Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 13

< September 12	September 14 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep. Carlossuarez46 21:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Mitchell (actor)

Non-notable child actor- only two minor roles in two major films. Article itself needs improving also. Apartknow 00:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seriously? He had a significant role in both Chamber of Secrets (as the kid following Harry everywhere) and the Da Vinci Code (as the childhood version of the bad guy). Smashville 00:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smashville. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant roles in both films, and multiple UK Drama series'. ≈ Maurauth ^(Ravenor) 07:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smashville & Maurauth. Looks like there's enough significance to the roles and films to meet WP:BIO for actors.Cube lurker 13:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Moderately significant character in a very large series of films. J Milburn 20:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smashville and Maurauth, notability seems pretty clear and would meet WP:BIO. Article needs work though. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 13:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has been in major roles in primetime British drama series as well. [User:ckydavies|ckydavies]] 15:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insignificant per Smashville's description. --Leocomix 18:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain how Harry Potter and the Da Vinci Code are insignificant, please? Smashville 00:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Harry Potter and the Da Vinci Code aren't, but this chap is in relation to them I'm afraid--Apartknow 12:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, it's a very significant part in the 7th one. ≈ Maurauth ^(Ravenor) 18:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He seems to be notable enough as an actor. Steve Dufour 21:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has played in at least 3 blockbuster movies.--JForget 22:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I totally disagree. He is in no way notable. His role in the Da Vinci Code was short and not memorable. His acting in Harry Potter was appalling also. Morevisit 17:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How well he acts hardly has anything to do with it, this vote should be ignored; the user is Permabanned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.17.37 (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, his list of credits establishes notability. NawlinWiki 17:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 1st-AFD is not a vote; 2nd-we have a WP:OCAT that guides us to "Avoid intersections of two traits that are unrelated, even if some person can be found that has both traits."; so do we have an article about American football players in war? do they fight differently? no. do they play football differently? no. What makes this intersection distinctive as opposed to List of American dentists in war or List of American lawyers in war or List of American landscapers in war? Nothing. So, it looks like OCAT as per most of the delete comments. The keep comments are lots of entries on the list means not trivial (which is something we are admonished against by WP:OCAT like Celebrity gamers which could be well populated), the notability of 1 person Pat Tilman which is a poor reason to create a list to highlight him, lack of references shouldn't mean deletion (misses the reason for deletion), and some suspicion of liberal editors which needs no further consideration. In toto, the deletion rationale and policy far outweigh the keep position demonstrating consensus, regardless of the "vote" count. Carlossuarez46 21:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional American football players in war

Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Cross-section of two unrelated areas of information. Corvus cornix 23:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Hall of Fame drew a relation [1] Canuckle 00:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For it to be "unrelated", there seems to be a lot of names on the page. It's significant and it's not really dupilicable in any other part of Wikipedia. Smashville 00:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be expanded to a sourced, prose list, and explain it's notabilty. Most players of every sport was in the service in one form or another during World War II, so it's nothing special itself. I'm also not a fan of taking info already used in websites such as the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 01:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the link, 995 former NFL players served in war, a category seems better instead. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 03:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because of the link Canuckle provided and also because of all the attention devoted to Pat Tilman's service. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the mention can be listed in the Pat Tillman article not here. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 03:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How about a list of the ones that became casualties of war? --Pupster21 Talk To Me 12:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think this page should become a memorial to Pat Tillman. If that's what it's real intent is for, it should be renamed or revisited here. But, I do think this page needs better references, dates or somthing more then a splattering of names under subheadings. No doubt that this page needs work; however, all starter articles do. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 19:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial list, also borderline non-npov/non a memorial. Dannycali 19:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No one has established that NFL players' military service is notable (aside from Pat Tillman's, which can be covered in Pat Tillman). There are a lot of football players, so a lot of them served in the military--no big surprise. I'm sure other athletes have served as well. The one link that's been offered is a puff-piece by a football organization along the lines of, look at us, we're so patriotic. Unless someone can find a neutral source saying that says that this is a notable intersection, it should be deleted. Calliopejen1 22:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a category would obviously be superior to a list because there are nearly 1000 examples. But just looking at Category:NFL player military veterans (as opposed to Category:NFL players plus Category:Military veterans -- or whatever the exact categories are) shows the absurdity of this. Calliopejen1 22:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete As a PFRA member, I ought to be voting to keep, but this is the basic indiscriminate list that asks the reader to click on the blue links and hope to possibly find out about an NFL (or in the case of Bob Kalsu) AFL player who served in war or was killed in war. While an article about pro athletes who served their country in war would be notable, this isn't it. Mandsford 22:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just checked the PFRA website, I likely joining as well. Thanks for the link Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 01:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepIs this another liberal editor's attempt to rewrite history to meet their agenda or to erase the credibility of serving one's country? Many of these men laid their careers aside to serve during wartime. This is notable and should be out here for the public to learn about. There is more to life than football and these men, their sacrafice, and courage should be posted for future generations to learn from. But what the hell do I know about it? I only served and spent the majority of my 20's away from home because I felt there was something bigger than me worth protecting.Mustang60 16:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this another liberal editor's attempt to rewrite history to meet their agenda or to erase the credibility of serving one's country? No, it is not. Please read WP:AGF. And I am a veteran. Why haven't you created List of actors in war, List of psychiatrists in war and List of left handed cosmeticians in war? Are the sacrifices and courage of those people any less than those of football players? Corvus cornix 21:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are the sacrifices and courage of those people any less than those of football players? Not at all, and not what I am saying. Is this another liberal editor's attempt to rewrite history to meet their agenda. This is not a good faith issue, stating fact. I have dealt with this before. If Wikipedia is to be utilized as a teaching tool, then I see no reason to can this. I believe there is a powerful message that people can learn from seeing that men sacraficed their well payed jobs to serve the greater good of all. I don't see where it is POV. It is simply stating a fact that hey these guys served in wartime and you may want to check their bios.Mustang60 21:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please point to a single person who has said that this list is "POV". The point is that it's not encyclopedic, any more than the other examples I listed above. And I will kindly ask you to stop making personal attacks and attempting to assume people's agendas, as you will be wrong. Enough is enough. Corvus cornix 03:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think it is a great reference tool. If you are reading about Tillman, for example, then want to learn more about other football players who served you have a link to work with. Pound sand.Mustang60 19:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please read WP:USEFUL. Corvus cornix 20:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See our policies on personal attacks, on calling people "liberal editors to meet their agenda" the reason you gave above isn't a reason for keeping nither. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 01:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact is that the reason this article is here is due to what Pat Tillman did. His actions are a rarity in this world and what happended to him has made this even more noteworthy. I believe this is a great quick reference tool for those studying American Wars and football to learn something about someone that they did not know before. It also outlines the fact that there were those in the NFL long before Tillman that sacrafice fame and fortune to pursue what they felt was a greater cause. What is wrong with having the ability to do research on Pat Tillman and being able to hit a quick link at the bottom to take you to a page that lists other football players that served in war. Heck there is even a Medal of Honor reciepient among this group. I think it is an excellent quick link to enable someone to learn more.Mustang60 02:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to popular belief, "liberal" is not an insult.... BTW, Jaranda, check out the PFRA Forum... great organization. Mandsford 02:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- liberal by it's self isn't, but liberal editor with personal agenda can be considered as one. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 18:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs more references but that's not a reason for deletion. Nick mallory 03:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although a lot of editors put forward a strong argument for a merge to Lauder Baronets (the precedent is that baronets, unlike peers, are not automatically notable), there wasn't sufficient consensus for the merge. The Keep !voters highlighted his distinguished military career and authorship as evidence of independent notability, an argument which was strong enough not to be discounted. Walton^One 15:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir George Dick-Lauder, 12th Baronet

He was born. He went to school. He joined a club. He died. All of which we know because he and his family told us so. But there are no other sources. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lauder Baronets, as I did here with another non-notable Lauder Baronet, viz. Sir Andrew Dick-Lauder, 6th Baronet, and have today done to to Piers Lauder (see the AfD). I agree with the nominator's assessment of Sir George Dick-Lauder, 12th Baronet as non-notable, but I would oppose to simply deleting the article. The article on the baronetcy itself is clearly notable per WP:N (referenced in multiple sources), and demonstrates holders of the title played a significant roile through over a dozen generations. Per WP:PAPER, there is no need to constrain the length of Lauder Baronets, so I have gone ahead and merged, an action which does not require AfD approval. However, I have not replaced the article Piers Lauder with a redirect, because AFAICS that should not be done until this AfD is closed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a slightly jaundiced comment by the nominator I feel. This baronet is mentioned in Kellys, Who's Who, Debretts, Burkes, to name but four. (I am not of this family). This baronet had an exceptional military career, being second in command of both the famous Black Watch and King's African Rifles regiments (the latter at one time, possibly during Dick-Lauder's service, was the regiment of idi Amin. He is also a noted military author. All things considered on this page I would say the package makes him more notable than any of us. he satisfies, I feel, Wikis notability. David Lauder 18:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not passing an opinion on the worthiness of this page at all, as in the current political climeate here I will be accused of God know's what. However, what the hell has Idi Amin to do with this? I expect my cousin's next door neighbour's cat's previous owner once went to school with a man whose brother served with Idi Amin. In short so what? Giano 19:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I was trying to say was that this was a notable regiment and that Amin was one of the reasons. David Lauder 20:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable soldier, author and founder of a club. He also held one of the highest honours of the British government. --Counter-revolutionary 19:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any mention of the honnour, perhaps you would like to add it? Giano 19:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're joking. He was a baronet. --Counter-revolutionary 19:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I see. I was thinking more of an honour personally bestowed on him by your Government, something that made him a man among men type of thing. Giano 19:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- But that doesn't meet the requirements of WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any need to be that arbitrary. --Counter-revolutionary 19:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-revolutionary, what exactly do you think is arbitrary about assessing a wikipedia article against the relevant guideline, in this case Wikipedia:Notability (people) (aka WP:BIO)? It really isn't helpful for editors to ignore the guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Surely a package of things in a biography, which includes the fact that he was also a baronet, stands for something? It seems to me too much of a coincidence in, as Giano says, the present "political climate" that these Dick-Lauder baronets just happen to be selected for AfDs. I'm afraid I cannot detect any obvious 'good faith' here. David Lauder 20:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For once I can understand your feelings at this difficult time. However think it really is just coincidence. The nominator is, as far as I'm aware, unconnected in any way with any of the parties involved with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. I thought long and hard before commenting here but then decided I would have commented anyway so I might as well. Hopefully the result will be the same as other similar baronet pages - a much improved page because at the moment I really cannot believe one of the "highest honours of the British government" is to make someone a dead 12th baronet - can you? Giano 20:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as he appears to be notable per WP:BIO, but more cites would help rescue this article. Bearian 23:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable army career. Biofoundationsoflanguage 13:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject was a good deal more than suggested in the nomination and independant sources exist, as mentioned by David Lauder. Edward321 04:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BHG's reasoning, unless his books were particularly notable. Let Soldiers Lust sounds a cracking read. Rockpocket 19:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I'm tending towards merge. However, there is hope is there any more information about "Skull and Two Crystals", "Let Soldiers Lust", and "Our Man for Ganymede" were any nominated for the Booker for instance - reviews of them? publishers? plots? anything?. Did he win any medals while in the armed forces? Was he an amazing sexual athlete? Did he murder his granny or even his children's nanny? I'm afraid at the moment it is a case or expand, improve or merge. Giano 21:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- notable baronet, in my opinion meets WP:BIO 21:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrotrain (talk • contribs)
Keep Baronet, author, club founder and distinguished army career. Nick mallory 03:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Unless anything comes forward to prove his notability besides the fact he's a baronet. SirFozzie 04:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Nick Mallory. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Second-in-command does not bestow sufficient notability, nor does inherited baronetage. Possible notability as an author, but this needs to be established and referenced. At present it is not. Tyrenius 18:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the books are listed in the four principal references cited. Second in command of two famous regiments is notable, I'm afraid. Ask anyone in the military. David Lauder 20:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this debate is silly now. It should be referred to the pending Arbcom case, let them decide if it meets the criteria or not - otherwise debates like this will just keep going around in circles for eternity. I for one am sick to death of argueing against logic with these people who seem to live in the Edwardian period. Giano 18:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the pending Arbcom concerns the Troubles. --Counter-revolutionary 20:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, but what does this page have to do with "The Troubles"? Giano 20:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giano is right. This debate is silly, and the repeated refusal to acknowledge the guidelines is disruptive and tendentious. I support referring this to arbcom, and since the WP:BIO-deniers overlap so strongly with the group labelled "the Tories" in the Arbcom case on "The Troubles", I believe that it should be raised there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:You may think the debate is "silly" but the whole purpose of these AfD pages is for people to give their views. I don't wish to comment on those wishing to delete these pages as you have done with those who wish to keep, but some of us feel that he meets notability, with cited sources, and obviously some do not. I note that one '"delete" describes himself as a political activist. Funny, but I just can't see him being in the pro-baronet camp. It is interesting is it not, how these Lauder baronets are now being 'assessed'? David Lauder 08:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David, I think that you have put your finger on the problem: that "some of us feel that he meets notability". This discussion should not be about how editors "feel", but about whether there is evidence that the article meets the criteria set out at WP:BIO or related guidelines such as WP:MIL#Notability. There have been plenty of requests for evidence, but the only evidence on offer is his listing in several directories, which as Iridescent points out is not useful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are not telephone directories, as a couple of previous editors who have not yet appeared here compared them with. They are books containing potted biographies which are usually confirmed in one way or another. They are accepted, at least in Great Britain, as authoritative and few main libraries are without them. I commend them to you as excellent source materials, even if they are not as 'filled out' as the articles in the DNB. David Lauder 13:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David, I think that you are missing the point here. I know that these books make useful sources, and in general they have a good reputation for accuracy. However, I think that you misunderstand the whole concept of notability on wikipedia: it's not about whether someone is included the subject in a list of notables, it's about whether enough authors have found the person significant enough to say "ahah! this person is interesting or significant", and then write a decent book or article on them. All that the directories do is to include a potted bio of them in a list of potted bios of people selected because of their parentage; depending on your POV that may be terribly useful, utterly useless, deeply fascinating or terminally boring, but none of those things are relevant to the concept of notability, which some editors persistently confuse with subjective notions of worthiness.
This all comes down to the crucial point that wikipedia is a tertiary source, not a place of original research; we merely record existing knowledge, judging its significance by what others have judged significant enough to add a substantive piece of writing on them. Burkes etc includes people who would still be listed even if they had lived their lives in total seclusion, unknown except for date of burial, which is not the same thing at all; what matters is whether others judged them significant enough to make the choice to research and write something about them.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I can't see anything notable about this individual. I am surprised it was even created. Galloglass 21:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or very weak delete as it stands. For reasons everyone at XfD has no doubt already heard, I don't think baronets other than first creations are automatically notable (no legislative role, and title not awarded in recognition of their own achievements) and there doesn't seem to be anything in the military service to pass WP:MIL#Notability — but if we're going to have a Lauder Baronets page, I don't see any reason for him not to be on it. However, if someone can find evidence that the books are at all notable, he may warrant an article in his own right; I can't see anything on them, but since they're from Before Teh Internets they may have been significant, and the reviews etc just haven't found their way online. As I've said before, I don't think a mention in Burke's is legitimate for purposes of WP:N simply because it lists everyone; if he'd died at the age of three months, he'd still have an entry. I do agree very strongly with everyone above who says this is not the appropriate time to be having this discussion — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Non-notable peeragecruft. Lauder Baronets pretty much covers it. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 00:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The only really likely avenue of notability here is his authorship of three books. WP:BIO suggests notability is established if these books "(c) have won significant critical attention" - I've trawled the web and can find no such attention, can the author provide this evidence? If not merge. --Joopercoopers 10:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have also done some trawling, and found that the books are listed in the British library catalogue, but apart from library catalogues, the only google results I can find for "George Dick Lauder" (the name under which his books are published) are listings for secondhand copies ... with one exception, which is a terse mention in a list of "hidden gems" on a sci-fi website. As Iridescent points out, the books may have been reviewed more substantially before internet days, and if anyone has access to the archives of newspapers or the relevant journals, maybe something will turn up. If that sort of evidence appears at a later date, the article could of course be unmerged, so there is no reason to keep the article for now in the hope that something may turn up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I think BHG nails it above; if he's notable as an SF writer, he warrants his own page, but if he's notable as a baronet he belongs with the other Lauder Baronets. Re David Lauder's comment about "a couple of authors comparing Burke's & Debrett's to telephone directories", I assume I'm one of the couple (and the other is, for reasons everyone involved is well aware of, not in a position to comment). I stand by the comparison; Burke's has over a million entries,^[2] and consequently while a legitimate source for proving that someone existed, and for verifying information such as dates of birth, accession, death etc, is not a valid source for proving notability. The fact that he went from minor Scottish nobility to SF writer - not exactly a traditional job - indicates there may indeed be an Almeric Paget style interesting story to be told here (whatever the Great God Consensus might say, I personally think WP:USEFUL and WP:INTERESTING are perfectly valid "keep" arguments), but at the moment the article doesn't indicate that. — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lauder Baronets. Per BHG. Choess 01:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lauder Baronets. (The merge has already been performed by BrownHairedGirl, so I'll just make the page a redirect.) Walton^One 16:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piers Lauder

This article describes somebody of surpassing ordinariness, a worthy but apparently unexceptional person. It lacks independent sources. The only sources provided are taken form information provided by the subject. Baronetcies are not so very common, but computer programmers are, and apart form inheriting a title that seems ot be about it. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lauder Baronets, as I did here with another non-notable Lauder Baronet, viz. Sir Andrew Dick-Lauder, 6th Baronet. I agree with the nominator's assessment of Piers Lauder as non-notable, but I would be strongly opposed to simply deleting the article. The article on the baronetcy itself is clearly notable per WP:N (referenced in multiple sources), and demonstrates holders of the title played a significant roile through over a dozen generations. Per WP:PAPER, there is no need to constrain the length of Lauder Baronets, so I will go ahead and merge, an action which does not require AfD approval. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now merged. However, I have not replaced the article Piers Lauder with a redirect, because AFAICS that should not be done until this AfD is closed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this fellow for over 20 years held the equivalent of a professorship in computing scientce at a major and established university. Moreover, such is his expertise (not jst a "common computer programmer") that at least one of his specialities is now used by the Australian government. Mention is made of the bios on websites, but worth pointing out that one of those is the university's website for bios on staff. Add to that he is a baronet, and my suggestion is that the overall package, all things considered, he is more notable than most. David Lauder 18:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question which of the sources supports the claim that he "held the equivalent of a professorship"? The only references I can see for his time in University describe him not a professor or even as a lecturer, but as a "programmer". I hope that you can either substantiate this claim, or withdraw it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per comments of David. Part of a series of articles which it adds to. --Counter-revolutionary 21:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:BIO#Articles_not_satisfying_this_guideline, an article not meeting notability guidelines on its own should be merged "into a broader article providing context". In this case, Lauder Baronets is that broader article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question can any of those voting to "keep" this article explain how it meets WP:BIO? Subjective judgments such as "more notable than most" are not reasons to keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BrownHairedGirl. Giano 09:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to meet notability. Biofoundationsoflanguage 13:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Where are the multiple, non-non-trivial independent sources required by WP:BIO? The two on-line sources are on his employers' websites (and therefore not independent), and the only other references are in directories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Questions: There are countless bios on WP which simply do not have "multiple" sources, some lucky to have one. So why is this AfD so important? And where in WP:BIO does it state that an employer's public comments on their staff is unacceptable as source materiél? Also, are you saying that the two-centuries old publications of Burkes, Kellys, Debretts, et al, (which are not just "directories" aka a telephone book but potted biographies of those contained therein), are no longer acceptable source materiéls? I have now added two further on-line references (having seen elsewhere on WP where people have complained about the lack of google hits on a subject). David Lauder 10:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Whilst I totally agree that these are not independent sources, and don't strictly meet the guidelines, do not those guidelines imply that we should use common sense? Various Wikipedia rules do indeed say that when the guidelines seem a poor fit for an issue, then common sense is fine. In that context, the size and nature of his employers tend to suggest that they're sufficiently reliable sources. – Kieran T ^(talk) 10:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply to David Lauder. Again, please please please do read WP:BIO: the place where it say that an employer's public comments on their staff is unacceptable as evidence of notability is where WP:BIO#Criteria_for_notability_of_people requires "published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" (emphasis added by me). An employer is clearly not independent of the subject, and indeed many employer websites quite properly have webpages on people who who are clearly notable only in the context of the company or organisation concerned.
        As to the references which you added, the first was a duplicate, the second was a link to a paper by Lauder not an article about him, and hence is irrelevant to notability; and the third reference makes two passing references to Lauder. So in reality, the only evidence we have of the notability of Lauder's contribution to computing is two brief mentions in an essay hosted on the author's own homepage. Even if that meets the non-trivial criterion, it hardly meets the "published" criterion.
        The reason that this AfD is important is that it is about an area where a significant number of the editors who create the articles seem to be either unaware of the notability guidelines, or at best (assuming good faith), to seriously misunderstand them, repeatedly disrupting notability discussions with spurious claims such as that a person is notable for having inherited a baronetcy, or even claims such as [3] this] that the subject held a role which none of the sources claim. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply to BHG: This fellow is clearly a notable in the fields of IT. A read through numerous Google hits confirms that. I did not duplicate another web-page citation although I see that webpage also has a reference to the same publication. You refer to these as mere "papers" but they are very long and published by a university and get Google hits as important references. I am sorry "the editors who create the articles" you refer to are so wanting in their understanding of WP guidelines. I certainly am not, its just that my interpretation of them differs from yours David Lauder 16:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to David Lauder.

