believe that these author's work with ocher is regarded as important in determining the origins of culture - but that their theory on menstruation and culture has nevertheless been largely ignored and is not notable. A Google search for "ritual" and "ocher" gets 27,000 hits talking about the earliest archaeological evidence of human culture. An article they co-authored on ritual and ocher (list of authors) was written about in BBC news. This article that was published in Human Nature on p.346 talks about ocher as evidence of early human ritual and cites Knight and Watts. Menstruation is not mentioned once through the entire article.

It has been four months since the last AfD. Despite requests both through a tag on the article and discussion on the talk page beginning in January, no evidence of notability for this theory regarding menstruation has been provided. Lyrl ^Talk _C 13:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Whatever its scientific merits, dedicating whole articles to particular scientific theories overdoes it, unless they are widely accepted and the basis of much other research in their field. Possibly merge some content to appropriate articles. Sandstein 14:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:N dposse 17:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep It is a real theory, as demonstrated by the references, many of which are exactly on point, and published by academic publishers such as Yale University Press -- this is not fringe social science. There are additional references to be found--I added a few. IThe article needs a little rewriting to de-emphasize personalities, which I have just started. The question is not whether the specific hypothesis as published by specific people listed here is notable; the article is about a subject: Menstruation and culture, and the question is whether that subject is notable. Books about the subject show notability. To demonstrate that scholarly books are RS, we look at the publishers. Is the problem that we need to find books that are about the books on the subject? That's not the standard. (Though I undoubtedly can find some book reviews). DGG 22:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An additional objection was that of the several hundred articles citing the ones listed here, one of them was not on point. DGG 23:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • The problem isn't notability. The problems are WP:UNDUE and WP:POVFORK of the currently barely existent Culture and menstruation. It's analogous to having a "Quantum physics and gravity" article that deals soley with Loop quantum gravity while "Quantum mechanics" and "theory of relativity" lie empty. Obviously you'll find a lot of citations of the hypothesis, but it's ridiculous to devote so much space to it without first mentioning the general theories that have consensus. nadav 01:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - there is already an article culture and menstruation. Obviously a notable topic. By contrast, the article I nominated for deletion is about "the specific hypothesis as published by specific people listed here" and as such has to establish notability of that hypothesis in order to remain on Wikipedia. Lyrl ^Talk _C 23:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to culture and menstruation, it is already merged. The googletest shows no special notability for this amazing theory.--Ioannes Pragensis 11:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Merging might seem good if you go just by the titles. But the article on "culture and menstruation" is entirely devoted to menstruation as related to various religions: all one or two sentences, almost none with a link to a substantial article. At the end of them all, there's a cross reference to this article, which is the only place where there is actually a substantial discussion. What would be appropriate is not to delete this article but expand it to include other approaches. DGG 02:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]