I think that this interpretation of the guidelines is important. Please explain how you conclude that the subject's homepage on an employers' website is, per WP:BIO, "intellectually independent, and independent of the subject"? Many such pages are written and maintained by the subject themselves, and the others are written by their colleagues.
I have just looked a Google search for "Piers Lauder". I find a few references to the paper you cited (in which he was not even the lead author, but the third of three authors), and countless hits which are archives of the mailing lists through which IT academics conduct their work. All that those archives show is that he worked in the field.
You refer to one paper (presumably this one) as "published by a university", which is not the case: it is hosted on the homepage of a [ consultant affiliated to the university]. That is a very different matter from a peer-reviewed academic journal, to which you implicitly compare it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Individual notability has not been established per adequate verifiable sources per WP:BIO. Tyrenius 14:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Merge There is no where near enough Reliable, Verifiable sources to make it a WP:BIO Subject. SirFozzie 04:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this debate is silly now. It should be referred to the pending Arbcom case, let them decide if it meets the criteria or not - otherwise debates like this will just keep going arownd in circles for eternity. I for one am sick to death of argueing against logic with these people who seem to live in the Edwardian period. Giano 18:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- another notable baronet, in my opinion meets WP:BIO Astrotrain 19:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that notability purely by being a baronet, or is there something specific which achieves notability in his case? Tyrenius 20:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has achieved notability in his field of work- computing as well as being a baronet of Nova Scotia. Astrotrain 20:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no references to validate notability for his work. You seem to be saying that just being a baronet is itself notable, but this in itself is not evidence of notability. Again where is the wider coverage for this? There are many obscure baronets. Tyrenius 01:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am basing my vote on several things- baronet being one, but also his role in the computing industry which from reading seems to meet the notability guidlines to me. Astrotrain 21:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astrotrain, I have you to wonder whether you actually read WP:N and WP:BIO? If his role in computing is significant enough to meet wikipedia's notablity standards, then there will be multiple non-trivial references. However, all we have so far are potted bios on his employers' websites, which fail both the independence and non-triviality tests. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks significant coverage from reliable sources to establish notability. Dlabtot 22:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing at all seems to meet even the most very basic criteria. Nothing even worth merging into Lauder Baronets. Galloglass 22:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Galloglass, yes, at least the other one could be merged. This is just more family vanity. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 01:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge because although Baronetcy may make one notable (as has been discussed ad nauseam on the Arbuthnott articles most of us writing here are familiar with), there seems to be a good case to make the Baronetcy the focus of one article because the Baronetcy itself is notable and simply to help readers understand the lineage and the differences or similarities between the generations of the family. – Kieran T ^(talk) 10:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite. We do not have to choose between having an article on this man or no coverage of him; merger allows an appropriate intermediate solution which preserves the information without creating another stubby article on a person of (at best) marginal notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lauder Baronets. Per BHG. Choess 01:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relativity priority dispute

An extremely interesting essay with several primary sources cited, obviously the work at least in part of Christopher Bjerknes. However... in as much as it cites wholly primary sources, this is clearly original research. Not to say a proper article could not be written on the dispute, but the dispute is very minor and esoteric and largely pursued by one man. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —KTC 03:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Check the editing history - this article is the result of the work of multiple people over a long period, compiling information from a lot of different sources, most of them secondary (the real primary sources are identified as such). --Alvestrand 05:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Highly notable topic which encompasses a very significant body of literature. There are a ton of biographies and other works which cover these issues substantially. Bits and pieces of it are original research, but the majority isn't, and deleting this much-worked-on article doesn't make much sense to me. Some primary sources are okay; the article meets Wikipedia:Attribution as far as I can tell. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has plenty of secondary sources and the topic is notable. --131.152.105.20 13:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Work of many people. Not sure how to judge esoteric or whether that is a criteria for deletion E4mmacro 18:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the above. • Lawrence Cohen 18:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Tudor (science fiction activist)

subject doesn't meet WP:BIO, article doesn't meet WP:V, WP:BLP with no references whatsoever GlassFET 22:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've provided cites; backhanded thanks for the nudge. As far as notability: he's a TAFF winner, which in the worldwide SF fan community counts for something; he published a fanzine which was of note on both sides of the Atlantic. He's no Carl Brandon, but then, who is? --Orange Mike 00:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The fanzine publication was what changed me from delete. But I'd be eager to see some other science fiction aficionados comment here, as I'm not an expert on its notability (nor the TAFF, for that matter). Interesting note: Graham Joyce acknowledges him at the start of his novel Requiem. Into The Fray ^T/C 01:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - As well as winning TAFF (the long-established US-European fannish exchange programme), Martin Tudor has edited or co-edited several fanzines popular on both sides of the Atlantic (including the aclaimed journal Critical Wave), ran the fan programme at the 1987 world sf convention, has chaired more Novacons than anyone else and has been fan guest of honour at conventions in the UK and Scandinavia. Ghostwords 14:16, 14 September 2007 (GMT)

Weak keep as it asserts notability, but the cites needs to be improved. More cites, and inline, would be helpful. Bearian 23:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I have now added details of Martin Tudor's key part in handling a major financial scandal within 1990s sf fandom. Ghostwords 16:43 16 September 2007

Keep - I can't really understand why this is being considered for deletion: apart from some 25 years of active involvement in the SF fan community, publishing widely-read and well-regarded fanzines and chairing large conventions, he is a TAFF winner. This last fact, in itself, should be enough. -- Dr Walpurgis 12:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability is clear, as stated above by other editors. Agree improvements in references/citation needed. VJDocherty 12:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 22:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fatalveli Volume 1

PRODs were removed without explanation. There are no multiple, reliable sources attesting the notability of these tapes. All they can ever be is a track list. Unlike notable albums, they can never expand to include music reviews, sales, certifications, production, themes etc. Spellcast 22:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all mixtapes with no claim of notabilty. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 01:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I agree. Mix albums can be made by anyone and not worthy of inclusion here. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 19:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Hussein Fatal would surely be the more logical approach. Bondegezou 16:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Walton^One 16:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sideways bike

this article references a non-notable "Quirky" invention which has not been taken up by any producer. The two quoted sources do not lend credibility to the product as notable; merely that it has received odd news coverage B1atv 21:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I get 23,000+ Google hits for "sideways bike". I was also able to turn up some news coverage from 2003. Into The Fray ^T/C 00:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into bicycle. This will never be found otherwise, and it's as notable as those bikes that had the big front wheel, or the banana seat, or the chopper. It's an interesting variation on the bike. Mandsford 22:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment This is nowhere near as notable as "those bikes that had the big front wheel" (I think you mean Penny Farthings) or the Chopper; both of those were production bikes which were sold and used in their hundreds of thousands. The Sideways Bike isn't in production - it has been "invented" but not sold to anybody. I can't comment on the notability of banana seats as I dont know what that is. B1atv 15:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a curiosity to be sure, but it has garnered press coverage. The article provides a link to a BBC article, and a search through Google News shows coverage in the Boston Globe amongst others. The articles are behind pay-to-view walls, but do look to be different from the BBC article, and look like they are distinct from each other satisfying the condition of multiple reliable sources. -- Whpq 20:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I forgot to add that I searched using the terms "Michael Killian" sideways. -- Whpq 20:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 09:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. —Gavin Collins 09:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if the argument for deletion is non-notable, then it should be a definite keeper. "Odd" news coverage is still coverage, and meets "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Paulbrock 15:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 22:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Gutierrez

Appears to fail WP:BIO. Self-published author with a blog, no secondary sources. 328 unique Google hits for "Christopher Gutierrez" (not all of them relevant). Article also reads like a press release. Kurt Shaped Box 21:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOT#MYSPACE. Or Livejournal or .... you get the point. Into The Fray ^T/C 00:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Asserts notabilty. However, no verifiably reliable sources cited at all, so it might as well be original research. I'll change my mind if someone can convince me that this clearly passes WP:BLP. Bearian 23:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 22:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MaNGOS

Non-notable. Google search for MaNGOS+emulator doesn't reveal any reliable sources to establish notability. The article is "referenced", but all of the sources cited are the project's sourceforge page, forum, and codebase. --Darkwind (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's because "emulator" is a wrong term, it's an opensource server. google search for "mangos server" --150.101.113.70 06:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Doesn't change anything; there are still no reliable sources in the first 6 pages of that Google search. All I could find were forums, server listings, Digg (which isn't "reliable"), etc. If you have the patience to go past page 6 and find something reliable (I don't), be my guest. --Darkwind (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: According to the sixth entry on google, there is a reliable source, furthermore you can still browse sourceforge for additional information, better check before you do another accusation!
Delete as primary sources do not assert notbability. --Gavin Collins 09:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 22:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SCAR Resource Library

nn software library, with few sources. OSborn^arf 21:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- OSborn^arf 23:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as no evidience of notability provided. --Gavin Collins 09:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 22:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ascent (emulator)

Non-notable. I was unable to locate any reliable sources to establish notability for this emulator through a Google search on ascent+emulator. All the results were forum posts and the software's official website. --Darkwind (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say this is pretty reliable. [4] I would also say 90% of servers listed on the linked site are using the Ascent Emulator. In other words, it IS a notable project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.100.220.165 (talk) 05:47, September 15, 2007 (UTC)— 203.100.220.165 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment: xtremetop100.com is not a reliable source. Also, popularity != notability. --Darkwind (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as article fails WP:NOSPAM. --Gavin Collins 09:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 09:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Churches Covered and Connected in Covenant

Non-notable church group. No WP:RS to indicate passing WP:ORG. A total of 8 G-Hits. Contested prod. Leuko 21:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. Alpta 21:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ORG. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Random Editor. Also, zero cited sources, and notability of a group is not inherited from its founder and keynote speaker. Bearian 23:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per all above (8 hits in google!). Raystorm (¿Sí?) 13:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Jelly the Supermodel 16:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clanbase

not actually notable, is it??? Didn't think so. CobaltBlueTony 21:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Proving notability would require much more than I see here, and my searching didn't reveal anything notable other than self-promotional material. Accounting4Taste 21:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- OSborn^arf 23:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one liner fails WP:ORG. --Gavin Collins 01:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete meets neither WP:ORG nor WP:WEB Percy Snoodle 12:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, delete. • Lawrence Cohen 16:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Verry short article with no assertation of notability. ff m 16:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete While Clanbase is one of the largest gaming websites/tournaments in the world, this comes nowhere near an article. -- Laurens Hoek 14:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rise to awe

Appears to fail WP:BAND. Pekaje 20:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--JForget 01:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes version history

Reminder: This is not a vote. It is an attempt to achieve a consensus. Please keep all arguments relevant and supported.

This is not specifically covered by WP:NOT but I would think falls under the general criteria in WP:NOT that is any of a very long list of other terrible ideas. The terrible idea should be covered under WP:Not a software change log - this is a general readers encyclopedia and this belongs on a ipod wiki. Everytime I look at this, I think WTF. Fredrick day 20:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In line with comments below, I'd be happy with the article being transwiki'd. --Fredrick day 21:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~-User has not given any valid reason to delete it, as it is not specifically covered by WP:NOT. However, other than the latest versions for older OS section, I think that the changelog is not very appropriate for Wikipedia. So, I am neutral. Josephberte-Talk 20:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The specific reason I have given is that it falls under the general section that states that the named critera at WP:NOT is not exclusive and that it can cover any of a very long list of other terrible ideas. This is is a terrible idea, who besides an itunes spotter wants to know about every bug fix. itunes is notable but that does not mean that notability is passed down to any article we wanted to created. I did try and see what guidelines we had on software but bizzarely, the software notability page is a historical page - so this article falls seems to fall into a grey area of policy but it's still a terrible idea - and maybe this nom should form a precedent for change logs. Fredrick day 21:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you for the clarification, I change my vote to Delete. However, I do want the 'iTunes platform compatibility' section copied into the main 'iTunes' article similar as with the QuickTime article, I put a lot of time into finding those latest versions, so yeah. So, Delete is now my official vote. Thank youJosephberte-Talk 21:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but clean up the minor releases (i.e. bug fixes in an x.y.z release). Having a timeline of major new features, such as support for new iPod models, is useful. (Plus, it can keep clutter out of the iTunes article.) Fixing the bug with extra spaces after the name in the iTunes Store isn't notable. (Yet every time they fix a bug like this, Apple wants me to download a new copy of iTunes at 56 MB. What a waste of time and bandwidth.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I agree with Elkman that this is useful (I came across this afd after checking the article the way I usually do after getting a download notice on iTunes). I don't see how WP:NOT applies in any sense - I'm not convinced it's a "terrible idea" and I have no idea what an iTunes spotter is. However, if it is deleted I don't see how wikipedia will suffer, and I guess I can get my information elsewhere. --Joelmills 00:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spotter is an english term, we use it to describe people who have an interest in information that is of little or no interest to others. That why I say it's only of interest to ipod spotters. Fredrick day 08:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. --Joelmills 04:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but trim - The article should be kept, however, not every minor tweak probably needs to be noticed. Perhaps streamline the article a bit. Someone somewhere *should* keep a thorough version history for a program like iTunes - not necessarily Wiki. HOWEVER, the more noteworthy version changes are definitely worth keeping around. DJBullfish 9:32, 14 September (UTC)
~~Neutral~~-I'm changing back to neutral, I think that it can be useful with tweaking or perhaps moved to here.Josephberte-Talk 22:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely Strong Keep This is an extemely useful article (its usefulness revolves around the fact that you have to redownload iTunes everytime its released, which for low bandwidth users, is just too much for features you a. dont want, b. dont need or c. are to small to justify the download), I agree it needs more meat, like instead of mentioning new features and fixes, name them and explian them. But this articles usefulness alone should make it a keeper
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 23:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Transwiki. Unmaintainable, unencyclopedic, and unreferenced. Ferdiaob and others: please see Arguments to Avoid in deletion discussions, and especially WP:USEFUL. I'm not opposed to transwiki'ing it to another Wiki (as Josephberte suggested) and linking from the iTunes article, but this just really doesn't deserve its own article. A list of the locations of all the parking meters in New York City is certainly useful, but it doesn't deserve its own article. Mysekurity 05:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is not unmaintainable, because it’s been maintained since its inception. I’ve read and conformed with WP:Useful, in that I've stated its usefulness, then provided a valid reason. One reference would be required, which is Apple Downloads which lists the features added, and this is where they are sourced from when they are added to the article.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 11:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...So explain to me why it wouldn't be a good idea to have a list of parking meters in NY? There's a website and everything for it.... (Oh, and why is this any more useful than someone just going to the Official Apple page, and less useful than having it on another wiki?) -Mysekurity 05:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

because a list of parking meters in New York has no viable use, wheres this does, the offical website doesnt have a changelog and it might as well be on this one because with a little work it'll easly meet all the bs standards that are set down. There, done.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 12:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I drive around new york a lot and need to know where they are - it's useful to me - that's the same standard we are applying here isn't it? --Fredrick day 13:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not even close, if you read Wikipedia while your driving then your friends will have a funeral to attend I'm afraid, while I'm downloading my programs, Wikipedia is more then accessable. (So in other words this is the distinction between an online resource and a real world one.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 20:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer the question. Why is the iTunes changelog any more worthy of being placed on Wikipedia than any other piece of software (e.g. Mozilla Firefox)? That's why the Mozilla wiki was created! There's got to be some equivalent for the iPod, no? Oh here we go: the iPod Wiki, at Wikipedia's cousin-site, Wikia! The iTunes article should take a hint from the Firefox article and only list major changes that actually affect users, if that much. -Mysekurity 22:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did answer the question, and iTunes isnt more worthy than any other piece of software, they should all be aloud to have an article of this nature, just like the parking meters in a city, if thats what an editor desides to do, your the one who wants to compare the two, I never once said parking metres shouldnt have one, personally I would only vote delete on an article if it had some copywrite violation. And also, read the article, the changes have been stripped down, which would have been easy todo without someone jumping the gun like this, there was 9 days between thefirst suggestion for improvement, and the AfD, which I'm sorry, Isn't enough by half.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 23:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(bringing it back out). The problem with that logic is that Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia. There are simply too many topics to cover and not enough good contributors to cover them. Without our system of rules and guidelines, Wikipedia would fall to disorder like so many other free-for-all content encyclopedias. And 9 days is plenty of time—some would even argue too much time—for significant improvement; just look at what happened since the AfD went up... The article, in all its changes, lost any useful information. The tables are bland and laborious to read, and if anything, and even better candidate for deletion. This article violates several of the WP:NOT guidelines, and much of the content would be better useful elsewhere. If you like, I can transwiki it personally. -Mysekurity 02:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, you could leave it where it is, and no, in an encyclopedia of 2 million plus articles, 9 days to totally revamp and article is nowhere near enough, I'd say about 5 editors saw the complaint on the talk page, yes, encluding myself, but I'm too busy with other things to revamp it myself, if you dont like the tables revert the change, at the end of the day its the infomation that matters, not its layout.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 12:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral-Not the kind of stuff that is in an encyclopedia--at least not outside a trimemd version on the iTunes article... BUT I use it all the time and there is no other iTunes changelog on the web. Using iTunes has always been a pain (but required if you have an iPod), and it is less of a pain if you have a third party NARCing on what changes are being made. --Mrcolj 23:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs a LOT of maintenance, I've seen duplicated "new" features, i.e. both v7.0 and v7.0.2 say they add support for the 2g shuffle and 2g nano..Josephberte-Talk 17:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI-I've revamped the entire page, please go see it and comment on it Josephberte-Talk 18:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like, keep at it. Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 20:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also to add an important point Josephberte also added references for each verson change
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 21:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, not yet, I've only added it for some.. Trying to finish it tonight..Josephberte-Talk 22:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Actually, I think it should be deleted, but moved to another site.. Mrcolj is right, I don't think it's useful here at Wikipedia, but very much so on say MacRumors wiki or iPod wikia... Josephberte-Talk 04:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources and not encyclopedic. It's just a list, not really an article. Doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I'd hate to see any article that is just a version history list for any piece of software. -- Atamasama 15:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup, after Josephberte's edits, I think it should be kept, (and the article does have some sourses). Its useful when considered in parallel with iPod development for the last 6 years, it's significant developments (windows, video, podcast, etc.. support) [If not it should be merged with iTunes, which is already overcrowded] Epson291 04:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article acts as a timeline of iTunes and shows how it's been developed over the years, plus it does have references. I don't see any reason to delete it. Hurball 11:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep - All other pages has similar thing, why can't this, needs source. Jelly the Supermodel 16:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- — Jelly the Supermodel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep - Everything on this page is accurate. It is hard to reference it because the information has been deleted from the Apple website. It is interesting to be able to go along and see when certain features where added, ect. I say keep it and revert it to the way it was a little bit ago, before this huge discussion, with screen shots. Get rid of the long ugly table. Cartman0052007 19:18, 18 September (UTC)
- — Cartman0052007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep - This page is accurate and contains information that is not on the Apple website (and certainly not easy to find). I use it every time a new version comes out to look up the changes. I think this is a valuable article that should not be removed. jaw959 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What the person directly above said. Willnz0 20:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Everything on this page appears accurate, and is very difficult to find anywhere other than here. I don't think that 'it belongs elsewhere' (a la Fredrick day's comment at top of page) is enough of a reason to delete it - since when did we censor content based solely on some mission statement? I was under the impression that, as a 'general reader's encyclopedia' it made even more sense to include things that are pertinent to the readership, and based on the above it is apparent that this definitely falls into that category. Nitsky416 04:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- — Nitsky416 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep — The nominator gives me no compelling reason as to why this article should be deleted as I'm not convinced this is a "terrible idea". I'm convinced by those in favour of keeping this article that there is room for improvement, furthermore I advise all uncited content be removed until such a time adequate citations can be provided. Matthew 13:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely Strong Keep This article isn't just useful and easy to refer to as well as being one of the most visited pages on Wikipedia, it also has quite a few links to external sites, some sites referring back to it, as well as a strong hold in many major search engines. If this does get deleted, a cut down version should at least be added. I also prefer the older version of the page, keep the sources and use the older page with the photo's. Cleaner and more informative. 172.159.77.129 00:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this is what wiki is about. Bob.lanahan 15:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I needed some quick info on this topic and wiki was the first stop. Isn't that what wiki is all about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.250.86 (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not encyclopedic. (Can you imagine looking this up in Brittanica?) While WP:ITSUSEFUL, borders on listcruft. shoy 02:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow that logic and you can probably go ahead and delete a solid 60% of Wikipedia, the thing that makes Wikipedia great is the fact that it contains things that are not in Britanica or even Encarta.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 11:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point was not that Wikipedia shouldn't have articles that Brittanica doesn't, it was that this type of information doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. shoy 12:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same point as above, wikipedias scope is more the enought to encompase this, infact revisions to iTunes effects more people then the ammendments to the united states constitution, maybe I should go AfD that.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 15:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While it may be on the cusp so to speak, there is a definite usefulness to it, and the others above have said that when they get the notice about the new iTunes update, they (myself included) come here to see if it is worth our time and bandwith to download or not. If it goes, i'd like to see it transwikied so the information would remain available.-MBK004 05:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Cannot be moved to iTunes article due to length, the program is popular enough and very commonplace on computers due to the software required to easily sync files to the iPod, the article recently got overhawled with an improved layout, very useful for comparing versions of the program when other websites including the official Apple site makes the changes unclear until you install the software. I personally check here every time a new version is released to see the changes. It is overall a very useful article. --Lakeyboy 11:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 04:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J.D. Ryan

A sidekick from a non-syndicated regional talk show. No legitimate independent sources to establish notability Cap'n Walker 19:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, no one has an opinion? Cap'n Walker 14:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Cap'n Walker 06:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cap'n Walker (talk • contribs)

Weak keep There are many radio personailities listed in WP. Why is this one less important then the others? --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 19:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some radio personalities are notable, some aren't. Same is true with actors, authors, etc. I don't think this side-kick has accomplished enough to merit a Wikipedia page. And, of course, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Cap'n Walker 23:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sidekicks are not inherently notable persons. Possibly a speedy as it violates WP:BLP as having zero verifiable, reliable sources. Bearian 23:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Watchingthevitalsigns 11:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mackensen (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kano riot of 1990

There were notable riots in Kano in 1953, more than one in the 1980s (Maitatsine's followers), in 1991, and later than that, but I can find no reference to any significant interreligious conflict in Kano in the year 1990. Picaroon (t) 19:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to either Kano or a new article covering the various Kano wars if there are significant info and sources available, otherwise merge to the main article. It seems to be very notable events, although giving possibly that there is not necessarily a whole lot of web info on the riots (although book sources may be aplenty) I would first create if an individual article is warrented a main article about the riots first and progressing to split articles if it is possible. --JForget 23:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that this riot either didn't happen, possibly the author's confusion with the October 1991 riot, or it did happen but was too minor to be covered by news sources (and if it isn't covered by news sources, it is not likely to be covered by any reliable source). Civil unrest is not an oddity in Nigeria, and riots are not automatically notable. Picaroon (t) 00:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kano Watchingthevitalsigns 11:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has absolutely no usable content, and the unusable content is of disputed accuracy. There is nothing to merge. Picaroon (t) 00:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Picaroon. Kano has been the scene of many a riot, but not in 1990. There is indeed nothing to merge. -- Ankimai 23:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War. While there are lots of strong opinions all around, it seems that no one really dislikes the content — most problems center around it being a POV fork. I'm not going to opine on this, but a merger seems to strike the best balance between the three opinions expressed here — it will allow expansion of the article in an organic fashion into a legitimate daughter article (as opposed to any accusations of fork). It will also retain the content, which is the general concern of a majority of the keep arguments. Overall, I think while the delete/merge argument may at best only be a general plurality here, the arguments made in the merger arguments are the most compelling towards actually making something useful from this article. I've redirected the page. Interested editors can merge from the history. --Haemo 03:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assassinations and murders attributed to the LTTE

As the author of this article, I can say that this has long since ceased to fulfill the requirements WP:LIST and is currently a POV fork of Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War with a neutral title. This is also a violation of WP:SYN Taprobanus 19:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This is not a majority vote. If someone brought this page to your attention, or you brought this page to others' attention, please make a note of this fact here. While widespread participation is encouraged, the primary purpose of this page is to gauge consensus of a representative sample of Wikipedians; therefore, it's important to know whether someone is actively soliciting others from a non-neutral location to discuss. Such contributors are not prohibited from commenting, but it's important for the closing administrator or bureaucrat to know how representative the participants are of Wikipedians generally. See Wikipedia:Canvassing.

Delete This article is a POV fork that covers assanation by one side and not all the sides of the conflict. There is another article,Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War, that covers everything on this list. Also per nom. Watchdogb 21:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a sub article of LTTE, containing the names of all people assassinated by the LTTE. Listing them all at LTTE#Assassinations would largely clutter the main article, which is already 71KB. Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War contains people who have nothing to do with the LTTE. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:SIZE, we have over 70,000 people dead in Sri Lanka either killed by the government of Sri Lanka or its minions or the LTTE. Are we going to add everybody allegedly killed by the LTTE in this list? Currently the list looks like one as long as a source (never mind relibale) says that the LTTE did, it has been attached to this list. Remember we are trying to create an encylopedia not a propaganda list, for that we have lists made by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (a biased source) and Defence department of Sri Lanka (another biased source). That's why reasonable people decided to create an article called Notable assasinations and because just two people refused one editor suggested it be put in AFD. Notable assasinations will at some point include ONLY notable people killed in the Sri lankan civil war not the 70,000 or anybodies wishlist. Thanks Taprobanus 18:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does it look to you like there are 70,000 people listed here? Has anyone tried listing the names of 70,000 people in this article? Are there people listed here who had nothing notable about them apart from the fact that they were killed by the LTTE? The rest of your comment makes little sense ("Currently the list looks like one as long as a source"???) so I'm don't really know how to reply to it. I'll just say, the article title doesn't have to include the word "notable" to prevent needless trivial information included in it. It is a basic principle of Wikipedia that only notable facts are included in articles. An article about Sri Lanka isn't titled Notable facts about Sri Lanka, an article about the 9/11 attacks isn't Notable facts about the September 11th attacks. That just goes without saying. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any Heads of Governments or Cabinet ministers or Members of Parliment killed in 9/11 attacks. Nevertheless like Joseph Stalin once said Death of one man is a tragedy; The death of millions is a statistic. Unfortunately it is the lack of that one man the reason the 9/11 article doesn't have a notable word on the title. Cheers ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε^†αLҝ 22:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that comment doesn't make much sense to me. What are you trying to say? My point was, Wikipedia articles don't need to have the word "notable" in their titles. If something is included in an article, it has to be notable. That's why the article about Sri Lanka is Sri Lanka, not Notable facts about Sri Lanka. The same goes here. Only notable people are included in this article. There is no reason to have the word "notable" in the title. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 07:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are loads of topics in Wikipedia that have notable in the title[5],[6], [7]. ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε^†αLҝ 07:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because other editors create incorrect article titles, that doesn't mean we have to follow suit. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 12:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think its not right then please point that out in those article talk pages do. Won't it be the right thing to do if you strongly believe that? ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε^†αLҝ 13:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have more creative things to do on Wikipedia than going around correcting article titles. This AFD is about Assassinations and murders attributed to the LTTE, and no other. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 13:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wanted to know for sure that if you will correct all wikipedia entries or go about it only with specific articles. Once again this is for the closing admin to have a look at. ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε^†αLҝ 13:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, and is it because you support vandalism on Wikipedia that you don't revert *every* single act of vandalsim on *every* single article? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 13:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would correct or atleast point out the ones which are incorrect. That is my ethos afterall. Cheers ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε^†αLҝ 13:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I'm really not going to waste my time replying to your arguments. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as per the author of the article further it is WP:OR as none of the killings have been investigated independently further People associated with such killings like Karuna are not being persecuted by the Sri Lankan government.It is a clear POV fork.Pharaoh of the Wizards 21:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"People associated with such killings like Karuna are not being persecuted by the Sri Lankan government" umm... so? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 22:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Well sourced, accurate and verifiable article. It is currently used as the main article for the assassinations section of the LTTE article, in line with other similar pages created to reduce the size of the LTTE article. The LTTE article is currently is 71KB. Moving this stuff back wouldn't make sense and will violate article size policy.

I don't see how this violates WP:SYN. There are no cases where, for example, a source which says "xyz was killed ... the LTTE was active in the area" was contorted in the article to say "therefore the LTTE killed him". All sources directly attribute the murders to the LTTE. The nominator hasn't mentioned what parts of WP:LIST it violates.

And note, who the original creator of this article was has no relevance to this AFD. The article has been improved much from the initial, racist if I must add, version.[8] (Taprobanus originally tried to limit the article to list only people of the Sri Lankan Tamils race who were killed by the LTTE).

It is also interesting to note, the alleged "POV fork" (i.e. this article) was created 6 months before the notable assassinations article, which has a lot of disputed claims and is far from being a good article. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 22:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA, this is a WP:LIST that masquerades as an article. The list has long since outlived lists cardinals reasons for existence, that is as a development reminder to readers to develop red linked articles. Every notable person in this article now has their own article mostly developed. Further the title attributed does not sound very encyclopedic, it indicates that all the accusations are just that accusations not for sure, hence it has become a magnet for people to attach anyone killed in Sri Lanka to this list. But we know Sri Lanka is a Killing field. But we have another problem, this list fails in the title WP:NPOV completely. Hence many neutral Wikipedians in the past tried to create anew more neutral title and worked on it diligently see here, here and here. It was opposed by just few people. It was suggested that an AFD will solve the impasse, hence this AFD. (see below the quote) Taprobanus 13:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Since this is not an official mediation, and since the three opposing editors have not applied for WP:SLR membership, I have no mandate or obligation to represent them. Nevertheless, I want to regard their needs. The fact that we see some unconvincing arguments could indicate that there are other, unexpressed, needs which the "... LTTE" article satisfies. If that is the case, then there could be more at stake than just a harmless redirect. If that is the case, then I recommend bringing it up on WP:AFD." — Sebastian 19:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If you think I personally attacked you, why not report me at WP:AN/I?

"as a development reminder to readers to develop red linked articles."

A good dose of reading WP:LIST may be in order here. Among the first few sentences, "The list may be a valuable information source". This one is. Like I said, please don't try to bring up ownership of articles. What reason you created it for has no bearing on this AFD.

"the title attributed does not sound very encyclopedic"

The criteria of inclusion of content on Wikipedia is verifiability. All cases here have verifiable been linked to the LTTE by reliable sources. In fact, the term "attributed" in the title makes it as neutral as could be, as opposed to a title in the order of Assassinations and murders carried out by the LTTE.

"a magnet for people to attach anyone killed in Sri Lanka to this list"

I find that a blatantly untrue comment, which you should withdraw unless you can back it up with evidence. Which random person killed in Sri Lanka was added to this list?

"this list fails in the title WP:NPOV completely"

This is an article broken off from the main LTTE article due to size constraints. That is a universally accepted Wiki procedure. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say all sources say that the X did it, any cursory look at this article say other than about 10% of the people listed here all the accusations come from Defense Department of Sri Lanka (a biased source), South Asia Terrorism Portal (A biased source) and may I add the source that I extensively use UTHR which can only be used as attributed because per WP:REDFLAG you need more than one WP:RS sources that agree this murder was carried out by X. 90% of the listed people in this WP:LIST are based on biased sources or single source. That is a big problem with this entire article then if you look at 90% people listed in this list they fail WP:NOTABLE completely. For example an entire section called

Poets and writers

Chelian Perinpanayagam Writer, Journalist former Mayor of Batticalao [21]

Natpudduminai Faleel Poet, Assistant Government Agent [22]

Chasy Krishnamoorthy

I am sorry to say, if you do a search on them you will fail miserably to find any information about them, this problem abounds for about 90% of the people listed here. This article has no legitimate Wikipedia rules to stand on. Thats' why my comment at some point all the 70,000 people dead in Sri Lanka will show up here. More later. Thanks 14:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taprobanus (talk • contribs)

Your figures are getting more and more ludicrous. 90% of the people here are not notable? Where did you get that from? Just 10% are reliably sourced? Honestly, it'll be funny if this wasn't such a serious matter. The criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not "truth". That is why the article is not Assassinations and murders carried out by the LTTE. The word attributed is in the title for a reason; that is to make the article abide WP:NPOV. And remember, we aren't writing separate articles about these people, it's a listing of notable people (parliamentarians, mayors, activists, journalists etc) who's killing have been reliably attributed to the LTTE.

About the three people you mention above, you added them to the article, not anyone else. If there is a problem with some of the entries not having reliable information about then, that calls for the names of those people to be taken off the list, not for the entire article to be deleted.--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling other people silly, ludicrous and hilarious only points to dearth in ones own arguments. But thanks you for being yourself :) makes my life much easier. Cio Taprobanus 18:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This is a through documentation on actual facts on LTTE. This article has been in Wiki for a longer time. The person who suggested this article to be removed, Taprobanus, has created another article with the same facts from this article. Now he wants to promote his article by deleting this detailed piece of work. None of the facts mentioned in this article cannot be argued agaisnt. This is article about LTTE and its activities and it should be here for users information. Actual facts are presented here.Supermod 02:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did the original thorough documentation but under a non neutral tile, after my initial work may be a few more references that too many non WP:RS has been added further I did not create the other more neutral article. It was created by a another wikipedian (see here). Please have you facts before accusing others of bad faith. Do read WP:AGF. Thanks Taprobanus 13:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Bad faith nomination. As me and many of other fellow wikipedians know already, nominator is a heavy contributor to racist tamil web-sites and I wonder whether he has any ethics to question the nuetrality of this article. Article give ample information about LTTE's criminal activities and its not surprising that some poeple take this personally and want to get rid of these TRUTHs. Let truth prevail again ,this time .Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 04:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NPA, it is one thing vote in an AFD but dont forget your WP:CIVILilty along the way. Thanks Taprobanus 13:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

here we have some one who probably have violated tons of wikipedians policies, including the same ones he mentions above ,talking about civility. As long as you violate WP:COI i will not hesitate not mention it. Even if your friends come and block me again. And really thanks for that joke you made at the pawn farm discussion page. Actually I couldn't stop laughing for a while seeing how good you are in your Sinhalese. reminds me my old friend, wikrama, wonder what he is doing now..any idea ?? Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 17:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War or move to less of a troll-magnet of a title. Don't burden Afd with obvious redirect/merge/move candidates such as this. --dab (𒁳) 09:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dab please see here and here we tried to merge to a neutral title but few people objected and some suggested that the only way to resolve it is through an AFD this this AFD. Thanks Taprobanus 12:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with the notable assassinations article will not work, as the primary use of this article is as a sub-article of the LTTE page. Using the notable assassinations article as the sub-article instead will not make sense, as some of the people mentioned there have nothing to do with the LTTE. Any suggestions about a less troll magnet title? Since all the entries included here are attributed by reliable sources to the LTTE, like I said about, I would think it's probably the most NPOV title we could have, rather that a title like Assassinations carried out by the LLTE. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are clever ways around it by creating a subsection under the Notable assassinations attributed to the LTTE and making that the main link article on main article about the LTTE under assassinations section or create a redirect for Assassinations carried out by the LTTE to the Notable assasinations article and make the Assassinations carried out by the LTTE as the main link for the LTTE main article under assasinations section. Thanks Taprobanus 16:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By implication, merging means this article will be redirected to the other. That will not resolve the problem I pointed out, as the sub-article will still have a bunch of people in it that have nothing to do with the LTTE. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 07:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vey simple the sub article can have section on LTTE Taprobanus 12:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That will not solve the problem of having a bunch of people completely unrelated to the LTTE in the other article. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 13:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletions. —--♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 10:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Assassinations and murders attributed to the LTTE is attributed assassinations which may not be established, whereas Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War contains well established and somewhat investigated assassinations. NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 11:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S in case both the articles are containing the same we have to segregate established and attributed assassinations into these two articles. NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 11:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Netmonger you are the one who suggested that this title is not neutral and should be re directed to another more neutral tile and you even agreed and voted with many neutral wikipedians in the vote. See here Then how can you vote to keep it now? Thanks Taprobanus 12:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do articles on "assassinations which may not be established" (did you know John Siegenthaler is dead?) dab (𒁳) 13:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, I made the mistake when I created it a year ago, it has to go. It is not encyclopedic Taprobanus 15:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well opinions change overtime don't they Raveen? NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 06:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don’t know who Raveen is but I can tell you with time I am more aware of Wikipedia rules not just opinions. My opinion has always been that LTTE has killed scores of innocent civilians including Tamils . It has killed notable Tamils too who may require an entry in Wikipedia such as Chelvy Thiyagarajah, Relangi Selvarajah and others and we have created articles on them. But this article as it stands is a crap magnet that becomes an endless list of all non notable assassinations in Sri Lanka that some biased source thinks can be pinned on the LTTE. The South Asian Terrorism portal lists Nadarajah Raviraj as categorically killed by the LTTE. Now that is a blatant attempt at trying get the real culprits go. That source has become the bedrock of this article. That un reliable source to go from Wikipedia and this article has to be merged per User:Dab Taprobanus 13:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me keep this short, Raveen is your previous user name :-)(i.e. before you renamed your self to Taprobanus) NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 07:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been around Wikipedia for a long time and by now you should know that according Harassament guideline which says It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives.. Hence you cannot talk about alleged change of names. It is a clear cut violation. Thanks Taprobanus 14:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Even if well documented, this is a strange article that could set potentially volatile precedents for other topics, not worth the trouble--Kathanar 12:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Not worth the trouble"? Maybe not for you. And if splitting a large article into a smaller ones per WP:SIZE is a "potentially volatile precedent", then yes, it should be deleted. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Were parts of this article merged into the "Notable assassinations" article? If so, per the GFDL, someone would either have to do a history merge or the article would need to be redirected to preserve the contributions history. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article was merged into "Notable assassinations" article per talk discussion. Thanks Taprobanus 20:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As is pretty obvious, all individuals listed here are not listed on the other article. A majority of the citations in this article are also not in the other one, leaving that a highly disputed mess. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please compare both the articles and you will see that this article was the starting point for the other under a neutral name per talk page discussion. Thanks Taprobanus 14:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Initial reasons for the creation of articles have no relevance here. The fact remains, this article is a sub-article of LTTE. Adding this list back will negatively reflect the other article. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 07:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Real surprizing to see this article facing AFD. I see no reason why this article should be deleted. "POV Fork" funda given in the nom really doesn't make sense, for the obvious reason explained above by SnowolfD4. - KNM ^Talk 05:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete There is already an entry Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War where this can be included. ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε^†αLҝ 13:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the comments above. The two articles exist for two separate reasons. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. As per Black Falcon if the parts of this article is merged into the "Notable assassinations" article, then either the history merge or redirection to preserve the contributions history, should be done.Lustead 15:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per above Travb (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This article is verifiable and it is in line with Wikipedia policies and also it is referring to the sub topic of the Sri Lankan civil war. The details are supported with citations from Reliable Sources (RS). The format of the article also as per common Wikipedia style. I am surprised about the nomination of this article for deletion, because the things already happened and it has legal proof on the details. The country like India has conduct an investigation about the murder of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and legally proved that the LTTE is responsible for the murder (this one also to be added into the article). The other important fact is the number of people murdered by the LTTE is very high in number and this article is classified the victims into groups such as "State Leaders", "Journalists" as per the Wikipedia style of formatting. --Lanka07 15:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The article cites many references for details listed. Certainly the article is encyclopedic and informative. The article is not WP:LIST as accused in the nom. Gnanapiti 17:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your compliments but we haveeven a better article, see discussion Thanks Taprobanus 12:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well cited.Dineshkannambadi 22:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your compliments, I cited 90% of them but that is not the point. The point is the consensus on the talk page was to redirect to Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War but because of the holdout of few this AFD. Just like you observed here, that article too is well sourced but is balanced in its title per WP:NPOV and content. We list all WP:NOTABLE assassinations during the Sri Lankan civil war done by all parties. This is become a WP:LIST of every body dead is Sri Lanka that is attributable to the LTTE by any source and most of them are biased sources such as the Defense department of Sri Lanka and South Asia Portal for Terrorism. Hence this situation is untenable. Thanks Taprobanus 13:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you blatantly lying like this? You cited 90% of the content? Every body dead is Sri Lanka that is attributable to the LTTE is listed here? That is just absolute bs, and like above, I suggest you retract your comments. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My, my just cool down , have you read WP:NPA lately ? it says concentrate on the subject matter not the person. Anyway this was the last version that I edited as part of creating this article since then other editors have added biased sources such as defense department of Sri Lanka and South Asia Portal of Terrorism. These are unreliable sources and are making accusations that are governed by WP:REDFLAG. Redflag clearly says that you need more than one reliable source make such fundamental accusations as to X killed Y. Further this article unlike the other Notable one does not even have the qualifier that the dead person has to be notable. Because of that anybody killed in Sri Lanka by anyone that can be pinned on LTTE (dont tell me it does not happen, it happens on both sides) by biased sources such as the Defense department of Sri Lanka and the South Asian Terrorism Portal will find its way to this list. Then this is no better than anybodies propaganda wish list just to score political points. I hope you understand why neutral Wikipedians prefer the Notable article over this. Thanks Taprobanus 17:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to you, I think you need to write an essay Wikipedia:How to completely ignore your past silly comment, by Raveen. I don't know anyone who does that better that you. Since you seem unable to read what I posted above, I'll just copy it here

Does it look to you like there are 70,000 people listed here? Has anyone tried listing the names of 70,000 people in this article? Are there people listed here who had nothing notable about them apart from the fact that they were killed by the LTTE? The rest of your comment makes little sense ("Currently the list looks like one as long as a source"???) so I'm don't really know how to reply to it. I'll just say, the article title doesn't have to include the word "notable" to prevent needless trivial information included in it. It is a basic principle of Wikipedia that only notable facts are included in articles. An article about Sri Lanka isn't titled Notable facts about Sri Lanka, an article about the 9/11 attacks isn't Notable facts about the September 11th attacks. That just goes without saying. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 21:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

Strong Keep - I am not at all surprised that some individuals with a POV want to delete this article. But the article sites facts, or at worst strongly supported indictments, as well as cases established by judical inquiry (as is the case of rajeev Gandhi). A lot of people would find this article a valuable source, and they can use their independent judgements regarding the validity of the material. This article has to be in an on-line encyclopeda like Wiki.Bodhi dhana 01:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Rename - The content no doubt is relevant and deserves a page. The title is unwieldy. However there also needs to be a relevant page for the Lankan government, its not like they dont have blood on their hands.Baka man 05:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a neutral title article that was developed per discussion, it is called Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War. That artcle is a exact copy ofthsi plus more. So we have two articles dealing with the same subject. One with a crappy title and prone to reflect Wikipedia in a bad light and the other written per WP:NOTABLE and WP:NPOVand WP:RS rules including the title. This needs to be merged with the other and the title deleted. That was the concensus of most who participated in the talk page discussion. Taprobanus 12:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions on a rename Bakaman? And there already was a page about the Sri Lankan government. It contained zero entries and was deleted, if I recall right, following a expired prod. Not exactly sure what the article name was, but Assassinations attributed to Sri Lankan government forces was one of the redirects to it.--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of having two POV article on accusing the LTTE and the other accusing the SL government we intend to have one neutral article. Taprobanus 14:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually two POV articles will be much easier to write and document that one article which will be almost impossible to make neutral. We have to ignore some rules here, in the spirit of efficacy.Baka man 16:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But do look at the neutral article we have come up with, it is a great outcome due to collaborative effort, we reallydont need POV articles when we have a way to resolve them through a neutral one. Thanks Taprobanus 19:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral? It kind of a mess, with {{fact}} and {{disputed}} tags everywhere. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 13:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the point is ? Taprobanus 18:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want to replace a good article with an inferior one? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 20:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to replace an article that does not conform to wikipedia rules and guidelines and will always prone to edit warring with one that conforms to wikipedia guidelines and can be appropritaely edited in the future. Thanks 13:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taprobanus (talk • contribs)

First it is your opinion that it doesn't abide by Wiki policy. Official wiki policy contradicts that. To quote WP:SPINOUT

Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article... This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure... Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork.

There are two exceptions mentioned

However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking... However, it is possible for article spinouts to become POV forks. If a statement is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article XYZ, then it is also inadmissible at a spinout Criticism of XYZ.

Neither of those two apply here, as the most notable assassinations have been left in the main article and it is perfectly alright if the content was left at LTTE, the only problem is the page will have been too long.

Also, when has there been an edit war on this page? Or are you going into make-believe again with that allegation? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 22:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - this shouldnt even be in AfD! I cant think of a more NPOV title either.. if anybody has suggestions for the title, come forward. But that is an issue for the article talk page.. not an AfD. Sarvagnya 22:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See here for doscussion in talk page. The concensus was to redirect except 2 people hence this AFD per talk page discussion. Thanks Taprobanus 12:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Merge per dab. The article is going to be always incendiary on wikipedia and amicable solution must be found to ensure articles don't become a magnet of future wiki conflicts. Sinhala freedom 00:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - This is obviously a POV article. If you guys are going to have a page like this, why not have a special page dedicated to Rapes and murders by the GOSL and paramilitary forces? Wiki Raja 13:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per dab. The article Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War specifically says and shows that most assassinations have been attributed to the terrorist group. Having two articles that would end up sharing 90% of the content seems an overkill. Lotlil 16:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War. This is unnecessary duplication of content with a title that is bound to attract POV. GFDL compliance/credit for the article should not be a problem since article history can be merged. utcursch | talk 05:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per dab and Lotlil. While the content of the article is notable and most definitely belongs on Wikipedia, I really don't see why we need two articles reproducing substantially the same content. (Incidentally, isn't "Notable" in Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War redundant? If it isn't notable, it doesn't belong on WP). -- Arvind 14:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should take that up in the talk page of that article. I agree it is redundant. We are learning you see:DTaprobanus 14:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To both Utcursch and Vadakkan, it'll be appreciated if you read the above comments as to why two articles currently exist. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 07:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They know how to read and have seen these arguments I suppose that's why they agree it should be merged, which the right thing to do Taprobanus 12:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion was from six months ago. Consensus can change, and comments on this AFD are more relevant. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 13:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at your exchange with Taprobanus higher up in the page. I still don't see why you simply can't divide Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War into several parts, depending on which organisation was responsible. At the end of the day, the Tigers were responsible for a significant number of the assassinations, so having a separate article for them is inevitably going to mean that the articles are virtually identical. -- Arvind 18:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do it, see if everyone is happy with the format, and then let's discuss on a related talk page (not an AFD) about how to proceed. I personally am skeptical such a solution will work, as I have pointed out above. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 20:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your whole argument was based on such a solution will not work. But as you seem to be agreeing that is a plausible scenario discussable in that talk page, then we should merge this article with that. That has been the position of many uninvolved third party wikipedians like User:Black Falcon, Sebastian and User:Shunpiker from day one. None of these guys have any stake in this civil conflict to make the other party look bad. Thanks Taprobanus 20:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read what I said again carefully. Come up with a solution agreeable to everyone and we could see what gets merged with what. Not merge and then discuss, that's not how it works.

Also, as Arvind has pointed out, if the articles are both "identical", why not merge the other one with this one, instead of vice versa? This has tons more citations, content and neutrality than the other one. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 04:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What we eventually have is that we all agree that both the articles are identical and the other one although with more fact tags has a neutral title and it is even possible that the other article can be formatted in a way that a section of it becomes the main article for the LTTE article's section on assasinations. Not just the above three neutral wikipedians who have no axe to grind in the Sri Lankan civil war but other neutral wikipedians such as Arvind, User:Wikiality123, User:Dbachmann, User:Travb and User:Utcursch agree that this article has to be merged. Everybody else who has voted here have entrenched positions in this issue. Most of them vote en mass against or for Tamil related AFDs. Hence it is important for the closing admin to look at the opinion of the neutral wikipedians who have commented on this issue in the discussion page as well as this afd about this article. As pointed out all reasons pointed out why this article should stay has been properly answered and can be resolved. If people still persist as to why this article has to stay then we should go back to the comment that User:SebastianHelm made when he tried to resolve this many months ago. He said that The fact that we see some unconvincing arguments could indicate that there are other, unexpressed, needs which the "... LTTE" article satisfies [9]. That is there is an ulterior reason to keep this article than any logical reasoning would conclude. Thanks Taprobanus 12:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Wikipedians? Come on...

This article is completely in line with WP:SIZE and WP:SPINOUT guidelines. It was broken off from the LTTE article because we can't list all people here in LTTE#Assassinations. I didn't want to go here, but what you are trying to do is get rid of a perfectly good article just because you don't want to attribute the blame of these assassinations to the LTTE. Those are ulterior motives. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 22:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletions. —--♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 15:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per nom. This article is a sub article of LTTE hence can't be merged back again without reducing the quality of the LTTE page. It's also contain lots of information which is not given in Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War article which is not well cited and listed some highly disputed information. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 06:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What made you change your mind from this consensus to redirect ?Taprobanus 20:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well opinions change overtime don't they? Like the Lankan flag in {{Sri Lankan Conflict}} ;-) --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 01:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete it is clearly a POV fork.--Kanags 00:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly is not a POV fork, per the same policy you mentioned,

"Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article... This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure... Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork." --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 01:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 12:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2006 DPR Korea League season

No meaningful content; we're told who finished 3rd and 8th, and which teams were "doing well", but that's about it. There are no references to support his meagre bit of information, either. PC78 19:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. —PC78 19:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 21:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would be worth keeping if there was a full round up of the season (final league table etc), but is mostly useless at present. Number 5 7 22:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless suitable material and sources can be found to populate the article within the AfD period. — BillC ^talk 22:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per BillC. Little and possibly random content/info.--JForget 23:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. When someone writes a more meaningful article, it can be brought back. --Malcolmxl5 22:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. This says little more than that there's a soccer league in North Korea, and that it played during the '06 season. Mandsford 22:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It would be really nice if associate author have a look at English or Spanish session articles and convert it in that fashion. Otherwise everyone will vote for delete. - Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 07:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that sort of detail simply isn't available for football in North Korea, due to the nature of the country..... ChrisTheDude 07:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 they need cleaning up as all three comments in the discussion indicate. Bduke 08:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EasyScript NoteTaking and EasyScript Speed Writing

Both seem rather spammy articles (I note that Easy Script Speed Writing by the same author was speedily deleted). Is the technique notable? -- RHaworth 19:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep both, merge, cleanup, there is enough references and books published. `'Míkka 19:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or cleanup, the two articles read like advertisements. --Izno 06:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and neutralise further, I cleaned up the article a bit, and I think that Easy Script Speed Writing can be neutralised further. Rex Imperator 23:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,author here....can you make some suggestions as to how you would like me to change them?Stheorist 18:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball delete --Haemo 05:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baconmas

What is this? A now-invented "holiday"? It's just a barbecue outside with friends, together with the instructions to make one. Content is absolutely non-encyclopedic Moloch981 18:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this made up "holiday". DCEdwards1966 19:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Baconmas is an annual holiday invented in 2007"... in other words, it's a party which has occurred once. The References section says it all, really. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The article itself celebrates the lack of sources. I can't believe this lasted so long (I also can't believe how much effort went into making the page). --Markdsgraham 21:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You need to hang around here more often. I can't believe how much effort goes into most of these pages. :) MarkBul 21:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, delete with extreme prejudice! It even dares to link to a User page for the inventor of this non-event. Corvus cornix 23:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a healthy helping of snow. Wikipedia is not for things made up while smoking pot one day. --Darkwind (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, NN, at best; made up, at worst; WP:BOLLOCKS in either case. Pete Fenelon 00:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 12:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St Leonard's C.E. Church

This church fails WP:ORG. No independent coverage is given, or has been added during the last 8 months. PROD was contested since an editor had requested more time on the talk page; but this is again more than a month ago, with no major changes. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 18:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Stormbay 22:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found this article, which had been created by single-purpose account Zcyl, among articles to be wikified from December 2006. Like a few other editors (see article history) I attempted small improvements, but I don't think it's salvageable. — Athaenara ✉ 23:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- Fayenatic (talk) 06:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not old enough to be inherently historic, i.e., to keep in without cites. Bearian 23:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 so keep. The article is sourced and fairly large. A merge could be considered further but the traget is also large. Bduke 08:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered)

This article is not about a notable encyclopedic subject. In particular, the magazine does not appear to have had any significant coverage and the article cannot be sourced by any reliable sources independent of the subject. Any useful content can be merged into Immanuel Velikovsky. Nondistinguished 16:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Talbott Nondistinguished 16:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Pensee" was a notable publication in the 'velikovsky affair' and the mileu of student activism/radicalism in the 1960s/70s. It provided a focus/catalyst forthe velikovskian movement, and the success of its publications & conferences was probably was the single biggest factor in prompting the AAAS to hold its public seminar on the whole affair. A collection of Pensee articles was published by mainstream publisher Doubleday, and the AAAS published a counter-volume with material by Sagan et al. If Carl Sagan & the American Association of the Advancement of Science thought Pensee was sufficiently notable to bother with, I don't think it's inappropriate that wikipedia has a small, neutral, well-referenced and verifiable article on them. The Immanuel Velikovsky article is probably too big already and has a tendency to suffer further bloat abd edit wars, so I don't think it's a good idea to merge this article into it.--feline1 14:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no evidence that Pensee in and of itself was the impetus for the Sagan's criticism of Velikovsky or the AAAS seminar. Therefore this claim of notability is not valid. Nondistinguished 20:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire :) This article says AAAS president Walter Orr Roberts wrote to Pensée to suggest a conference. --feline1 12:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong! According to that article Roberts wrote to S.L. Talbott, not the magazine. Nondistinguished 12:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S.L.Talbott was the publisher of the magazine, listed on its mast head.--feline1 13:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Writing a letter to a person who publishes a magazine does not imply one is writing to the magazine. The two are different activities. Nondistinguished 14:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it would be a bit silly writing to an *actual* magazine, as it's just some bits of printed paper, not a human being. I mean it would be like that time in Derek & Clive, when Derek simply "sent Robin round", as illustrated in the lengthy transcript here http://www.phespirit.info/derekandclive/ad_nauseam_13.htm (warning: contains rude words) --feline1 15:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, reading my copy of Pensée IVR 4, it reports: ""Walter Orr Roberts, astronomer, atmospheric scientist, and a past-president of the AAAS, was the first publicly to suggest a symposium on Velikovsky's controversial works. After reading a copy of the first issue in Pensee's "Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered" series, Roberts wrote to editor Stephen L. Talbott (18 July 1972): 'Perhaps the AAAS could be interested in holding a symposium on scientific logic using the Velikovsky case as a specific study. Perhaps the symposium should be narrowed down to a smaller point, in order to try to reach a conclusive position. For example, one might take the matter of In any event, I do agree with the editors of the journal ... that the public deserves a better assessment of the validity of Velikovsky's work than it has received to date ....""--feline1 19:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this seems to indicate that Roberts wrote to Talbott and not to Pensee. Nondistinguished 19:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity User:ScienceApologist isn't here to help out, I'm sure he'd be able to advise us.--feline1 19:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. It is a "brave" editor that can claim to know all, and categorically state there is no evidence. This article says AAAS president Walter Orr Roberts wrote to Pensée to suggest a conference. No Pensée, no conference, no Sagan criticism. 89.14.47.52 10:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto Reply: Er, Nondistinguished, you are just plain wrong in your assertion there. There AAAS conference, its causes & reprecussions, is pretty well documented by the various 'Velikovsky Affair' commentators; you could easily educate yourself on the facts.--feline1 12:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The anon and feline1 are offering a counterfactual reading of what happened in the so-called "Velikovsky Affair". Ellenberger points out that the offer of a symposium on Velikovsky came due to the consensus of various scientists (namely Roberts, Sagan, Gingerich, Goldsmith and King) who decided that to aid in the public relations between astronomers and the general public, they should organize a debunking conference. Roberts contacted S.L. Talbott because Talbott was the person closest to Velikovsy. It had nothing to do with his self-published magazine Pensee. Indeed there is no evidence to support this attempted claim of notability for the magazine. Nondistinguished 13:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't agree with your interpretation here - perhaps C. Leroy Ellenberger himself will be along later tell us if *he* agrees with your paraphrasing of him :) Anyways, on the other point, that Doubleday published a collection of Pensée articles, and the AAAS took them seriously enough to published a countervolume...? More generally, I think there's little point the two of us arguing back and forth about this - we clearly disagree - I think the article is fine to stay, you think all material on "pseudoscience" should be eradicated from wikipedia. Of course, you realise that that's not line which would go down well with the community, so you're always careful to insist that your criterea is WP:N et al, but your edit history belies the fact that your editorial activities are all focussed on getting rid of 'pseudoscience', rather than pruning wikipedia of fancruft, minutiae, Buffy Episode Guides and the other morass of non-notable material on the servers.--feline1 15:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my butting in here, but there is just too much disinformation being posted here. "The Genesis of a Symposium" in Pensée IVR VII (not IV as feline1 indicated), pp. 24ff (written by editor Steve Talbott tho' unsigned, as all insiders know), makes it clear that had there been no ten issue feature on Velikovsky in Pensée there would have been no AAAS session on Velikovsky in Feb. 1974. Walter Orr Roberts, a past-president of the AAAS, wrote to editor Talbott after reading Pensée IVR I suggesting some sort of session on Velikovsky would be a good idea. Letters circulated among Talbott, Roberts, AAAS officials, Sagan until June 1973 when AAAS in Science invited proposals for symposia for their February 1974 convention. "Through Dr. C.J. Ransom, a AAAS member, the editors of Pensée submitted a proposal for a symposium titled "Venus--A Youthful Planet?" The review committee rejected this specific proposal while deciding to hold a Velikovsky symposium to be sponsored by the Astronomy Committee of the AAAS, whose members were Donald Goldsmith, Ivan King, and Owen Gingerich. It was King (Steve Talbott was not involved) who then visited Velikovsky in Princeton on July 13, 1973 to present the committee's idea to him. There followed much discussion of proposals and counter-proposals, but the end result was what happened in San Francisco on Feb. 25, 1974. And it was all set in motion by David and Stephen Talbott with their "Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered" series that was advertised in several national magazines such as Psychology Today, Intellectual Digest, and Industrial Research. Phaedrus7 21:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wishes to verify the background to the inception of the AAAS symposium on Velikovsky, Pensée IVR VII can be accessed on the catastrophism.com CD or at any of the 31 libraries holding the IVR series, including UCLA, Library of Congress, Univ. Illinois, Cornell, Princeton, Indiana Univ., Univ. Oregon, Washington State U. and NYPL Res. Lib. Phaedrus7 21:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put words into my mouth. I have explained that what I want is to remove items which are not notable from the encyclopedia. The content is irrelevant. Check out some of the other AfDs I have started if you don't believe me. Impugning my character is not a very good practice and you have been blocked in the past for being belligerent. I am going to ask you to stop telling me what I believe and what my activities are "focussed on". Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, feline1. Would you appreciate it if I told you that I believed your agenda was to be an Irish malcontent who didn't do so well in his studies of chemistry at Oxford? No? Then stop telling me what my "agenda" is. Thanks. Nondistinguished 15:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I wouldn't really mind if you said that, I'd just shrug, tell you I got a 2.1, and some of my research published http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1219790 lol. That aside, if this AfD is to reach any kind of sensible conclusion, I suggest views of some more editors are sought, rather than the two of us simply going "yes it is!" "no it isn't!" at each other. --feline1 15:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Compared to other student newspapers its notability, notoriety and contributors exceeds most. If Pensée goes, then all the other student newspapers must go. 81.31.38.19 18:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for barging in, but this is ridiculous. Nondis. is asking you to stop putting word in his mouth and you go "nana, I had something published"? Whether you care about what he says of you is not the issue, the issue is that we try to be civil around here, and assume good faith. Lundse 21:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Inappropriate use of WP:ALLORNOTHING supposition. Also, the anon provides no supporting evidence for the assertion that this periodical's notability, notoriety and contributors "exceeds most". This is not a proper reason for keeping an article. Nondistinguished 20:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A minor byproduct of the Velikovsky affair--and excuse for an article listing his supporters yet again. That Sagan used it as a reference is not importance. He used a great many things as references. It was just another in theattempted defenses of Velikovsky that encouraged him to write. DGG (talk) 03:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of the contributors listed in the article were anti-Velikovsky, hardly the material to include in an article if people wanted to just "promote supporters". And a circulation of about 20,000 is hardly a "minor byproduct", when for example, the membership of the American Astronomical Society is only 6,500,[10], and its Astronomical Journal and Astrophysical Journal get a mention. 219.99.216.109 11:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no notability here. The references cited are to insider sources, and I see no secondary references that would support notability. MarkBul 20:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bauer is an independent academic who considers Velikovsky to be pseudoscience, and Alfred de Grazia is a professor of Social Theory. Kronos had no connection to Pensee, and Bauer himself said that its staff had "impeccable credentials". To suggest they are all "insider sources" would be to suggest that an article on astronomy that used astronomy sources was using insider sources. 202.89.32.166 00:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep without prejudice if an article appears where it could be merged (Delete or merge). I am having some difficulty assesing this. Velikovsky certainly is notable, but not enough to make a publication on his theories automaticaly so. If this was only important to his work, then we should merge some of this in his article, or one on his theory in general. Unless there are other reasons this is interesting, of course. Consider my vote provisional... Lundse 22:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no reason to consider this notable. I do not see that provoking the publication of a notable book is any reason for independent notability. This is part of the chain of minor controversy, and merely an attempt to get one more article out of the subject. DGG (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says please add NEW comments below the relisting notice, not post the same one again :) Statements such as "merely an attempt to get one more article out of the subject" are hardly in the tradition of WP:FAITH either, and a cynic might say belie the fact that this whole AfD is simply another of User:ScienceApologist's campaign to purge wikipedia of any article which so much a mentions a notion contrary to scientific orthodoxy, no matter how neutral and verifiable. --feline1 23:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This publication does get mentioned in a non-negligible number of the independent sources on Velikovsky, so is worth including in some article, but as far as I can find none of those mentions provides enough information to write a stand-alone article, or to merge the current article's contents elsewhere (not even basic information like the number of issues or the years in which it was published). --Delirium 17:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question To those voting keep, I'd like to ask how this article becomes a good one. What do we include here apart from "this was part of a debate which we have a link to here"? This, and some namedropping aside, how does this become interesting and encyclopedic - what information does a reader really gain here? (not ranting, hopefully, just asking semi-politely :-) ) Lundse 21:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the List of student newspapers, I note for example, The Daily Toreador or The Lantern. How are these any more notable, without even the notability of an international readership, prestigious contributors and book spin-off? I think the answer is that notability is not the criteria at issue, but the ability to just information the reader of various verifiable material. And if it's not good enough, tag it as stub for improvement. --87.122.6.187 22:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, I am not going to go into whether another article is notable or good - I am only going to discuss this article here. And my question was not about notability at all (not that I am arguing it should be ignored). I was asking how this article becomes more than a stuffed dictionary entry with namedropping and links. I am not arguing for deletion because this article is not good now, I am asking how it is ever going to be a good encyclopedia entry. Lundse 09:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the information is available, we could provide background on how the magazine came about, and on the Student Academic Freedom. We can summarise each of the issues of the magazine, describing notable articles. We can provide background summaries on some of the contibutors. And yes, the magazine is part of a wider debate, the so-called "Velikovsky Affair", but there is currently no article specifically about it. --87.79.143.249 10:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge) A self-published, short-lived, college fan-'zine writes a mini-series on a known kook, and this somehow deserves it's own wikipedia article? Yow. I guess we've already covered the important stuff in the world. Ronabop 04:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good summary. I agree. Lundse 09:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please - and as for your own recent editorial contributions to groundbreaking articles such as Emo (slang), Albatross (Monty Python) and Gay square dance...? --feline1 09:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, what are you trying to establish here. Does "oh, please" mean that you do not believe I am serious or that my agreement is absurd? If so, please let me know why, as I am more than willing to hear your arguments (although silly comments like this one will probably be ignored the next time).

If you have comments about my behavior at other articles, please address those matters there or on my talk page. Preferably without the sarcasm. And could I please note that my contributions to those articles were "wrong name, we need another article on the subculture itself", "this should not be here" and "neither should this"? I am not claiming they are groundbreaking or even good articles, in fact, I am claiming the exact opposite. Get your facts straight before your personal attacks, or simply stop doing it? (personal recommendation: just stop). Lundse 10:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol You tell me not to be sarcastic ... and then are sarcastic right back to me! ("(personal recommendation: just stop)") (Not that I mind, it was quite a good one ;-). But you're taking the exact same "do as I say, not as I do" line with your comments on this AfD. It does not hold water with me for editors to say claim that we should only comment on the current article, and comparisons to the notability of other articles are not a valid criterea: the reasoning is that they are only considering the current article purely on its own merits under Verifiablity, Notability, etc, and it just randomly happened to be that they noticed and scrutinized the current article. In actual fact, it is more often the case that the editors in question specifically sought out the current article as part of an ongoing edit war or personal bias (in this case, the interminable Immanuel Velikovsky saga) and looked for which wikipolicies they could use as ammunition against it. (Which isn't to say that articles which don't make the grade shouldn't be culled, of course... but let's not pretend all these things on wikipedia happen from an entirely neutral point of view and never reflect editor's personal biases...)--feline1 10:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning sarcasm, then you're basically right, although I would classify my own remarks as "snide". :-)

About comparisons to how other articles are handled, I have to add that it is against policy. More importantly, I can only see it leading to suspicions of bad faith. That said, one should be free to use it as analogies to explain ones points about the use of policies.

You are also right that nothing here is entirely without personal bias, but that does not mean we should not strive to minimize it. And it is still far better to argue rationally and cite policies and sources than to point fingers and claim that "you are only saying X because Y". Whatever my real motivation is for not including this article (and I'll admit that I am afraid that having an overabundance of articles on this subject gives the theory undue weight), then my argument and question stands: how does this ever become a good article? Lundse 11:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lundse, you ask "When will this article stop beating its wife?". I put it to you that the article is not even married.--feline1 11:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Are you saying this is already a good article? Why not just say so? (What you are really claiming, per your analogy, is of course that the article is not even trying to be a good article or is otherwise not subject to the demands of one).

And the reasons I have for claiming this is not a good article is pretty clear already, from what I have said. The article consists of short description of the issues, which is fine although not terribly interesting. Then it goes into details regarding contributors, which is uninteresting if they are not notable in their own right - it is not good content to simply enumerate facts. What is missing is something notable and interesting, which is not found under other articles - nothing is told here about Velikovsky, his work and the "controversy" that we did not know from those articles already. There is nothing new here, this probably deserves a mention in one or more Velikovsky-related article, but no more. Staff, contributions, etc. are all disguised trivia-sections. There is no real content here, as I see it. Lundse 11:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep The series of articles existed, and it generated controversy that continues even now 30+ years later. The issue here is not the validity of Velikovsky's views. There were clearly several notable individuals who participated in the publication; we already link to several who already have Wikipedia biographies. Scientific American's comments were clearly unsupportive, but Pensée was at least notable enough for them to make the comment that they did. That someone should write a whole book whose title includes "The History of a Public Controversy" tells us about where the focus of the article should be, and cements its notability. If some members of the scientific mainstream consider such theories as Velikovsky's to be trolling, they show their religious fanaticism by feeding such trolls. Eclecticology 18:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disagreeing that Velikovsky should get an article, bot that hardly means every article or article series to mention him should. The controversy was generated by a lot of things, and if this series was one, then they should be mentioned in the article about the controversy. No reason to have an entry for each reason in turn, unless they are notable in their own right and can make for a good article. Lundse 20:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an article, nor article series, but magazine series featuring many notables. I have no doubt that if the Pensée series was on trains, there would be no discussion, just as there is no discussion on these special issue of magazines here, here, here, here. All of these are notable to someone. So why should we deny a reader from being able to find out something about Pensée: Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered? No-one here was denied it. --81.198.233.180 21:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given this logic, everything should be included. "All of these are notable to someone. So why should we deny a reader from being able to find out something about X". Why is this series notable, besides being about something notable we already have an article on, and besides some important people being involved with it? Why does this need an article in itself and not a mention/section under the Velikovsky affair?

I am more than willing to accede, as I mentioned from the start, that there might be notability here. But noone arguing for the inclusion of this has tried establishing it. Why is this important, what content in this article is interesting and not just trivia and namedropping? Lundse 22:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already listed some of the reasons why Pensée's IVR series was notable in my very first comment on this AfD. Moreover, this notability (unlike many of the fancruft ariticles on wikipedia) is verifiable and referenced in the article. At this point, I might start getting sarky with our friend from Lund, but luckily the Stranglers have written a song on the subject instead, so you don't have to http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=btJvIQcPlyg --feline1 08:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your first comments where actually the most enlightening, thanks for linking to them. I do not really care for the condescending tone of the rest of your post, though. This AfD would have gone much smoother without stuff like this. Lundse 18:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not claimed. The sum of human knowledge includes more than notable items, and what may be notable to me, may not be notable to you. Why should the article be included? (1) The series of magazines is as significant as any other student newspaper (2) It is distinct from the original Pensée in that the entire 10 issues was dedicated to "Velikovskianism" (3) It has significant contributors (pro and con) (4) It spawned a book based on its articles (5) The AAAS conference resulted from the magazine (5) Editing contributor Lewis M. Greenberg went on to co-found Kronos journal (6) The magazine is well cited in other "Velikovskian" journals such as Kronos and SIS Review, and books. All of this is verifiable, and whether a reader considers this to be notable or not, is up to the reader. --83.64.118.178 09:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not agree that notability is (only) subjective, you do make good points on how this could be considered notable. Especially 2 and 5 (both 5s) are convincing. While I am not sure this is the right thing in the long run (especially about what good content will appear here), I will err on the side of caution and change my vote to a weak keep - although I do believe it would be better to have a fuller article on the Velikovsky affair and merge the content there. Lundse 18:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per Feline1 above. The article claims "It achieved a circulation of between 10,000 - 20,000, with the first issue reprinted twice totalling 75,000 copies" and it spawned a book by a major publisher. Remarks above that it was just a "college fanzine" seem inappropriate in that context (presuming those claims are verifiable). Bondegezou 17:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bduke 09:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Baen's Universe

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jim Baen's Universe

On-line Webzine with no independent indication of its notability; fails WP:WEB. Content can be easily merged into the article on the parent company. Fairsing 17:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm pretty sure this was kind of a big deal when it was first launched. Needs links to establish that of course. Artw 20:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There we go. Keep Artw 15:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Baen's Universe is a serious attempt at making a commercially viable, non-copy protected electronic periodical. As such, it is more akin to a professional SF magazine that happens to be distributed electronically. I argue that it meets WP:WEB criteria as follows:

1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

Locus Magazine cites 4 novelettes from Baen's Universe in its 2006 Recommended Reading List.
Tangent Online regularly reviews Universe.

2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.

Cory Doctorow's "When Sysadmins Ruled the Earth" won the Locus Award for best novelette of 2006.

3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators

The Best of Jim Baen's Universe is available in hardcover from Simon & Schuster.

"When Sysadmins Ruled the Earth" was reprinted in Doctorow's Overclocked: Stories of the Future Present.

In addition, it pays pro rates and is an SFWA | Qualifying Short Fiction Venue. This is entirely separate from Baen Books listing as a | Qualifying Novel Venue. This means that the SFWA, the organization of professional SF authors, thinks it's a separate venue, not just part of Baen Books. If you want, I can also dig up the list of significant authors who are not regularly published by Baen Books but who have appeared in Universe but I don't have that at the moment. I haven't even touched Universe's stance on DRM, which one can argue is actually actually more pertinent to a PDF distributed periodical than to the more traditional Baen Books (which provides both electronic and hard copy product).

I admit this sort of stuff needs to be integrated into the article, especially if its to get out of stub status, but that's an argument about the article content not its existence.

--KNHaw ^(talk) 17:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've added some of this stuff to the article. --KNHaw ^(talk) 21:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, changed cite in article of Locus Award to official page rather than author's blog. --KNHaw ^(talk) 17:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article has improved drastically and marshals evidence of notability. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 21:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article content and primary sources cited are insufficient evidience to meet notablity requirements of WP:WEB. --Gavin Collins 09:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin, could you please let me know how you feel the current article fails WP:WEB? Specifically, which of the three criteria cited above do you feel are not being met and why? I would appreciate more detail so I could see if the article can be modified to address your concerns. --KNHaw ^(talk) 17:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response the coverage given from external sources is trivial in nature; the magazine's own website, articles written by contributors to the magazine are not reliable sources. References include awards, but coverage is supprisingly thin; whilst the magazine is mentioned by name, there no other detail - even the judges of these awards have not bothered to write anything that might establish why the awards have been made. Without more coverage from secondary sources, there is no evidence of notabiliy. There are no reviews, analysis or critism from third parties. Notability may come in the future, but none in evidence now. --Gavin Collins 10:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for the reply. As to "not reliable sources" for notability, I don't think I understand what you mean. The article indeed has three footnotes that meet your criticisms, but none of them go to notability (Cory Doctorow regarding the electronic distribution stance, the hard "best of" to show the exception to the "not available in print" comment, and the cite at Baen itself for the comprehensive author list). The award cites that are in the article do not fall into the categories you describe, as they are to the Locus and Hugo websites. The remaining citeis to SFWA (if we use the professional market recognition as notable).

Regarding "coverage is supprisingly thin" for the awards, the Hugo and Locus awards are both based on votes by readers. As such, it's not as if there's a committee like the Nobel prize to write a summary statement/review/praise. No Hugos or Locus awards have such summaries, so you're basically arguing that a Hugo is a non notable award. If you do that, then you will have to do the exact same for the Academy Award or BAFTA Award for film and the Emmy for television.

Also, I have put out a request for further reviews and criticism and a few have been added to the article. Please check them out.

--KNHaw ^(talk) 21:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per KNhaw; per listed descriptions, it meets all 3 criterial for [{WP:WEB]], and additionally is notable as one of the 17 short fiction venues which qualify for Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America membership as a professional author. This clearly appears to a) be notable and b) meet the established notability criteria completely. Georgewilliamherbert 21:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems notable enough for inclusion to me, based on the references given in the article itself. Rray 19:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Phaedriel - 00:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waterford Cemetery

Contested prod. It's a cemetary, but like most things it has nothing about it that makes it notable. Nuttah68 17:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability I can see. MarkBul 18:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks sufficient notability to suffice inclusion within wikipedia. Regardless of how notable it may be to small groups of people, it's simply not enough of a reason to validate an article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless we are ready to remove all the rest of the cemetary stubs, I would say we keep this one as well. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 19:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unless they're all notable, I personally don't think the existance of the other similar articles should purely be the reason for a keep arguement in this instance. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hooptie

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hooptie

Completely unsupported by verifiable sources Mmoyer 17:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this could be supported, but wikipedia is not a slang dictionary, and there is little else to say about the term. Delete. don't bother transwikiing the existing page. bikeable (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Mud4t 23:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article reads like a definition of the word. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 19:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London Underground trivia

AfDs for this article:

This has been nominated three times before, but has survived due to the inclusion of some statistical records among a bunch of inappropriate trivia, and many WP:ILIKEIT votes. I moved all the relevant info to the pages London Underground statistics (new), London Underground, and London Underground history. What remains is unencyclopedic and should be deleted. Calliopejen1 17:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per earlier discussions i am going to now say merge and redirect into relevant articles, even the fun facts. I will also raise this at WP:LT. Simply south 17:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the opening statement of the article sums it up 'This article contains information about the London Underground railway which is not of sufficient importance for inclusion in the main article.' If information is important it will be in the article, if it isn't it does not belong in an encyclopaedia but a site dedicated to a specific. Nuttah68 17:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this really sums it up: Pimlico is the only station which contains none of the letters of the word 'badger'. Lugnuts 18:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it doesn't fit into either the article or the Main Article page of a section, then it's not notable. A collection of "not worth the space anywhere else." MarkBul 20:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for anyone coming here to place 'I like it' votes: the page was 'rescued' to the Train Spotting World wiki in July, as I suspected another AfD might be forthcoming. Hence, to those editors, please let the AfD run its course, and enjoy the page in its new home here. EdJogg 21:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remark: I suppose it is inevitable with the page title and the opening paragraph that this gets deleted. It is going, sooner or later, to become a victim of the "Trivia Deletionists", who see the word "trivia" and leap upon the lynch mob bandwagon, often but not always failing to understand that some articles of trivia are truly encyclopaedic, precisely because of the trivia contained therein. Some trivia is encyclopaedic, other trivia is not. In this case the pure fact that there is this quantity of ephemera about the London Underground is itself encyclopaedic, whereas a list of trivia about my feet would not be. My position is strongly and ironically neutral. This comment is to ask the closing admin simply to look at the article together with the merits of the arguments here, and to ensure that the article is only deleted if that is a truly worthwhile end result. Fiddle Faddle 23:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a collection of trivia elements.--JForget 23:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the London Underground article; most of these bits of trivia could be worked into the text in an encyclopedic way.--Gloriamarie 01:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The encyclopedic information is in the other articles, this can be deleted as it is indiscriminate information. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection. Crazysuit 03:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good job on moving the encyclopedic stuff out of this article and into more appropriate places. The problem is that deleting this outright would be in violation of GFDL requirements which say that attribution must be provided, but it is clear that the page should no longer exist as a separate article now that the wheat has been harvested and we are left with the chaffe. Redirect to London Underground statistics (which looks like to contain a large chunk of what used to be here) just to preserve history. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the catch. I agree, redirecting is necessary, but to the closing admin - be sure to note in the redirect edit summary that it was redirected in accordance with this discussion, so it doesn't get recreated. Calliopejen1 19:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a good example of the truly nonsensical stuff that sometimes accumulates in trivia sections and articles. Of course, its only the residue of what was once here--and was encyclopedic, and has now been moved to better places. I congratulate Calliopejen1 on an excellent patient job. As a comment: at the previous AfD is June, I said I usually !voted to delete trivia articles. And so I did at the time, because the ones nominated up to that point were in general well worth the deletion. Many originally good projects on WP and off become unreasonable if carried to extremes. DGG (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Finally. Good to see various parts being merged, there should not be pages with "trivia" in the titles. Dannycali 19:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's little even worth merging. The late Robert L. Ripley wrote that there are a few people who have an insight into information that is of interest to everyone else... and this isn't one of them. Some stations only have access stairs, one has more escalators than any other, one is the only one that has the letter "z" in its name... the difference between "trivia" and "trivial" is whether someone says "That's interesting." and "Oh, how about that." Mandsford 23:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. The article survived three discussions already (with keeps), the last one only a couple months ago. Obviously, there is a good segment of the community who reads and wants to edit this article. Merging would be an acceptable compromise. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, the fact that the cult following of people that like useless info bombarded previous AFDs is not a reason to keep this article. If a "good segment" of 10 people or so really care about this trivia, then they can create their own website. The relevant info has been merged, this article should be gone. Dannycali 17:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep~~ as per my comments on the 3rd AfD, although agreed it could be renamed London Underground Statistics or suchlike. A1octopus 00:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, having seen that the important information has been moved to an article called London Underground statistics already, I now change my vote to Delete with a recommendation that we move the "stations" and "miscellany" sections to that page. A1octopus 00:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the rump of an article is comprised of non-notable original research. --Gavin Collins 09:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a prime example of what wikipedia is not, or at least, what it should not be if more people were aware of the wikipedia trivia policies. "St John's Wood is the only station, the name of which contains none of the letters of the word 'mackerel' "..I mean.. come on!Dr bab 09:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 02:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green home

Non-notable company, no reason give for why it should be notable, just an obscure eCommerce company. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing of obvious notability in the article and none of the refereces provide independent reliable sources. Nuttah68 18:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looking over the history of the article, it appears it was created by one person and has not been really advanced beyond that. This is probably just an ad for the company. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 19:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:CORP.--Gavin Collins 09:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result wasdeleted Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xtreme Tennis

Until there's a speedy deletion category for "things made up in school", AfD will have to do. Acroterion _(talk) 17:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not exactly a hoax, since it says in its first sentence that it's a "fictional (for now) sport," but it certainly looks like an an original invention. "things made up in school" it seems to be. --Moonriddengirl 17:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not the home for nonsense made up when bored. Nuttah68 18:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of ghits for Xtreme Tennis, but none (in the first several pages) show notability for this "fictional sport". --Fabrictramp 19:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this as nonsense. I'm tempted to do just that right now, since it's extremely unlikely that anyone could ever create a tennis court surrounded by molten lava, lions, and vultures, and it's much less likely that people would want to play such a game. Fox Sports would probably air it, though. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Be my guest. I usually like less coherence in my nonsense, but opinions vary where nonsense is concerned. I don't see anyone laying down in front of the snowplow. Acroterion _(talk) 23:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. WP:BOLLOCKS. Pete Fenelon 00:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get bulk lava these days? I could use some of that. Delete per WP:NFT. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete, G11 / A7. Marasmusine 17:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primavera Systems

Also nominating the following due to copyvio. Spryde 17:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Software company article that reads like an advertisment with no 3rd party sources for notability, but claims contribution to $5.5 trillion of business - which seems to assert notability so not necessarily WP:CSD#A7 material, lots of ghits for them from their business partners or headhunters but I can't find any 3rd party reliable sources for real notability either. They seem to make stock and bond trading software so $5.5 trillion is probably no indication of what revenue/profit that Primavera actually sees but just what the exchanges and customers who are its clients generate. Carlossuarez46 17:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I thought this looked familiar. It is a copy and paste job from various parts of the primavera website. See Primavera Systems Inc.. Nominating that as well. Spryde 17:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bduke 09:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The School of Computing (RGU)

Belated contest of an article deleted via prod, now restored. Does each school or department of a university get an article? especially without any sources showing any notability apart from the school itself. I don't think this is a good precedent to set: with hundreds or perhaps thousands of universities with dozens to hundreds of departments each, you get the picture. Merge anything sourceable with the university article and then delete. Carlossuarez46 16:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no evidence that this university department is notable per the requirement for significant coverage in reliable third-party sources in WP:N and WP:ORG. As the nominator suggests, anything sourceable can be merged into the university article. Jakew 17:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that this particular article doesn't deserve to survive in its present form, and I am sympathetic to the general argument discouraging articles of this kind (even if an improved article managed to scrape through the WP:N and WP:ORG criteria). However, I have two concerns about establishing a general rule.

My first concern is the implication that categories such as Category:Computer science departments would remain incompletely and erratically populated (yes I know WP is not a directory, but still ...). I think it would be a reasonable implication that if we want to discourage articles about departments, we should also discourage categories designed to group such articles, because these categories appear to invite people to seek a pretext to include their own department.

My second concern is based on the observation that many university departments and research units are named after a notable patron, and this gives them a distinct advantage in the notability stakes. If you want to discourage the proliferation of articles about university departments, then how would you feel about the Carlos Suarez School of Something Or Other? (Just kidding.) Seriously, if the policy is to discourage university departments, then this policy should perhaps also apply to university departments that happen to have famous patrons or academics or alumni.

--RichardVeryard 17:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see nothing in the nomination that is a general discouragement of department articles, I just see a suggestion (perfectly reasonable to me) that such departments have to meet WP:NOTE before they get their own article. Also, being named after a famous patron doesn't convey notability, along the lines of WP:NOTINHERITED. I doubt that being patronized by a celebrity or pioneer in the field will encourage significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources if the department isn't earning their own notability. --Darkwind (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The department does not stand on its own, and the entry reads like a catalog - not encyclopedic. MarkBul 18:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The opening of 'Our career-ready graduates benefit from degree programmes' reeks of spam and copyvio. Regardless, as already stated a department has to esablish notability in its own right to warrant an article, which this does not acheive. Nuttah68 18:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because just about any school can have notability due to the number of students who attend it over time. With that said, the article should be revised to read less like an add and also more neutral third-party sources should be added. This article can and should be improved instead. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Though called a "school" this seems the equivalent of an US department (in the US, "schools" are usually major divisions of a university comprising many departments, and often fit subjects for articles if in the major universities.) Looking at the articles in the category, some (such as Carnegie Mellon) would appear to justify articles, others (such as DePaul) would not. There's been discussion on this before, and the level of the bar does not really have a consensus yet. This AfD is perhaps a good way to get some idea of it. My preferences would be world-class, the acknowledged top dozen of so internationally known departments--but I recognize the difficulties in finding a suitable standard for this. DGG (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think this article could be easily merged into the RGU article without making it too long or cluttered. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 19:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. I can see nothing in this article that would really merit sourcing and merging, per Carlossuarez46, but I would not object to a neutral, sourced paragraph being inserted at Robert Gordon University. The article in its current state reads like an obvious vanity page to me. — mholland (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a copyvio (see this). And in any case, there does not appear to be any independent notability for the school. -- Whpq 20:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I agree that our own article reads like an advertisement we are looking to rewrite it in a more neutral format. I fail too see why a department has to be notable to be kept alive. As computing as a subject in the UK is suffering as numbers are continuously dropping schools and universities have to find new ways of getting themselves noticed; whether that be on Wikipedia, Myspace or anywhere to convince potential students that the subject is not dull and uninteresting. I was interested to note last week that the Scottish CS Recruitment & Outreach mailing list for ComputingScotland noticed and applauded our efforts to "put ourselves out there" as they put it. Don't let the effort go to waste, give us time to rewrite the document and let us stay. Colin Beagrie, Systems Manager, School of Computing RGU 10:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgu computing (talk • contribs)
delete just because of that-shows it is meant to be an advert right there. Chris 12:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 02:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Desantis

Non-notable. Non-referenced. Little ghits other than umass items. Spryde 16:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought this looked familiar. I'd prodded this, then deprodded it (I was still rusty with the prod/delete thing). Anyway, per nom.--Sethacus 16:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless otherwise proven, I do not believe college soccer meets either being professional or playing at thehighest level in a amateur sport. Nuttah68 18:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How is collegiate soccer not the highest amateur level in the United States? Che84 01:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:BIO says that a player must have played at a professional level or at the highest level in an amateur sport. This does not mean that in a sport which is played professionally the highest amateur level is also covered by the guideline, rather it means that in those sports which are only played at an amateur level the highest amateur level is OK. Amateur soccer is not a separate sport from professional soccer therefore in this instance only the professional level requirement applies. ChrisTheDude 07:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Nuttah68 and I couldn't find any other ghits to lend notability. Accounting4Taste 20:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 21:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all comments above, badly written with no sign of notability. --Angelo 21:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to have played in a fully-professional league (WP:BIO). Number 5 7 22:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments above. Does not meet WP:BIO. --Malcolmxl5 22:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to quarantine. — TKD::Talk 01:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quarentine

This atricle seems to be a non-notable cuostom made character from an online game. That is to say, The character seems to have been created by the author of this atricle and is thus OR as well. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable and apparently OR. There are two references, but neither would appear to qualify as an RS. A Google search finds lots of hits, but most seem to be typos for "quarantine." Matchups 16:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is the bio of his online toon. Complete OR. Complete NN. Turlo Lomon 16:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a well written bio, but unfortunately WP isn't the place for it. WP:FICT specifically mentions "information about a player's character in roleplaying or MMORPGs" as something seldom notable with out significant coverage in independant reliable sources.Cube lurker 18:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, then redirect to quarantine as a plausible misspelling. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply That's a very good idea. I can definitely picture people misspelling this. Turlo Lomon 01:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a City of Heroes player, I don't recognise that as any notable character (i.e. as far as I know it's not a system character or an official Cryptic/NCSoft representative's character so I guess it's a player-made character.) The player in question should take it to the official forums Creative section! MorganaFiolett 10:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yep, I found his profile on Gameamp.com (which is where the broken link at the bottom of the article goes) and it's definitely a player character. MorganaFiolett 14:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Zetawoof. Also fails WP:ATT and WP:N. Carlosguitar 18:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 01:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feast of Avalon

The article devotes all of two sentence fragments to the feast, then launches into information that's already covered at Avalon. The references section proclaims that the article is based on original research. When I looked through the cited links (or copyvio source links--earlier revisions used text cut whole from other sites), I didn't find anything to build the article on. No clear assertion of notability for the festival, problems with verifiability, original research and editor synthesis. —C.Fred (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research - based on a movie? At least he/she is honest. MarkBul 18:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. -- Whpq 20:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable original research. --Gavin Collins 09:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 JoshuaZ 20:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phenomena of pyramid

Unprovable theory, no references, no citations, fringe theory, 100% original research, incomprehensible Accounting4Taste 16:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, original New Age moonbeam theory, no reliable sources. NawlinWiki 16:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreadable - non-referenced original research by inference. MarkBul 18:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional, copyright violation. The material is from a website that the article creator has been spamming. Most likely there's a conflict of interest. --Ronz 19:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional OR. Might also be worth considering a salting, as the user has placed similar spam material on other articles, article talk pages, and their user page, and despite having read and removed some of the warnings about doing it, continues to do so. This particular article (in less completed and coherent forms) has been speedied twice already. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 20:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is completely incomprehensible. Probable WP:OR and does not seem to have been discussed by reliable sources, though it's hard to tell what to search for. "Phenomena of pyramid" maybe misphrased, but yields only one google hit - The Feng Shui Chi Generator™. Hardly a reliable source... --TreeKittens 21:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What's he smoking? Can I have some? WP:OR. WP:BOLLOCKS. Pete Fenelon 00:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete nuff said -- Diletante 19:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete incomprehensible nonsense. Thought I was over BJAODN, but this make me a little misty. Gandalf61 21:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ALL THANKS FOR DISCUSSION.
By the first results of discussion of other participants I have understood, what first of all many the question commercial interests it is the project or not? Advertising it or self-advertisement? If to estimate those expenses, that I have enclosed in this research the question on commerce can to be put. It was easier to organize advertising or to choose other field of activity.
I believe, that the material should be presented to encyclopaedias in another way than on site pages, by rules wiki, but has not had time to process available material. In my opinion, many break such principle of giving of a material, as all-round and weighed. This principle allows another, having other sight, to state it on pages and to help everyone, most to learn to choose.
Some participants wish to see references to authoritative scientific sources. I have passed good school of work in the scientific environment, therefore I can inform, that in sphere of a science it is not less unfair researchers, than in other areas. The science basically cannot do without commerce and a policy. In history of a science it is enough examples Really you wish to become such inquisitors on pages википедии? Certainly, it was promoted by my errors in a statement and material giving. But let's not to confuse one to another. If to you something not clearly is a signal for me that is not enough a material or it is calculated on experts.
For example, at dialogue with those who is able to use a pendulum or a framework it there will be one questions, with those who is not able it others. With those who tried, and it has not turned out it is necessary to understand absolutely in another way. For whom the encyclopaedia is written? For participants or for those who comes on these pages in search of answers. And among such visitors, probably, the number of those who is able to use and knows by own experience, that this such, least quantity. What for to come on these pages if I so know what is it? What for to add a new material if public who does not wish anything to hear about other point of view here has gathered. Such feature of perception of a new material in psychology is known. The similar sight has taken roots in many religious systems, is shown at fanatics of various predilections: actors, football etc. Let's try benefit from dialogue or at least to agree with existence of other sight.--Shatilov Konstantin08:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apologise to inform, to me very much not clearly. But our policy about No Original Research certainly read and understand absolutely you should. Gandalf61 08:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oh dear. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 15:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think there's a problem here with Shatilov Konstantin's grasp of English. An editor fluent in Russian would be extremely helpful here to make sure Shatilov understands what's going on, and give another perspective on what Shatilov is trying to communicate to us. --Ronz 16:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's coming to do with that theory that putting a razor blade under a pyyramid keeps it sharp because of something. I'm not entirely sure. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 18:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, incomprehensible. Pavel Vozenilek 13:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a barely comprehensible advert for a book. No need to redirect to "Pyramid power". Gazpacho 21:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 cannabis; info from page history could be merged into a "Strains" section of the main article. MastCell ^Talk 18:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durban (strain)

non notable marijuana strain. Possibly copyrighted. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a "Strain" section of the main article, same as other strains up for AfD. ◄Zahakiel ► 21:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think Durban Poison is notable I've added song lyric info and cites, can add more if you want. Sue Wallace 12:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you added 1 song lyric info and the appropriate cite. That doesn't establish the notability of a particular strain of marijuana, it doesn't even establish that it's a pop culture term. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't trying to say it was a pop culture term, just that Durban poison is a well known 'slang' expression if you was into 'that sort of thing' that's all. Sue Wallace 22:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, I understand what you're saying Sue Wallace, I'm just saying that even if it were to be established as a popular culture term via the song lyric (which I don't think it is), that wouldn't necessarily equate to notability, which still has not been established. Merging or deleting is the best option at this point. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- **Ok, Can I change my mind, merge but could 'Durban Poison' be a redirect though? Sue Wallace 13:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect to cannabis; relevant info from page history can be used to create a "Strains" subsection of the main article. MastCell ^Talk 18:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lightstorm (strain)

non notable marijuana strain. no sources, no assertion of notablity. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a "Strain" section of the main article, same as other strains up for AfD. ◄Zahakiel ► 21:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MastCell ^Talk 18:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leary biscuit

no assertion of notability, wikipedia is not a how to guide, etc. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless sources establishing notability can be provided. ◄Zahakiel ► 21:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Timothy Leary to prevent recreation. - The topic made news between 1996 and 1997, but the reliable source references only give this topic a one liner, such as "Leary biscuits - a concoction of a cheese-soaked marijuana bud on a Ritz cracker." The biscuit supposedly was part of Timothy Leary's daily drug intake shortly before his death from cancer. -- Jreferee T/C 18:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted (nonsense) by User:JIP. NawlinWiki 15:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis bellshaw

I believe that this article is referring to spongebob. There is very little context. Tiptoety 15:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (tag applied), patent nonsense. Realkyhick 15:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 01:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J. Hunter Johnson

AfDs for this article:

3-line vanity piece that fails notability per WP:BIO created in contravention of WP:COI guidelines on autobiography. This article has been prod'ed, de-prodded, speedied, de-speedied but association with role-playing games has not provided evidence of notability to date. --Gavin Collins 15:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notable game designer. Will be adding references. Turlo Lomon 15:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 15:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a part of his bibliography. Should I start including references on each and every one of them or are they good? Turlo Lomon 16:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Other than promotional material, they do not appear to be independent periodical articles or reviews from outside the trade that would distinguish him as more than a writer who makes his living from writing games --Gavin Collins 01:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not commenting delete or keep, but why should someone important in the gaming world be reported outside that mileu? I don't remember that in any guideline or policy. SamBC(talk) 13:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you read WP:BIO, note that JHJ does not satisfy the following:

The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews;
The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries.

I think you are confusing someone who writes games for a living (effectively a copywriter) with a someone who renowned throughout the gaming industry. My understanding is that the RPG book based games account for about 4% of the RPG industry sales, of which his books are probably only a tiny fraction. No matter how big a microfying glass you hold up to this 3-line biography, it is never going to satisfy the notability guidelines. --Gavin Collins 10:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing game books with marketing copy (the output of copywriters). Game books are no more marketing copy than novels are. I am curious, though, where you get the 4% claim. You should also pay attention to Turlo's note that the article is now expanded beyond three lines, through no fault of my own. -- JHunterJ 18:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is a good deal more than three lines. If you think someone who writes games for a living is a copywriter you do not understand either term. As to your uncited claim that only 4% of RPG industry sales are book based games, that is clearly ridiculous to anyone who is at all familiar with the industry. Edward321 04:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since this is still an issue I will be supplying the news reports from different articles that discuss his work (as requested in 2c). I am also really confused on the whole 4% figure mentioned above, because RPGs (different from wargames) should have closer to 96% book sales, mostly because it is nothing BUT books. Turlo Lomon 18:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been greatly expanded and sourced. WP:BIO covers quite a bit more ways that a person can be considered notable than the mere two selected by the nominator. Edward321 04:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Recent expansion/sourcing seems sufficient to demonstrate notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cannabis foods#Cannabutter. — TKD::Talk 01:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabutter

Wikipeida is not a how to guide. Unsourced, only link is a "recipe" no assertion of notability. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Cannabis foods, as proposed on the page. --Evb-wiki 15:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-OR & NPOV info has been added to Cannabis foods. So, redirect. --Evb-wiki 13:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then redirect, like hash cookie, Leary biscuit, and cannabis tea should be. - Rocket000 19:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Into Cannabis foods as suggested. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge so long as cannabis foods can absorb the article. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 04:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xorkaelians

Non-notable neogolism. Scant information on the source history, context or external references are known at present. Reads like a WP:POV fork from Star Trek. --Gavin Collins 15:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, preferably into a new article on civilizations in the Star Fleet Universe. Once again, this has nothing to do with POV... there's no point of view being advanced here, or in the other articles where you've cited it as a reason for deletion. Nor is this a neologism; it's the proper noun created to describe a fictional concept. Please pay attention to what policies actually mean before citing them as the basis for nominating an article for deletion. Pinball22 17:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 40 Google hits, I checked six non-Wikipedia, and five were mirrors of Wikipedia. I doubt I'd find any references in a university library either, so that's all I can go on. No secondary sources, no notability. MarkBul 18:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Fancruft, WP:POV, and very badly written with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete Fenelon (talk • contribs) 00:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though it appears that it your opinion that any page involving a gaming/rpg subject is not to be included in Wikipedia. --Donovan Ravenhull 02:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - that's right, I think anything 'in game' belongs on fansites. Descriptions of the game itself are fine on wikipedia IMHO, but fancruft belongs on fan sites. Pete Fenelon 10:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please read Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Fancruft_and_Role_playing_games before commenting on this AfD - Fosnez 14:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without significant real world information, this level of fictional detail is not justified. -- Ned Scott 06:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: What detail? NN, no available verifiable sources, etc. There are dozens of species that have much more data available that aren't covered separately from the parent series. That said, might be a candidate for a merge to List of Star Trek races if they're not stripping out non-canon races. MrZaius^talk 09:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 04:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Burchert

Spam entry that reads like a personal vanity blog post. Some claims of notability, but borderline. Someone is bored at work 14:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd be prepared to have a line or two of this merged into an article about TMone, but there isn't one -- which brings me to the "delete" side of the borderline notability in the nomination. The rest belongs on MySpace. Accounting4Taste 20:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom - improper no-freeuse images, auto-hagiography, non-notable, improper sourcing for a WP:BLP, and spam. Bearian 00:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 01:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Wiles

There appear to be two assertions of notability: his position as a township trustee, and his coverage for shooting the woman. Neither is sufficent: being a township trustee doesn't make you fulfill WP:BIO, and a single news story isn't enough for notability. Nyttend 14:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No more than a tragic news item. MarkBul 18:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BIO. We can't create a article for every suspect murderer there is. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as reads like a coatrack article. --Gavin Collins 09:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to lack of third-party reliable sources and salt due to persistent disruption of Wikipedia processes. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tino Georgiou. — TKD::Talk 01:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tino B. Georgiou

A recreation of Tino Georgiou, which is currently the subject of an AfD. Both articles originate with the same user. Victoriagirl 14:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt Non-notable, not even close. MarkBul 18:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-publishing through iUniverse does not confer notability and I can't find the USA Today quote, if it exists. Accounting4Taste 21:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt --Chuck Sirloin 01:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Failed to cite reliable sources to denote notability. --Luis Augusto Peña ^(talk) 18:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 00:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita Khrushchev (journalist)

Delete: Non-notable individual. Only included due to his grandfather. Pugnacious 14:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as a longtime columnist at Moscow News, one of the more important post-breakup Russian papers, or merge to Sergei Khrushchev. His death and life did attract some attention outside Russia [11]coi[12][13] although primarily in the context of his shared name (searching is made difficult as they both had the same patronymic, Sergeyevich, even discounting alternate spellings). He worked on his grandfather's memoirs but his father Sergei is credited as editor. --Dhartung | Talk 01:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He seems to be sufficiently notable, but if not then merge with his father's article.Watchingthevitalsigns 14:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not indicate any notability as a journalist except for famous grand-dad and the same name. Since his dad was Sergey Khrushchev, I guess he was a Nikita Sergeyvich too, but all this one does is lend to confusion. FDR may have a descendant named Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and if that person is a journalist, those two facts by themselves do not merit an article. Mandsford 23:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the grandfather's article.--JForget 22:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in Russia. As notable as American presidential children. Alex Middleton 11:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references added seem sufficient for notability for defending his grandfather's legacy and for criticizing the discrimination against him after his father emigrated. Canuckle 05:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 01:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Federation of College Republicans

Non-notable regional association of college clubs. No non-trivial mentions in google (web/news) from reliable sources. Probably fails WP:ORG. Bfigura ^(talk) 14:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom voting to delete, per reasons above. Bfigura ^(talk) 14:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG. We have College Republicans, we don't need articles on every chapter or regional grouping. --Dhartung | Talk 01:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete The article is obviously WP:ORG and if there is anything noteworthy it can be merged into the College Republicans article. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 19:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - not a significant group.--JForget 22:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 01:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socko Energy

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable energy drink. Prod removed with no article improvement. The information about Hogan belongs on his page. Nikki311 13:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Nikki311 13:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dont you just love how people give you so little time to improve anything. People have lives outside wikipedia, ok well maybe some people dont but hey who are we to judge. It would be nice to be given more than a few miniutes to do something in. Dont you think people removed the prod so the article does not get deleted while they look for sources. How about a weeks grace, It wont kill anbody to have it up there. In fact it might even help. AFD is not a sub for article improvment. To many times people just go for the delete instetd of the many of other tags that there are. For example i saw a page that had been created and less than 5mins later it had been taged for SD geez guys help a brother out. Anywho this just shows that you need to be nice and think twice before submitting an article to AFDExtraDry 14:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It has been around since January 2007. How much time do you need? It does not appear to be notable. If you can improve3 it in the next 5 days, it should be kept. Spryde 17:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, or an edit summary explaining the intention to look for sources might be nice. Nikki311 17:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there's information, it's smothered in spam. And I refuse to accept "It wont kill anbody to have it up there" as a reason for an article in an encyclopedia; bandwidth costs money. Accounting4Taste 21:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per stated above, I truly appreciate the idea of giving someone time to expand upon an article as I have wished for myself in the past. However, when we start articles such as this the writer should attempt to at least give us some real information in the article so that it can help a reader. That said, even if time was needed, again as stated above the article was created in January and nothing has been added to it and it does read mostly of advertising. For now I say delete it and if the user wants to come back with a more detailed start, then I'd support it staying.--Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 16:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not noteworthy. Also, the plea of the person asking for more time for completing or adding to this article has had ample time. The article was created in Jan 2007. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 20:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 04:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billy & Mandy: Time Terror

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Billy & Mandy: Time Terror

Was submitted for afd on September 7, but the AFD entry was never completed. WP:CRYSTAL and patent nonsense. Yngvarr 13:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Markdsgraham 21:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Might be an article after the movie comes is shown on Cartoon Network. Until then, this rates a small mention in Billy & Mandy Mandsford 23:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--JForget 01:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RD Reynolds

AfDs for this article:

Delete. This is a complete vanity page for a non-notable person outside a few wrestling fans. --EndlessDan 13:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Don't Delete RD is a 3 times published author and is a journalist in many magazines around the world Square-PR4 23:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Square-PR4 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Square-PR4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Along with WrestleCrap Not a hint of notability. MarkBul 18:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Within its field, the Wrestlecrap site and books are well regarded and notable. 'The Death of WCW' in particular is an often cited work when discussing professional wrestling histoty. Elcondor 19:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned, RD has published several books now, has a monthly column in a UK sports magazine, has had several names from wrestling on RD's radio show including Lance Storm and Vince Russo. As for a few wrestling fans, his forums have close to 5,000 subscribers with plenty more visitors to his site. He's carved out a nice niche to the point that WrestleCrap is used by many other sites and fans as a term for anything bad, including several signs at WWE events. Several professional wrestlers, as well, from major companies have talked of enjoying his site as well. Jimmy Wang Yu: Version 2 19:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RD is currently set to release his 3rd book about professional wrestling and is a well known journalist. The website he runs is visited by not only fans but wrestlers as well. Crash Holly even gave it high praise before his death. The Wrestlecrap Radio show that he hosts has only been around for 2 years and has already brought in guests such as: Vince Russo, Lance Storm, John Tenta, Fabien Kaelin of WSX, and Hollywood of GLOW; with several more guests coming soon. DX927 19:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only notable to a small portion of professional wrestling fans. Look up Scott Keith's afd, he has written just as many wrestling books, and has been deleted. Being an author doesn't make someone automatically notable. His books may have sold well in the wrestling community, but that is a very small niche which isn't a big blip on the general side of things. None of his books are currently even in the top 100,000 of the amazon sale ranks. Also, his fans appear to have noticed this afd on his message board, see link: [14] Any info on him can be merged to the barely notable Wrestlecrap page. Dannycali 19:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because there are millions of professional wrestling fans, the author has published, and this article passed an AfD but months ago. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As usual with your twisting, nonsensical arguments, the fact that a lot of people like pro wrestling is not a reason to keep this article, or every article about wrestling. And the fact that there was an afd about this awhile back (that was barely participated in) is no bearing on this discussion. Should also point out that Scott Keith, a wrestling journalist who is probably more notable than RD, and has had books published, had his article deleted. RD's wrestling career is mainly in the lower independent scene around Indiana, and this AFD has been bombarded by his small cult following anyway. Dannycali 17:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please re-read Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. You have been cautioned about that before: [15]. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am being civil, and I am not giving personal attacks. I consider that condescending warning you are trying to give me a matter of incivility and a personal attack. This person isn't notable enough for an article, he wrote a few low-selling books, had a short career in lower independent leagues of wrestling, and there are no reliable sources about him, and if anything, should be Merged/Redirected to the main Wrestlecrap article. This is only being kept because a few of his fans want it. Dannycali 15:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been uncivil and personally attacked me and others a few times now this month: [16], [17], and [18]. Please stop. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say he's not notable, but then when someone from his forum, which has several thousand visitors, told people to post here to show how notable he actually is, you basically told on him and caused that addition to be put at the top to show that this "isn't a majority rule." So now people who would have posted here to state that he is notable aren't bothering. There is also a recent video of the "non-notable" book he wrote being discussed by Kevin Nash, Scott Hall, and Sean Waltman at a show somewhere. DX927 16:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As an author and a webmaster RD is well known throughout the wrestling community. Due to his critical opinions on some of the 'poorer' elements of pro-wrestling (i.e. Wrestlecrap!) there are some people that would gladly want his Wiki entry deleted, along with the 'crap entries they do not agree with. Jpe63 19:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Jpe63 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Strong keep 3 Time published author, monthly column in a popular mainstream magazine. Notable enough for a page. GShton 05:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the arguements seem to come from people who find him or his website funny. But I encourage everyone to actually read wp:bio. He and the wrestlecrap are not noteable in the least. --Endless Dan 19:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As said in the Notability guidelines, "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." It can easily be argued that his Death of WCW book, and to a lesser extent the original Wrestlecrap book do contribute to this particular field (that field being sports entertainment). He has had numerous interviews with active and formerly-active sports-entertainers, not least among them the late John Tenta. Further, also from wp:bio, he "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following". Psychoti

— Psychoti (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- STRONG DELETEI fully admit I only found this page to see if Roi really was stalking Caly. However, now that I have, if roi will excuse me copying his pattern of commenting on every deletion I'm involved in, I support wholeheartedly this deletion, which is patent vanity. I wish more people who voted with me on some deletions would do the same history search, to support blatant nonsense being deleted. When I see pages like this, I have to wonder just how many of these guys like Roi know the subject in questionJJJ999 02:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - So you want to delete this page because of some grudge you're holding with another Wiki user? Right... DX927 19:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not at all, I've just observed this guy is almost always in favour of non-notable people who he probably knows, so when I see him in favour, I know it's probably bumpkis... then I see the content of this fanboy, and I'm sure of it. Strong delete.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by JJJ999 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep RD Reynolds is a published author and pro wrestling expert. I guarantee you there are historical figures from the last thousand years with entries on Wikipedia that are less well known and notable than RD Reynolds. What does and doesn't get challenged for deletion on Wikipedia is ridiculous. Sometimes the site really feels like it should be called "Wikipedia, the free site anybody can edit that everybody complains on." It should also be noted other people who are considered 'notable' by Wikipedia standards have been guests on RD's radio show, including Lance Storm and Vince Russo. Perhaps you'll propose those for deletion too. In fact let's propose everyone for deletion who hasn't made a million dollars or slept with Britney Spears. Wikipedia, the free site where you have to be in a tabloid to be notable. 68.229.184.37 08:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As per the reasons above. 3 Times published author. Highly downloaded wrestling radio host.PhatePunk 12:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Radio host, 3 time author, former wrestler, public speaker at Ohio Valley Wrestling. This isn't at all vanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.42.25.31 (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by Nominator, the quality of the article threw me when I first saw it. It'd probably look better cleaned up, and seems to pass WP:N and WP:V without trouble. Burzmali 19:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fry family (chocolate)

Article is a genealogy of the Fry family. The relevant information is largely on J. S. Fry & Sons already, so I don't think a merge is warranted, but if anyone wants to save any of the information, I recommend placing it on that page. Burzmali 12:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Many of the notable Frys whose family and marriage relationships are indicated on this page were not employed in chocolate manufacture, for instance, Edward Fry and Mariabella Hodgkin and their children. The proposed merging would not be appropriate for them.

The Frys intermarried with other notable Quaker families, such as the Pease Family. Articles, such as this, help disentangle the complex network of relationships, where a name is frequently re-cycled for several generations of children.

The role of the Fry family in the transition of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) during the latter part of the 19th Century and the period up to 1920 has not yet been included in this article but can be found in Kennedy, Thomas Cummings British Quakerism 1860-1920: the transformation of a religious community Oxford University Press, 2001. ISBN 0198270356.

BTW, I think Elizabeth Fry's husband was a relation of the Bristol Frys but haven't found the reference yet. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 13:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article has overlap, but is completely distinct - one is the family, the other is a company. It would be worth fixing up the family one to be better formatted, and perhaps to focus less on the chocolate, to cover the whole very notable Quaker family. I expect that people over at the relevant WikiProject will willing to help - I would be but am rather busy recently. SamBC(talk) 14:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article is very badly written, and needs a lot of work to clean it up, but that is not a reason for deletion. The family is clearly notable. I'd like to help improve the article, but don't have much spare time available at the moment. NSH001 14:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, how is the family itself notable? Yes it had many notable members, but that alone doesn't make the family notable. A reference focusing on the notability of the family as a while would go a long way to convince me. Burzmali 15:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, it's not a reference, but ask any Quaker (especially a British Quaker) and they'll tell you... there must be a reference somewhere. They're one of the "big Quaker families", along with the Rowntrees, the Cadburys, and the Ransomes (that being at least one big Quaker family that wasn't involved in chocolate). I don't have the time right now to find it, but it'll be out there. SamBC(talk) 16:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 01:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Strategic Analyst On 9/11

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/A Strategic Analyst On 9/11

This article appears to have been previously deleted by prod. I can't put my finger precisely on what bothers me: it consists mainly of quotes from sources, some of which are listed but aren't linked. Google a quote at random, and you'll find it in one or more places. I can't figure out what the article is about, but it reads half like WP:OR and half like a wire report, with a dash of POV-pushing. The creator appears to edit mainly on national security and 9/11-related articles, and having looked at a few of them, I'm seeing some of the same problems, not least because the material from this article has been pasted into Bin Laden Issue Station and Strategic Assessments Branch at least. Kateshort forbob 12:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a pity there isn't a facility for "aside boxes", for quoting material which doesn't quite fit into an article as the material stands, but which may well have relevance. I.e., to quote (say) the leading paragraph in another article (in this case, for example, Bin Laden Issue Station), which then has a link to the whole text (in this case, "A Strategic Analyst ..."). I agree that the text of "A Strategic analyst" doesn't match Wikipedia's full page criteria, but it wasn't intended to stand by itself.

The original article, A Strategic Analyst on 9/11, had links for the quoted sources. I quickly "restored" the article without refinding the URLs. (But this didn't stop it being deleted the first time round.)
- There were only two sources. One is a pre-publicity pamphlet for a 2002 security conference, which features some of the statements on John Fulton. The other is an Associated Press report which gives further information.

Is it perhaps the implications of this material that bothers you?

Frank Freeman 14:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No the implications don't bother me because I don't understand what the article is about. I'm not trying to be rude (and I apologise if it seems that way) - this may well be a failure in my understanding, but my reasons for nominating it still stand. --Kateshort forbob 14:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- I've reinserted the links. Frank Freeman 14:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as a content fork from September 11, 2001 attacks or one of its sub pages. Burzmali

12:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Unencyclopedic info, doesn't seem notable and includes OR. --Strothra 16:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have the same problem the nominator did. What is the encyclopedic topic? If you have to infer what the subject of the page is, it's not a Wikipedia article. Veiled suggestions of conspiracy do not make a Wikipedia artilce. MarkBul 16:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There seems to be no actual topic here - it's a rather indiscriminate and nebulous list of quotes which seems to allude to...well...something... --TreeKittens 21:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "(It may well be wondered why the National Reconnaissance Office would have a Strategic Wargaming Division.)" says it all. Wikipedia is not the place for original research, original ideas, commentary, speculation, and opinion as contained on that page. --Aude (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is this? Mandsford 23:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Strategic Analyst On 9/11 is an auxiliary page -- a page intended for quotation on other pages, with a link to it. Frank Freeman 10:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC) If there isn't a facility for such illustrative "sidelights", there should be.[reply]

Wikiquote maybe?--Strothra 13:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it just isn't an encyclopaedia artcle. Nuttah68 17:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research, a mini-essay by the creator. Gazpacho 21:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks more like a report or some sort of essay with scores of OR to top it off.--JForget 22:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tagged this for proposed deletion ages ago - seems to be mostly speculative commentary on a coincidence. It may well be wondered why Wikipedia would have an article like this.--Canley 13:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha ha!

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

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Christopher Jon Bjerknes. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was Delete, BLP concerns, 2007091610007685. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect to Superweapons of Ace Combat. MastCell ^Talk 18:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stonehenge (Ace Combat)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Superweapons of Ace Combat. Alpta 21:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Superweapons of Ace Combat, for now; although I wouldn't rule out a deletion of that page in the future, due to a complete absence of reliable sources for verifiability. Most likely OR, too - and unsourcable (is that a word?! It'll do, anyway :p) OR at that. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 07:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Apparently, relevant content has already been merged into a parent article. MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yuktobania

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a well defined and sourced article. There are many fictional countries out there in WP. I don't see any reason to delete at this time. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 20:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belka. Carlossuarez46 21:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete No WP:RS and its a fake country! Anybody who would want to know about it would have the game! ExtraDry 10:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sourced information is not independent of Yuktobania or its creators. A search failed to turn up anything more than one sentence mentions in a few reliable sources. The topic does not meet the general notability guidelines since there is not enough material from reliable sources that are independent of Yuktobania to create an attributable article on the topic. -- Jreferee T/C 18:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to lack of reliable sources. — TKD::Talk 01:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Crooked Creek

This inforamtion was used without the consent of the appropriate people. It misrepresents the camp, the LHC, and the BSA. Some of the information has been dubbed secret and taken from the Staff Manual. Safety and Security can be compromised with the article. As well as posing a danger to the safety and therefore the integrity of the camp, it also has many many falsehoods in it. Plese delete this article ASAP. Thanks!

Delete - Consent of appropriate people is not needed for any Wikiepdia article. I do not see any where that the article misrepresents any of the groups you listed.(If found they should be corrected not deleted). Any thing from there staff maunle that was copied word for word should be removed or paraphrased. I don't see any thing at a quick glance. Any falsehoods should be corrected not deleted. I see none. As for safety and security, I also see nothing that could put anyone in any danger. Keep in mind my opinion my be some what coi because ~~I am an Eagle Scout~~, three year camper of this camp, and and four year staff member of this camp. I have tried to keep my edits to the page to non content related. To avoid breaking the WP rules about COI. The page needs work(as does most wikiepida articles) ~~but the page meets all requirements(at least as far as I can see) to be included in Wikiepida~~.R00m c 04:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind and my stand on this. As stated in other comments below the topic is not notable. One sign of this is their are no third party publications about this topic. Only original research and what the LHC put up on the website.R00m c 02:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm confused. This is a poorly written article full of pamphleteering, but I don't see any security issues here. The camp may deserve an article, but if so, I suggest that it should be in a truncated form. Colon el Tom 13:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not because it gives away the secrets of the Illuminati and Area 51 (or whatever) but because it doesn't really assert notability. A children's camp would have to be pretty notable to warrant an article on its own, and I see nothing in either the article or the official website that suggests this is any exception. I'm not seeing any reliable sources either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Col. Tom & Starblind. Notability neither asserted nor present. Accounting4Taste 21:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jreferee T/C 18:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Zeppelin

Could well fail Wikipedia:Notability (music), because they are unsigned, haven't won awards or had radio rotation, or been nominated for a competition. They might pass WP:MUSIC because they have toured in Ireland, however, or if someone finds some publications mentions though. Montchav 15:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Their website apparently thinks that my PC doesn't have Java, so I can't check any claims they make there that aren't on the front page. I can see that they claim that Robert Plant's suggested "Accept no substitutes" in reference to them. Add that to the claim that Jason Bonham has drummed with them - I think that makes this notable enough to keep, given that WP:MUSIC does advise that just because notability isn't met per the criteria doesn't mean it must be deleted. I hpoe my torturous logic makes some sense ... Colon el Tom 13:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - their official endorsement by Robert Plant and the fact that Jason and Mick Bonham have both worked with them is not just an assertion of notability, it is notability itself. - Vox Humana 8', 11:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge into Glued laminated timber. Jreferee T/C 17:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glulam Beam

Advertisement Waikikibeach 17:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Glued laminated timber. Notable material, but I don't see it needing two seperate articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as WP:SPAM per CSD 11. --Gavin Collins 13:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, blatant advertising. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 16:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 13:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Strong Delete. Advertising. Keb25 13:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect to Glued laminated timber which says the same thing without the spam. Acroterion _(talk) 18:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Glued laminated timber. There's not enough here to understand why a second article or even a fork would be needed. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 20:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 17:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sicilian Americans

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Phaedriel - 00:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They Also Ran

A: This page is two years old and has no info. B: There are several books with this title. Delete. --Arperry 21:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It got lots of newspaper reviews. I'd say it passes WP:BK #1 quite easily. Zagalejo^^^ 21:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as neither stub class nor the fact that there are other books of the same title are valid reasons for deletion. 96T 13:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd like to see it expanded to summarize some of the conclusions made in the book about various Presidential losers. --Jolomo 17:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I've read the book, and although the losers of presidential elections are notable (and there's an article listing them, no doubt), Arprerry is right that this has no information. It's been two years, and no sign that this is going to improve. If someone wants to add the obvious improvement -- a list of losing candidates from Jefferson to Kerry, or do a redirect to "also-rans" or presidential election losers, then I'll vote for all the "Keep" electors in my state. Mandsford 23:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has enough information to be a legitimate stub. The book was written by a notable author and was apparently a best-seller [19], so I think it's best to give it more time to grow. Two years isn't that long. Zagalejo^^^ 19:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Congressmen can be replaced after two years... bad articles don't usually get that much time. This one is on the way to becoming a lame duck. Mandsford 02:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have no guidelines or policy to support your argument. Lots of the article requests at WP:MEA have not been fulfilled in over two years. Does that mean we should never have articles on those topics?

Again, They Also Ran isn't a bad article anyway; it's just a stub. It's better than no article at all. And as I've shown, the book fulfils our notability criteria. Some more evidence of notability: It's been reviewed and cited in scholarly journals and has even inspired a tourist attraction in Kansas. Zagalejo^^^ 03:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've shown nothing. Books get reviewed all the time. That, by itself, doesn't make them notable. As noted, the article hasn't improved since February 2006... and frankly, I don't have any faith that it's going to get any better. A couple of people have rattled off their favorite Wikipedia guidelines, but nobody cares enough to write a good article. There's no excuse for an article this weak on a book that anybody could check out from the library. Doesn't look like your article is going to get deleted this time around. May someone can double its size to four sentences before the next election. Mandsford 11:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Books get reviewed all the time. That, by itself, doesn't make them notable. If the books receive full-article reviews in major publications, then yes, they are notable, according to WP:BK #1. This book was first published in 1943, so most editors can't access the entire reviews from their computers without paying for them. But if we delete the article because of that, then we're adding to the systemic bias. Zagalejo^^^ 20:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, if there were any attempt to expand this article, I'd say keep. But if the attitude is "give it more time to grow", I can say that it's not a vine that will get larger on its own. Nobody, including you and including me, cares enough to try to improve this article, which is essentially a couple of sentences about a book. There should probably be a category for silver medal presidential candidates (the closest is "Democratic presidential nominee", etc., which lists the winners and losers among nominees). I think that this article could be the start of that list, merely by citing who's profiled in the book. But if it's just going to be a "this was written by ____ and first published in 19__ by ______ Press", it's a lousy article. Mandsford 21:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added as much as I could without making a special trip to the library. It's still short, but once again, being a stub is not a reason for deletion. Zagalejo^^^ 03:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - regarding these comments:
    - It's been two years, and no sign that this is going to improve.
    - it's not a vine that will get larger on its own. Nobody, including you and including me, cares enough to try to improve this article.
  - This is a really bad attitude. Perhaps the idea of an open-ended Encyclopedia that will be completed over the course of multiple generations (20-100 years) is abhorant to you and you wish to sabotage that effort by deleting articles that don't "get larger on their own". Look, if you can't do it, leave it alone, let someone else do it, it's not your problem or responsibility. -- 71.191.36.194 23:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article stub and disambiguation issues are not reason to delete. -- 71.191.36.194 23:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 01:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Douga

Dictionary definition that appears to be wrong based on an Japanese-to-English lookup and the Japanese articles on the term. Only one article from Anime News Network even suggests this as a possible definition, but Google turns up nothing useful. Anything that could go into this article should instead go into the currently unwritten in-between animation article instead. --Farix (Talk) 12:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP is not a dictionary. --Gavin Collins 21:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 10:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor attempt at a dicdef; don't transwiki. -- Hoary 01:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NOT#DICT. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (Duane543 15:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge into Artificial gills (human) and redirect. Jreferee T/C 17:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like-A-Fish

Queried speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard 11:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Created at 21:52 2 September 2005 User:Daniel11. edited by several people since.

At 00:57 30 July 2007 User:Mikemill tagged it "{{db-bio|company or corporation|Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations)|category= }}"".

At 03:16 30 July 2007 deleted by User:Carlossuarez46 "Article about a company that doesn't assert significance".

But this device seems to be a notable new technology item, extracting oxygen from seawater for the diver to breathe. Anthony Appleyard 12:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's no end of press coverage, its notability is pretty easy to confirm. --Daniel11 01:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the links in the article should actually count as sources and there are more, e.g [20]. But all this refers mostly to the technology prototype and I am not sure whether it justifies an article about the company, so I'd say merge to Artificial gills (human) or another appropriate title addressing underwater breathing in general. --Tikiwont 08:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Artificial gills (human) per Tikiwont. Number 5 7 12:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteor Merge as the lack of primary sources (like a patent number) or secondary sources (like an academic paper) is not sufficient evidence of notability. Notability to come? --Gavin Collins 10:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, a quick search revealed the patent numbers (I think I've found the correct ones), and those have been added to the article (in the references). --Craw-daddy | T | 16:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Tikiwont then delete; there's one reliable source the BBC, the patent office showing 2 patents is nice, but given that there are 6,000,000+ patents in the USA, and probably a similar number in Europe, Japan, if having 2 patents makes a company notable or being a co-inventor makes the inventor notable, then the bar for technology companies is virtually non-existant because nearly all of them have patents. Patents means little, we have no 2ndary sources to tell us that these patents are ground-breaking are a huge advance likely to improve humanity's lot or the company's bottom line or whether they are the run-of-the-mill incremental advance represented by 99.9% of all patents. Carlossuarez46 04:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The device is notable, and describing the device needs some mention of the firm that made it. Anthony Appleyard 04:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Tikiwont. BBC article establishes notability.--Truest blue 04:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC) sockpuppet GRBerry 03:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have copy-merged from Like-A-Fish into Artificial gills (human), but without altering Like-A-Fish. Redirect to Artificial gills (human). Anthony Appleyard 05:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 01:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genga (anime)

Dictionary definition that appears to be wrong based on an Japanese-to-English lookup. Only one article from Anime News Network even suggests this as a possible definition, but Google turns up nothing. Anything that could go into this article should instead go into the currently unwritten key animation article instead, which is exactly what the Japanese articles covers. --Farix (Talk) 11:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not a dictionary. --Gavin Collins 15:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 10:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this junk definition; do not transwiki. -- Hoary 14:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (Duane543 15:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Created by a banned user while they were banned. -- Longhair\^talk 10:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Grind

Non-notable website, no reliable secondary sources (references are also dubious). Doesn't comply with WP:WEB. Also created by banned sockpuppet User:ChampagneComedy. Finally, issues with conflict of interest, as sockpuppeteer was User:Joestella, who is involved with the site. Recurring dreams 11:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Recurring dreams 11:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nominator hit the nail right on the head Rackabello 16:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails 2 of the 3 notability requirements at WP:WEB - content is not the subject of multiple non-trivial published works other than the webpage itself, and has not won a well-known and independent award. All but one of the references are unrelated to and do not mention The Daily Grind. The remaining reference (to an archive at watercoolergames) is a dead link so I couldn't verify it. The Tharunka reference in the body of the text is genuine but self-referential - the editor of The Daily Grind was at the time also the editor of Tharunka and published his own work in both sources (and so is not independent coverage). Euryalus 23:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Twenty Years 09:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. What a long AFD discussion. Neil ム 11:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Novgorodsky

The assertion of notability here is that he is "the first Russian-Soviet Musician to receive a Doctoral Degree from Yale." He has performed in many venues, but not necessarily as a headliner. "Extraordinary Abilities in the Arts" U.S. permanent residence indicates that he has a Green Card, but the criteria for that type of Green Card approval is not at all the same as Wikipedia's criteria for notability, Won some type of Web contest. In short, he's an assistant professor. We can't keep him just for being handsome. Brought here for discussion. OfficeGirl 11:00, 13 September 2007

*The multiple lengthy comments from the creator have made the consensus difficult to follow, so I have taken the liberty of reformatting the page to move the nonvotes to a separate section from the discussion. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, FisherQueen, and I regret having commented at such length. Bazaryakov 16:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unvotes to keep or delete

Weak keep. It appears that the subject should be evaluated for notability as a musician (see WP:MUSIC) rather than as a professor. I would recommend that the article be revised to focus on his performance and recording history, rather than his academic achievements. Being the first person of a particular nationality to earn a degree in a particular instrument at a particular university should not be the focus of his article, since there are so many possible combinations of nationalities, instruments, and universities. --Metropolitan90 16:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails to demonstrate notability per WP:BIO guidlines; I need to see evidence of recodings, reviews, concerts before I would consider otherwise. However, this guy could be notable in Russia, and where his notability may be covered by a wide range of Russian sourcs; in which case, I am sure his article in Russian Wikipedia will be sufficient for the time being. --Gavin Collins 21:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he is notable in Russia, he is notable here--our coverage is world-wide as long as people think the subject is important enough to do the work of writing about them in English. Our use of sources is similar--any language will do (translated if necessary to show the essence). DGG (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cant find evidence that this person meets either the notability criteria for musicians or the notability criteria for academics. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even with all the fixes, this article fails to meet the Heymann standard for rescuing articles nominated for deletion. It needs in-line citations, specifying how a living person has done something musically notable from verifable and reliable sources. Non-tenured professors are not per se notable. Arguments that other musicians with articles are also in Wikipedia are logical fallacies and do not sway Wikipedians. Quite frankly, I am a fan of classical music, and a faithful reader of the Chronicle of Higher Education, but I've never heard of the subject of this article. Bearian 00:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I made some technical corrections to the formatting. Yes, WP, is in fact prejudiced against non-tenured professors, of which I am a member of that class of persons. And yes, I am somewhat on an expert of modern classical music. Bearian 13:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has been the subject of multiple nontrivial published sources which meets WP:Music. Many refs are trivial but many are not; namely [21], [22], [23]. Has won or placed in a major music competition. Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio or TV network. ♫ Cricket02 14:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm still not convinced. The Kazakh and Russian competitions sound like they might be major competitions but there's precious little on the Internet about them. The radio broadcasts were on a Wisconsin network, not across a national network. The three refs you've listed as examples are a press release, a symphony calendar listing and an unbylined "Special to the Herald" (read: info provided by the orchestra to the small/mid-sized town paper and printed verbatim) recap of his bio. These 3 examples are all promotional. They're not from a disinterested perspective. Canuckle 23:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but as a musician; clearly not notable as a professor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

Discussion with creator

Dear Sir/Madam,

Russian Piano school is one of the most prominent in the world, and Moscow Tchaikovsky Conservatory is the primary musical institution in the world. Wikipedia has multiple articles about Russian-Soviet musicians who have contributed to the art of piano playing: none of them have achieved a higher scholarly achievement than Mr. Novgorodsky, who is both an alumnus of Tchaikovsky Conservatory and holds the Doctor of Musical Arts Degree from Yale School of Music. Not only is he the first musician to have ever attained that level but he is also the only person in the world to have both degrees at the moment. The Yale Doctoral Degree is given only to the best in their field, and no Russian-born and Soviet-trained musicians in history have so far received that honor. The US Immigration criteria for "Extraordinary Abilities in the Arts" category approval involves corroborating that the applicant has "risen to the top in his/her field of endeavor", which would have to fall into the category of special notability. If the criteria is not met, this special immigration status isn't conferred. I am quoting form the "Extraordinary Abilities in the Arts" description: The fact that Dmitri Novgorodsky is presently an Assistant Professor of Piano doesn't take away from his achievements. The academic hierarchy involves moving from the entry level to the full professor rank, and perhaps at some point in the future he will attain that academic distinction as well - but that alone wouldn't be the reason for including him in Wikipedia: we have thousands of full professors who haven't received Mr. Novgorodsky's distinctions. The headliner can be changed, if this will suit the Wikipedia format better.

Here are the Wikipedia criteria for inclusion which the article meets:

1) The person has received significant recognized awards or honors. 2) The person has demonstrable wide name recognition ( 3) The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field 4) Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources.

Thank you for your consideration and attention to this matter,

Respectfully,

Bazaryakov

COMMENT Well, this discussion has been created so that Wikipedians who know the world of music can evaluate your claims, Bazaryakov. But I am an immigration lawyer and I have worked with Outstanding Ability immigrants to get their cases approved-- and they are APPROVED, but they are not suitable subjects for a Wikipedia article. I assure you it is a different standard than Wikipedia uses. I have a real concern here: if he is so much more accomplished than anyone else, why is he only an assistant professor? it just doesn't match up. That is why this discussion is here, so that the whole community has a chance to discuss.OfficeGirl 11:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear OfficeGirl,

"The legal term ‘extraordinary ability’ seeks to identify those persons who have reached the very top of their professions as compared to their peers". (see the category's guidelines in the link http://www.breakthroughusa.co.uk/artists-visa-guide/). Although the article's main premise is not to establish that the approval under the "Extraordinary Abilities in The Arts" immigration category qualifies the recipient of that immigrational status for inclusion in Wikipedia, this fact in Mr. Novgorodsky's biography emphasizes that he became the first and the only Russian-Soviet musician to earn the Yale Doctoral Degree in Piano Performance BASED ON THOSE EXTRAORDINARY ABILITIES (which has been recognized and approved by the US immigration authorities as well). I would also like to draw your attention, once again, to the fact that Mr. Novgorodsky's achievements fall into at least 4 Wikipedia eligibility categories above. The ONLY one in the world is an achievement worthy of being known by the Wikipedia community and users, isn't it?

Going on to your concerns about "assistant professor" as an academic status/rank. I am sure you are well-versed enough in the academic distinctions to be aware that "assistant professor" is an entry-level rank for people who started teaching not more than 6-7 years ago. After that period, they are evaluated for tenure and, once approved, are automatically promoted into an "Associate Professor" rank. As you can see from the biography, Mr. Novgorodsky has dedicated his artistic career to multiple performances around the world, and has started his teaching career in the academia not a very long time ago. If Dmitri Novgorodsky were an associate or a full professor at this juncture, that wouldn't qualify him for inclusion in Wikipedia, nor will that fact alone do so when, in due time, he is promoted to an Associate and then to the Full Professor rank. The article cites his current university position merely as information on his present academic occupation, "A Piano Faculty" (by the way, it doesn't mention the "assistant professor" status, you are the one bringing that information into equation). However, I hope you would agree that being an Assistant Professor doesn't clash with the achievement of being the first and the only Russian and Soviet musician in the world to hold the Doctoral Degree in Piano Performance from Yale. Incidentally, Yale School of Music is the only Ivy League school which awards Doctorates in instrumental musical performance - Harvard University doesn't confer performance degrees. If you feel that fact could be reflected in the article as well, this could be considered.

Thank you so much for your comments and contributions,

Respectfully,

Bazaryakov— Bazaryakov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

QUESTION FOR Bazaryakov: You seem to be extremely familiar with Dmitri Novgorodsky. Perhaps you have special knowledge of him that I do not have. Do you know him personally or work with him? Are you one of his students? Are you Dmitri Novgorodsky himself? That will help me understand your viewpoint. And as for above-- I am just saying that the legal definition and the Wikipedia definition of notability are two different things. (Please automatically sign your posts with four tilde "~" marks)OfficeGirl 13:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear OfficeGirl,

I am a musician and know all notable people in the field - including most of the names featured in Wikipedia. I am not Dmitri Novgorodsky, unfortunately, and not his student, although I wish I were one. Should one be personally acquainted with the subject of one's article to submit the latter into Wikipedia? Is this a requirement? If so, then I don't meet it.

I hope my viewpoint is very easy to understand: Dmitri Novgorodsky is the first and the only Russian-Soviet musician in the world to have received a terminal degree in piano performance from the only Ivy League school in the United States which grants such degrees. He has had a distinguished career in his field, and obviously has received sufficiently notable awards and honors in that field to be included in Wikipedia.

If you are still bothered by a "mismatch" between the 'assistant professor' university rank and inclusion of its bearer in Wikipedia, here are the Wikipedia's gudelines on articles about university professors:

"If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are definitely notable. If an academic/professor meets none of these conditions, they may still be notable, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable.

1. The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources. 2. The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field. 3. The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course, if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works, if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature[1]. 4. The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known. 5. The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources. 6. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.

As follows from the article, Dmitri Novgorodsky certainly meets more than at least one of the aforementioned conditions. However, as I have already pointed out in the course of our discussion, the aim of the article is not to acquaint the Wikipedia users with Dmitri Novgorodsky's academic rank, nor does the article feature one (the assistant professor title isn't cited there, you have brought it up). Mr. Novgorodsky's university position is a logical result and realization of his abilities to which the article is dedicated.

Lastly, are YOU acquainted with the academic and/or music field, or with Dmitri Novgorodsky's work and accomplishments personally, so you could provide the Wikipedia community with more valid, substantial, consequential, and weighty arguments for deletion than "we can't keep him just for being handsome"? The article does not feature Dmitri Novgorodsky's images, so your reference to his appearance in the argument is doubtful and suspicious: you sound as though you may have some irreconcilable personal dislike toward Dmitri Novgorodsky. After all, he is a living person, and perhaps YOU have had some conflicts of interest with him personally - or other reasons for denying the article an inclusion?

To that effect, I would invite other members of the Wikipedia community to participate in the discussion, so it wouldn't look like initiated and maintained by only one user, who is for some reason going out of his/her way to have the article deleted.

Respectfully,

Bazaryakov —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazaryakov (talk • contribs) 14:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My biggest concern with this article is whether or not it asserts the notability of its subject. I'm not sure that being the first Russian person to receive a specific degree from Yale makes him notable. Do we have articles on the first person from other nationalities? If you're going to use that as a criterion for inclusion, then we need to be thorough.

My next concern is that the article is completely unsourced except for the lists of doctoral candidates and lists of Moscow Conservatory Students. When I read the article, I thoguht that the numbered citations linked to external sources, but they are just internal wikilinks that are formatted incorrectly. For example, the article mentions that Mr. Novgorodsky played at Carnegie Hall. There is a citation next to this statement that I thought would verify this fact. However, it merely links to the Carnegie Hall page. That doesn't prove that he played there. That being said, notability is not asserted, because the only proven facts in the article are that he was a member of Conservatory and earned his doctorate. Those are hardly notable achievements.

If this article is going to be kept it needs to be expanded, sourced, and formatted correctly. Simply naming the places that he has played at is not going to cut it. These facts need to be verified by multiple, reliable, indepenedent sources. Right now, this article does not have much to stand on, if anything. Unless it is edited heavily within the next couple of days, I believe it should be deleted. None of the facts are verified and notability is certainly not established in the article.

Finally, Bazaryakov needs to read this policy, and comment on the article, not the editor. OfficeGirl asked a perfectly legitimate question and your response questioning her motive was unnecessary and in bad faith. --Cyrus Andiron 16:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before initiating this AfD I looked up the subject's bio on the University web page where he is an assistant professor. It has the subject's picture. I found him to be remarkably handsome, but didn't find him to be encyclopedically notable. I had no idea it would be perceived as an insult to the subject to call him handsome. It comes as a surprise.OfficeGirl 21:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS- I did not post the comment about the subject's handsome good looks in boldface type. That was a change by Bazaryakov here:[24]. (Please do not alter posts made by other users, Bazaryakov. You might change the meaning of their posts, and that would be misrepresenting their viewpoints.) Thanks.OfficeGirl 21:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.EXISING WIKIPEDIA PRECEDENTS

Dear Wikipedia experts,

Thank you for your comments. Here is an example of an existing Wikipedia article about a musician: [[25]] Are there any links to verifiable, independent sources here, rather than external sources links? How is notability established, except for the fact that the subject "currently studies at Juilliard"? Bazaryakov 16:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)— Bazaryakov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Take it to AFD if you want. If it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion it can be deleted as well. I'm not going to debate what is and is not acceptable. If you want to challenge an article, you are free to do so. However, you aren't helping your case by naming other articles that don't comply to Wikipedia's standards. Comparing one poorly written article to another poorly written article seems counterproductive to me. No one here is a "Wikipedia Expert." I don't think anyone really takes it that seriously. Wikipedia is not that important. --Cyrus Andiron 16:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT But doesn't existence of other articles show they HAVE qualified for inclusion in Wikipedia? I am just attempting to contest the notion that this article does not establish notability of its subject. Notability is verified both in text and in the references. If you have suggestions on how to better format the article, use the "help improve the article" link instead of calling for deletion of the subject. By the way, I don't take it so seriously either. Bazaryakov 17:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)— Bazaryakov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment No the existence of an article does not necessarily mean that it is notable. There are over two million articles on Wikipedia, so some articles will slip through the cracks. Now, when I talk about formatting, the link to Carnegie Hall should be typed like this [[Carnegie Hall]]. That will produce Carnegie Hall. Also, the article needs to be fleshed out some more. Find some information about his younger years and include that. Don't forget the small details like his birthdate and where he was born, etc. If he has written any famous pieces or has a compilation album, include that. Take a look at other musicians pages and try to format this article like them (a good, but not great example would be Bach). Obviously, there is a great deal more information on Bach, but that should at least give you a basis of comparison. --Cyrus Andiron 17:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT

DOUBLE STANDARD, CONCERN

The article has more evidence in the reference section than any other articles on living performing musicians presently found in the Wikipedia. NONE of the articles I have read present any evidence of recordings, reviews, or concert (except for listing them) then the discussed article does (in the form of links and references). Deleting this article would create a double standard - then we would have to delete most of the existing articles. As to notability - this is a matter of personal taste. I would argue that Hitler isn't more notable than someone who has top degrees from major music schools in the world, maintains an active recording and performing career and is also teaching in an university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazaryakov (talk • contribs) 22:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler? Please see Godwin's Law. You only think Hitler is not notable because he's a painter and not a musician. Oh, there are reliable sources that verify he was a painter. More sources would help with this subject's notability. Canuckle 01:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT

GOOD ARTICLE. ENOUGH NOTABILITY. I DON'T KNOW WHY EVERYONE HAS FLIPPED OUT SO MUCH, REALLY. JUST LOOK AT OTHER PIANISTS' ENTRIES UNDER WIKIPEDIA'S List of classical pianists AND PLEASE TELL ME HOW THEY ESTABLISH THEIR SUBJECTS' NOTABILITY - OR HAVE MORE REFERENCES AND DOCUMENTAL EVIDENCE THEREOF THAN MINE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazaryakov (talk • contribs) 10:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

LEAVE Here are existing Wikipedia articles on pianists:

[[26]]

[[27]]

[[28]]

[[29]]

[[30]]

CAN ANYBODY FIND ANY EVIDENCE OF THE CLAIMS MADE IN ANY OF THEM? DO THEY MEET NOTABILITY CRITERIA? I PROMISE MOST ARTICLES ARE THE SAME! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazaryakov (talk • contribs) 11:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, we are discussing whether Dmitri Novgorodsky meets the notability criteria. Discussion of whether those other people meet the criteria isn't appropriate here; such discussion should happen in the AfD discussion for each of those people. Please, it would be helpful if you would stop pointing out articles you think do not meet the notability criteria here- it is a distraction from the conversation. Instead, focus on showing the information and sources that show how this person meets the criteria. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTABILITY CRITERIA ARE EVALUATED BY THE ESTABLISHED, EXISTING, ACCEPTED PRECEDENTS IN WIKIPEDIA. DENYING THE DISCUSSED ARTICLE A PLACE IN WIKIPEDIA SHOULD INCLUDE REASONS THAT HAVE BEEN CONSISTENTLY APPLIED TO OTHER EXISTING ARTICLES. THEY WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN LEFT IF THE DISCUSSED CRITERIA WERE APPLIED TO THEM AS WELL, WOULD THEY? I ASSUME THEIR PUBLICATION IN WIKIPEDIA WAS PRECEDED BY SIMILAR DISCUSSIONS, RIGHT? DO THEY HAVE ANY EVIDENCE CORROBORATING THEIR SUBJECTS' NOTABILITY AND DO THEY INCLUDE ANY MORE RELIABLE SOURCES THAN THIS ONE?

THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF "CRITERIA" AND ITS DISCUSSION HERE, WITHOUT REFERRING TO PRECEDENTS OF ITS CURRENT PRACTICAL APPLICATION IN WIKIPEDIA, BECOMES

1) WORTHLESS;

2) HYPOCRITICAL;

3) PREJUDICED REGARDING A PARTICULAR SUBJECT/ARTICLE;

4) PROMOTING DOUBLE-STANDARD IN WIKIPEDIA.

PERHAPS IT INDEED WOULD BE BETTER FOR SUCH AN ARTICLE TO BE PUBLISHED IN A VENUE WHERE THE NOTIONS OF "EVIDENCE", "NOTABILITY" ETC. ARE APPLIED CONSISTENTLY TO EVERYONE. OTHERWISE A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT ARTICLES ARE TO BE PUBLISHED OR DELETED SOUNDS RIDICULOUS. Bazaryakov 11:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay, I'm sure the horse is getting pretty tired from being beaten so much, but here goes... The only aspect of this AFD that you need to be concerned about right now is the notability of Dmitri Novgorodsky. I have not looked at any of the other musicians articles you have pointed out, and frankly I don't plan to. To my knowledge, those articles are not up for deletion review right now, so that makes them irrelevant to the current subject. You can talk all you want about prior precedent, but it does not apply here. Those articles have not passed an AFD either because no one has nominated them for deletion. Basically, no one has checked them to see if they are notable. The community has either not noticed the articles or believes them to be on par with Wikipedia's policies. However, if you don't think that the other articles on pianists meet the notability criteria, then nominate them for deletion and have them removed as well (via consensus). If you want to keep this article, then focus on proving his notability rather than disproving someone elses. Also, if you think Wikipedia is biased, you're probably right. That's the way it is. Fortunately, no one is forcing you to be here. The door is always open. And for the love of god, quit typing in caps. Nothing says "enraged little school girl" like typing in all caps when you're angry. And don't forget to sign all posts with tildes (~~~~). --Cyrus Andiron 11:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT. Indeed, why would anyone want to be in the venue where the concept of criteria has no logic and where everyone, nevertheless, arrogantly preaches on what is acceptable? Other articles weren't checked to see if they are notable? The community believes them to be on par with Wikipedia's policies? Then so much for Wikipedia "policies" - gibberish. FORGET IT, PUBLISH ARTICLES ON KNITTING. I AM SURE THEY WOULD FIT YOU "CRITERIAS". SEE YA. Oh, I forgot - I will type in caps until I decide to do otherwise - sorry it makes you so "enraged like a little girl" you pay attention. :)

Bazaryakov 12:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think you're getting it... Wikipedia has 2 million articles. That's quite a few. Some slip through. If you don't think they meet the criteria, nominate them yourself and stop complaining. We also have an article on knitting, feel free to check it out. --Cyrus Andiron 12:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just the last comment, before I leave the discussion: read the article carefully and see if it matches the WP:MUSIC notability criteria. In particular, look at paragraphs 1, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12. Show how the subject isn't notable and how the evidence supplied in the reference section doesn't match at least one of the WP:MUSIC criteria.

All the best,

Bazaryakov 13:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Hey all. I have heavily formatted the article. Please take a look and see if it matches the WP:MUSIC notability criteria. In particular, look at paragraphs 1, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12 of the WP:MUSIC. In your arguments, please show how the subject isn't notable according to the criteria and how the evidence supplied in the "Reference", "Review", and "Further reading" sections of the article doesn't match at least one of the WP:MUSIC criteria.

All the best,

Bazaryakov 16:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Keep. I understand there are no more arguments for deletion, now that the article has been reformatted and includes additional sources which verify the subject's notability under WP:MUSIC?

Thank you all, Bazaryakov 18:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary section break for easier editing

Response The article is no longer as sloppy looking as it started out, but there's just no further substance than what we have been seeing on his University bio. He may have a promising future, but he's just not notable enough to be in an encyclopedia.OfficeGirl 21:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article now has an added press-release in the reference section from the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh. It proves the subject's touring: "Upcoming engagements for Novgorodsky include being the invited guest artist at the Young Musicians Festival, solo recital and master classes at the Kazakhstan National Conservatory and solo performances in St. Petersburg, Russia." Hope this sounds like a tour.

Bazaryakov 23:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 except for the following: Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble. Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. An article in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.-- A review in a university paper, advertising and concert listings considered trivial.

Canuckle 21:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

1) Review in University paper is considered trivial on a case-by-case basis. Besides, the review included in the article in the "review" section is from an independent paper, The New Britain Herald.

"multiple" usually means more than 2. Canuckle 22:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2) *12 - Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio or TV network - Is Wisconsin Public Radio considered national?"' - Yes, I would say Wisconsin National Public Radio is considered national. Every state in the country has its national radio, so does Wisconsin.

Just 4 programs on Wisconsin Public Radio are distributed nationwide and the live on Sundays isn't one of them. Canuckle 22:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio". WP:MUSIC doesn't say the performances "have to be distributed nationwide". The criteria say "...has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio". Wisconsin Public Radio is a part of NPR, and solo recitals on the series last more than an hour. To be invited to perform a solo recital in a life broadcast more than once is an honor only few are accorded. Thus, the subject fully meets that WP:MUSIC criterion. Bazaryakov 23:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. It seems pretty clear that teh intent is a national audience. If you think otherwise, ask at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music) Canuckle 23:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3) Quoting OfficeGirl:"The article is no longer as sloppy looking as it started out, but there's just no further substance than what we have been seeing on his University bio. He may have a promising future, but he's just not notable enough to be in an encyclopedia" Response to OfficeGirl, a quote from WP:MUSIC: "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion". Also, the discussion here is not about the subject's University bio and the article's comparison with the latter. Please try to make relevant comments on the article in Wikipedia.

4) Kazakhstan National Piano Competition doesn't sound like a teenager competition. In the latter case, it would be called a "Kazakhstan National Teenagers' Competition". It is hard to verify winning a prize at a competition which took place in 1982 (when Internet in Kasakhstan did not exist, nor did it in the US). There are hard paper diplomas in Kazakh (!)language, and probably publications in newspapers in the same language verifying that, but couldn't be placed into a Wikipedia English web article. That, however, does not deplete the notion of Kazakhstan National Competition's notability.

Onus is on contributors to provide reliable sources. Canuckle 22:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amen, it is also on the disputers to prove otherwise. Bazaryakov 23:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect. See: Wikipedia:Verifiability The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Canuckle 23:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, agree. But what will you do with the radio? Try to prove that Wisconsin Public Radio isn't national radio?. It is not "oh please", and it is not about "intent". This is what the WP:MUSIC guidelines say, "a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio", not "performances for national audiences". I hope Wisconsin is considered a part of the nation, and consequently its audience is national audience. And know I would like to hear your definition of "National Radio". Bazaryakov 23:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Public Radio is described as a "national syndicator to public radio stations in the United States" and "NPR produces and distributes news and cultural programming. Its member stations are not required to broadcast all of these programs". That's content going out and being broadcast by multiple member stations across the nation. Whereas Wisconsin Public Radio is a network of radio stations in the state of Wisconsin. So "broadcast on a national radio or TV network" is a broadcast aired across a national network and not a broadcast aired in one city or state by a member station of a national network. That's where I am coming from. 23:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

He-he, that is just parsing definitions. No piano recitals are broadcast over the NATION, you can only hear them in a particular state where you are currently at. Besides, your definition of public radio is taken from a Wikipedia's article. What are the chances the author is absolutely right? We can't seem to agree on what public and national radio are, why should anyone trust the guy who wrote that article? Let's delete it!:)

Bazaryakov 00:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YOu're parsing, I'm explaining how a network operates and what being broadcast on a network is. And we know the NPR description is accurate BECAUSE ITS GOT A REFERENCE to its own mission statement. Canuckle 00:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article establishes and verifies that Dmitri Novgorodsky Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio or TV network (WP:MUSIC] more than once, has performed in major venues, gave a world premiere to a contemporary composition that won a Web Competition and was subsequently released on a professional label.

Bazaryakov 22:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When replying, instead of typing RESPONSE, can you type a full-colon? That will indent your replys and is easier-to-read formatting. Canuckle 23:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks. By the way, the article now has an added press-release in the reference section from the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh. It proves the subject's touring: "Upcoming engagements for Novgorodsky include being the invited guest artist at the Young Musicians Festival, solo recital and master classes at the Kazakhstan National Conservatory and solo performances in St. Petersburg, Russia." Please also note that "...he has recently returned from a concert tour in Taiwan...".

Bazaryakov 00:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid argument for deletion. You have never heard of the subject, and now you and other Wikipedians will. The article satisfies more than one WP:MUSIC criterion and you can't have it deleted just "because you've never heard of the subject". The purpose of an encyclopedia is to make you acquainted with subjects, what's the point if you know about them already?. I promise you that classical professionals, not fans, know the subject. But this is not the point of argument about deletion either. Failing to meet Heymann standard for rescuing articles nominated for deletion doesn't necessarily qualify an article for deletion. By the way, the article has another added source at the reference section, from the New Britain Herald. It is a reliable source which asserts the subject's winning of major prizes at music competitions. In short, the article amply establishes and verifies notability of its subject. Also, the article doesn't mention whether Dmitri Novgorodsky is tenured or not. Do Wikipedians have prejudices toward non-tenured professors who also happen to be outstanding performing musicians and therefore delete articles about them?

Bazaryakov 00:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please help improve the article, and/or or give advices on what information in it might need "in-line citations"?

The question involves a technicality such as formatting: providing in-line citations will take time for the editor to work on, but the article should not be deleted in the process. It satisfies the WP:MUSIC criteria of notability and supplies ample references and sources.

Thanks,

Bazaryakov 10:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I made some technical corrections to the formatting. Yes, WP, is in fact prejudiced against non-tenured professors, of which I am a member of that class of persons. And yes, I am somewhat on an expert of modern classical music. Bearian 13:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for all your help, Bearian! In the "Dmitri Novgorodsky became an American citizen in 2004. [citation needed]" part of the bio section, what citation is suggested?

Thanks again, Bazaryakov 14:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OfficeGirl, thank you so much for your work on corrections, they are greatly appreciated. Bazaryakov 15:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Kazakh and Russian competitions are major competitions, but they took place in non-English speaking countries, before the Internet was invented. As far as convincing you, I don't think anything will convince you (see the discussion below). By contrast, ♫ Cricket02, who deals with musicians all the time, IS convinced. Of course you have right to hold on to your opinion. Thank you for the comments.

Bazaryakov 00:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please be civil and keep the debate about the merits of the subject and not your fellow Wikipedians. I would be convinced by a reliable source that is independent of the subject and is something more significant than a promotional piece or a concert listing. I've rescued several marginal bios from deletion before and in case you haven't noticed - I havent' yet unvoted either way yet, not even to delete, despite your unfriendly conversation. And I pointed out on the article's Talk page that non-English, non-Internet sources can be perfectly legit provided they are reliable sources. Canuckle 00:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plus below I supported your claim that he went on national tours. So stop arguing and start trying to convince. On one bio, he claimed to have received "critical acclaim" following a Taiwan tour. Now if that acclaim was published in reliable sources and you can find it, you'd be somewhere. Canuckle 00:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. OK, sorry if the above remark is considered uncivil.

The fact of major prizes and touring is established by several independent sources:

1) Reference # 5, International Double-reed society conference (yes, this is a bio, but published by a source independent of the subject's workplace;

2) Reference # 2, the New Britain Herald - an independent source. Perhaps this is considered a "small town" newspaper (not everyone has the New York Times recapping one's prizes back in the 80s, which were won outside of the US and before the onset of Internet), although I can't find anywhere in WP that small papers aren't considered as reliable sources;

3) Reference # 42, Appleton's Post-Crescent: by the way, this newspaper serves an entire region.

4) Reference # 8: University of Iowa Press -Release - independent source. This is all I've got on Novgorodsky as far as Internet. Now how do I list sources that are non-English and non Internet? I'd appreciate your input, thanks.

Bazaryakov 01:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Canuckle, I've found several "hard copy" pieces of information:

1) An article "Keyed up" about D. Novgorodsky from the "Post -Crescent", dated November 10, 2000. It is about D. Novgorodsky (an interview with him, including his picture), it mentions his prize winning of National Competitions, but 2000 issues aren't kept in the online archives.

2) 2 Carnegie Hall performance programs (January 6, 2001 and Saturday 7, 1998) which list his prizes;

3) A Kazakh newspaper from 2002...

4) A recital program from Jerusalem Rubin Academy of Music (in Hebrew), which also refers to his prizes won in the former Soviet Union.

How do I cite (list) them in Wikipedia??

Thank you,

Bazaryakov 02:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, as has been pointed out there is a category that serves this function. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Windows Vista topics

This manually-managed list is made redundant because of the Windows Vista category. It would have been better if the list were maintained topically, but the hassles of manually managing the list, given the proliferation of Windows Vista related articles far outweighs the benefits. Instead, the automated indexing using categories is a much better alternative, IMO, and has an added advantage of automated (though, pretty limited) sorting. As for the sidebar, the link can directly link to the categories. soum ^talk 10:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to Category & Delete assuming it hasn't been done yet. There is no sub-sorting within the list to warrent a seperate page for it. A category will do it much better. Turlo Lomon 11:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Everything that might have anything to do with Windows Vista is far too broad for a list. Category:Windows Vista already exists. A similar list was deleted a couple months ago. Someguy1221 20:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- OSborn^arf 23:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per all of the above due to redundacy with category--JForget 22:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary due to Category:Windows Vista. Carlosguitar 10:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. There's no real notability here other than someone trying to portray the institute or its management in a bad light, with BLP in mind and notability iffy at best (I think it falls below WP:N & WP:CORP, but even if it just passes, BLP issues outweigh a "just pass") deletion is proper. If we cannot write a BLP-compliant NPOV article better none at all. Carlossuarez46 04:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starkey International Institute for Household Management

User:Kintetsubuffalo tagged it {{notability}} and {{db-attack}}, but it merely contains what may be fair criticism that someone in its management may be objecting to. Anthony Appleyard 10:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Actually, I tagged it because it brought up "criticisms", but did not say what those criticisms were, nor sourced them. So I don't know who in their management you are referring to, but be careful where you sling that. Chris 15:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The criticisms are sourced by the Warner article--the footnote simply isnt there. Considering our BLP rules, the article is properly non-specific. DGG (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 04:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promenadology

According to Kassel University there is no faculty on Promenadology (or in German: Spaziergangswissenschaft) [31]. This "science" was invented as an scientist joke that went through to the news. jergen 10:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:HOAX. Indeed, there are no results from the Univerity's official website on this matter. --Darkwind (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable science, possible hoax. • Lawrence Cohen 18:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Lathi

Ruth Lathi's page seems to be a biographical self-promotional page about her practice in reproductive endocrinology at Stanford.

Nothing notable or exceptional in her achievements to deserve any mention in wikipedia.

No notable significant contributions to the field of reproductive endocrinology. No major discoveries (or new techniques) that have advanced infertility treatment in women.

Not on par with the level of Dr. Patrick Steptoe, or Dr. Robert Edwards (who are both in wikipedia), and were involved in the very 1st successful IVF trial.

If we were to put every person who went into medical school, and then specialized in an area where they publish articles and become associate professors... well, wikipedia would cease being useful and simply become an incredibly LONG and extensive database housing names upon names of physicians throughout the world. Wikiuserlee 09:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if expanded further I don't see there being any self-promotion here, as what you claim in extreme length consists of two short and terse sentences about her research. Your reasoning is long and unfocused, and for AfD, we usually try to keep our reasons for deletion to two-four sentences or less. This is your first action on the site according to your contribution history, so I ask that you build experience on this site before you take an article to deletion. Welcome to Wikipedia, but please learn how to discuss items in a short and focused way. As for the article itself, I do agree that it is short and probably needs extra cites and reasons for her notability, but it is certainly salvagable in its current form as a stub. Nate 10:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems on track for a successful academic career but (as is typical for starting faculty even at the best places) no real notability yet. —David Eppstein 15:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nate is right about the form of the deletion proposal, but I agree with David: no real notability yet. --Crusio 15:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An assistant professor with 19 co-authored publications in specialist journals doesn't yet seem to have attained the standards of WP:PROF. Serving on a single editorial board and winning a faculty teaching award are also insufficient to confer notability. Google Scholar shows that a couple of her papers have respectable citations (12) but there's nothing to overset the decision to recommend deletion. Espresso Addict 18:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Peculiar bias against Stanford and UCSF. Considering that they are by any count among the top dozen research-oriented medical schools in the US, I wonder at the agenda here. DGG (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as for the merits, Web of Science shows she has written 39 items in peer-reviewed journals, but only 6 seem to be more than abstracts or single case reports; none have yet been cited more than 8 times. That's not surprising, considering that they are almost all very recent. Not yet notable. But I still do not understand the nature of the nomination.DGG (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Shouldn't the person be notable first, before becoming a wiki entry? The process of being a wikipedia entry first in the hopes that they hopefully will become "future notable" characters seem to nullify the value and dilute the existing wikipedia biographies of the truly exceptional people. Also, my apologies for the extensive and long form. Wikiuserlee 07:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Wikiuserlee 09:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PROF.--Yeshivish 03:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Mysekurity 21:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FX3

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are non-notable software being advertised by User:AndrewGrey edits (talk):

Merge and Redirect to VS Visual Statement, Inc.. I agree that there appears to be nothing significant with FX3, but it should be mentioned as a product of the comapny which makes it, as long as it is treated in a non-advert manner. Turlo Lomon 09:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add-On My response is the same for the other product. Merge and Redirect. Turlo Lomon 09:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Grey's Response I am not deliberately trying to advertise Visual Statement on Wikipedia. I am simply trying to inform the public about who we are and what we do. If you could tell me or help me change the wording of my articles so they meet Wikipedia standards it would be greatly appreciated.

It is not a matter of "changing wording". It is a matter of overall intent and approach. As you were informed on your talk page before your response here, do not use Wikipedia for advertising, spam, promotion, PR, commercials, or publicity. Also, you have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Hu 21:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

My intent is to inform the public. This is the first time I have written Wikipedia articles, I would greatly appreciate it if you told me the correct way to write one of these articles so it is not an advertisement as that was not my intention! Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewGrey (talk • contribs) 15:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might try reading WP:YFA. shoy 15:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All as articles serve only as spam link to each company's website.--Gavin Collins 09:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all agreed, that is WP:SPAM without independent sources to establish notability. Carlosguitar 20:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 13:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate F*cking rappers

This article seems to violate WP:CRYSTAL. It is based on a rumour, has no sources and doesn't establish notability. Seraphim ^Whipp 09:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (hopefully speedy): Non-notable album by non-notable person, not even released, if ever. No independent sources. Hu 09:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I did speedy this but it was denied... Seraphim ^Whipp 09:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable and doesn't make sense. Please add on PackFM and WhutduzFMstand4? also to this AfD, as they connect to this article and also don't claim notability for the artist. Nate 09:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN, and slight nonsense- Crystal.Kfc1864 talk my edits 09:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:CRYSTAL. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 16:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Album from an act failing WP:MUSIC which violate WP:CRYSTAL, as very little is provided in the way of confirmed info.--JForget 00:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above... and the answer to "I hate f*cking rappers" is "Don't f*ck them, then" Mandsford 23:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wikipedia policy.--Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 21:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Unless the subject passes WP:MUSIC in the future. Spellcast 05:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jreferee T/C 17:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small Magellanic Cloud (Star Fleet Universe)

AfDs for this article:

I am not sure why this orignal research was not deleted on first nomination, as it contains too much trivial fancruft for an encyclopedia entry. At best this can be described as POV fork from the game Star Fleet Universe, and since it does not have any claim for notability as required by WP:Fiction nor any independent citations to justify inclusion, it needs be deleted to avoid confusion with serious articles such as Magellanic Clouds. --Gavin Collins 09:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First, thanks for adding the previous AfD link. I like to review those before making a final decision. I read the article over... I even read a few related articles. I have to agree that this appears to be fancruft. I disagree with the OR statement, as the information is located in each of the books, but it really isn't necessary here. Turlo Lomon 09:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Either to Star Fleet Universe or, if that article would become too large as was suggested in previous AFD, to a new article containing information on all of the expansions for the game. I'd like to some of this information kept -somewhere-, but don't think it's noteworthy enough to deseve it's own article. - Pacula 13:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. With the merge option preferably going to a new article on settings in the Star Fleet Universe. Again, this has nothing to do with WP:POV -- there's no point of view being advanced here, it's simply a separate page to contain more detail about an aspect of the Star Fleet Universe. It's also not original research -- reading a primary source and stating facts that can be determined from it by any reader without synthesis or interpretation is specifically allowed, if you read WP:OR. And I don't really see how anyone is going to confuse this with scientific articles about the real Magellanic Clouds, since the article's first sentence explains that this article is about an aspect of a game. Pinball22 14:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. This article is either original research or does not reference well at all. This is notable to Star Trek fans but just barely. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 20:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus and that's after excluding the sock accounts.--JForget 01:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Male bra

With zero reliable sources, this seems to fail notability. And just because it's been in Seinfeld doesn't make it notable either. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this already has a mention on Bro and is discussed at length in the episode's article ("The Doorman"). In my opinion, that's plenty. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it has total relevance if not - should be incorporated into the main Brassiere article better --88.108.124.49 14:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But where are the reliable sources documenting the male bra? Please provide them if you can.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little more than 500 Google hits for the term "male bra" excluding Wikipedia mirrors. As I said, if you have reliable sources on this topic, provide them.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bit under 500 for the term "men's bra".-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, also, that quite a few of those hits are unrelated: right on the first page I see jokes about a "male bra fitter" and skiing results (for some reason). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete (or merge to various articles) - Cross-dressing is better covered at that and other articles. No references of men wearing bras for obesity or gynecomastia, and although it may well happen, it's not clear it's particularly notable or encyclopedic; any mention is probably better off in those articles. Also, the Enell Sports Bra [32] doesn't actually refer to it as a bra at all, instead calling it a "Male Support Vest". Even if we decided it is a bra and worth covering, I think it'd be better mentioned at Sports bra? Or alternatively, we could rename this article to something like Male support vest. Mdwh 22:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as notable. Needs cites to be rescued. Redirect per Mdwh if neeeded. Bearian 00:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough reference material is available for the article. - Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Still needs some work, but sources have been added to the article. - Fosnez 10:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge and Redirect to Brassiere. Merge the appropriate portions to both gynecomastia (which doesn't mention this at all, currently) and brassiere (also no mention currently), then redirect to brassiere. The article has been rescued enough that I'd call this a "weak merge", meaning that it's almost a keep, but not quite. Even with further improvement, I still think this belongs inside another article, rather than as an article itself. --barneca (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note that I will be removing the visually offensive image from the article. I'm a firm believer that we are WP:NOT censored as an encyclopedia, but the image simply does not apply. If someone has a photograph of an actual male bra on the other hand, please feel free to add it. thanks! Burntsauce 20:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC
Condense and redirect to bra A bra is something to keep one's breasts in place. Simple as that. That a tiny percentage of them are worn by men doesn't mean they need a completely seperate article. Cooperate by working this information into the main article instead of engaging in this stubborn information separatism. Peter ^Isotalo 13:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I've added some references, external links and content and plenty more is out there but is somewhat hidden as the condition of having male breasts as large as a females is a source of embarrassment and shame for many including the large percentage of adolescent boys who go through the social stigmatizing process during puberty. Male breast reduction surgery is on the rise as is awareness for all medical conditions as people too embarrassed to speak with a medical pro turn to the internet for answers. Wikipedia should have a well written article about the subject as much as any other for those who seek the information. The article does need work but is on its way to being a credible and helpful source of good information. Benjiboi 01:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And the reason that just about all of this information can't be covered by the main bra article is...?Peter ^Isotalo 07:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that male bras are a distinct item unto themselves with their own history, usage and cultural implications that, I believe, would get lost in translation in the main article and quickly annexed anyway. Whereas bras for females have a long, mainstream history, bras for men have almost always been a secret and a shame. As technology and medical science has advanced so has our understanding of why a male's breasts would grow as such where there is little fascination of the why of female breasts - it's just assumed as is. The bra for females has become a high fashion accessory whereas the male bra remains a source of secretive shame. The motivations for and awareness of are on two different planes altogether. Benjiboi 23:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For god's sake what the fuck are you doing guys deleting stuff like this?? ARE YOU FUCKING PSYCHOS?? --Sempspriggs 15:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC) — Sempspriggs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Notable. --Gil Gai giog 15:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC) — Gil Gai giog (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Obviously notable. --Dodgestmeun 15:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC) — Dodgestmeun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep keep, keep,keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, notable, notable, verifable. --Mister Starblind 15:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC) — Mister Starblind (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep MOST NOTABLE TOPIC EVER!! --Kismet3300 15:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC) — Kismet3300 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep This is notable as ever. Don't delete it, it can be worked on. --Juliejha2 15:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC) — Juliejha2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Strike-out obvious sockpuppets. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources. Patent nonsense article. Keb25 15:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GURPS Infinite Worlds

This book of gaming instructions does not have any independent claim for notability as required by WP:Fiction or any other notability criteria. The article contains too much trivial detail of the book’s content for an encyclopedia entry, since it does not provide context or sourced analysis of the book’s impact or historical significance, of which there is no independent evidence. --Gavin Collins 08:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep From the article " It won the 2005 Origins Award as Best Game Supplement." How can you say this isn't notible? It is an award winning book. Turlo Lomon 08:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Gavin, you asked about the Origins Award on the talk page, and was replied to explaining this. You asked about it on the RPG board and replied to with this. Why exactly are you nominating something that has proven its notability? Turlo Lomon 09:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A prize awarded at a gameing convention is weak evidence of notability. See the comments of the Admin who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GURPS 4e Basic Set (2nd nomination). --Gavin Collins 09:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Right, he said "less then ideal", which is different from "not allowed". When a book wins an award which is considered the most prestigious in the industry... I didn't want to bring this up beforehand, but what exactly is the issue you have with RPG books? Turlo Lomon 09:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment I want to add that the admin that posted that comment specifically contradicted Wikipedia:Notability (books), specifically the 2nd point. Turlo Lomon 10:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to suggest that this argument indicates a lack of understanding, quite understandably, as to the poition of Origins in the industry. This isn't a gaming convention, it's the gaming convention. It's not a bunch of fans getting together, it's the major industry event. SamBC(talk) 10:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Turlo Lomon above. The nominator's apparently going through the entire list one by one. If had his druthers, there would not be a single GURPS article on Wikipedia. --Agamemnon2 11:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Ignoring an Origins Award as a token of notability is a bit like ignoring an Academy Award for a movie. --Goochelaar 12:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, speedy keep nominator might not recognise Origins Award, but the rest of the gaming world does. Percy Snoodle 12:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep by the above reasons. If the nominator is unhappy by the tone of the article, there are plenty of templates to suggest a rewrite is necessary. And, yes, Origins awards are clear evidence of notability. HOw many times must we have this same discussion about them? --Craw-daddy | T | 13:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 14:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Keep. As everyone else has said, winning an Origins award is one of the highest possible accolades for an RPG book. Yes, the article could use some work, but that's not a reason to delete it. Pinball22 14:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An Origin Award is enough for notability, and that particular point is even referenced. As has already been said, Origin Awards are to RPGs as Oscars are to films. J Milburn 17:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've resisted saying somethig like this until now, but I think it's clear that the nominator is trying to make some sort of WP:POINT, but I'm not sure what it is. I also feel that he's now reached the point of disruptive editing, specifically in regards to "rejecting community input". His nominations of articles for AfD, in spite of repeated assertions by many parties that Origins Awards are indeed notable awards [33], [34] (and promising "not to argue the point" on one occasion ([35] see end of section), and then nominating that same article for AfD anyway), are done in bad faith. He continues to nominate articles, even though they clearly satisfy notability guidelines by being award-winning games/game supplements [36], [37], and seems to try to argue that people who are in disagreement with him must be somehow connected to Steve Jackson Games, involved in some conspiracy to promote their products on Wikipedia [38], [39]. --Craw-daddy | T | 03:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:POINT argument would seem to be supported by WP:VPP#Fancruft_and_Role_playing_games. This does seem somewhat dodgy. SamBC(talk) 10:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, winner of major industry award. That said, while deletion shouldn't be forced, the subject might be better served by being in a master article. SamBC(talk) 10:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, as per above. If the Orgins awards are not enough then what is the golden measure? RPG companies generally do not release their sales data to the public. Web Warlock 10:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Redirect to List of GURPS books. I for one do understand and acknowledge the importance of the Origins award... but I just don't see how we can write a non-stub article here. I searched and found only one review, on RPGnet [40]: not reliable, anyone can sign up and write reviews. Nothing else that looked reliable, except for things from the publisher. It seems like the only thing we can reliably say about this book is that it won an Origins award -- which we can and do say in the list of GURPS books. A short summary of the work is appropriate, but is already there. I searched LexisNexis too; no hits in the last 10 years. We accept awards as suggestive of notability: something that wins an award will likely be written about elsewhere. But I don't see that this is the case here, and no one has presented any other sources. Mango juice^talk 13:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please read Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Fancruft_and_Role_playing_games before commenting on this AfD - Fosnez 14:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gavin is making a point of trying to delete every GURPS article regardless of its merit, and shows no understanding of the topic.KTo288 21:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Origins award is clear sign of notability, as had been repeatedly explained to nominator well before he nominated this article. KTo288's and Craw-daddy's concerns about these nominations are quite valid, as this is not the only thing about these articles that the nominator has had repeatedly explained to him. Edward321 04:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 based on arguments advanced below and unecessary content forking. Sourced and verifiable info on these controversies can be added to the main autism articles; if too much well-sourced info accumulates, then a content fork could be spun off at that point. MastCell ^Talk 18:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies about functioning labels in the autism spectrum

Has been tagged since February and has not been properly verified. Violates WP:NOT#OR and potentially WP:SOAP and WP:NOT#GUIDE. Highly volatile issue on the Internet. Curse of Fenric 08:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I didn't know this article existed, and I would be interested in seeing if I can improve it at all.--Gloriamarie 11:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs to be cleaned up but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. Some assertions in the article are referenced. Q0 12:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has had many months to be cleaned up and it hasn't been. I don't think it can be without violating WP:NPOV. Curse of Fenric 00:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not working to a deadline. Q0 01:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This issue is causing delays to the true understanding of ASD's. Articles like this do not help (hence the potential WP:SOAP violation) so the "rule" you mention does not apply. Partcularly as I said it can't be saved without violating WP:NPOV. Curse of Fenric 23:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an important issue. Hopefully someone will improve the article. -- DaveSeidel 16:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think it matters if the issue is important or not. It definitely violates the points Curse brought up in it's present form. Mal Case 04:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm normally a great advocate of anything to do with representing Autists' views on Wikipedia or anywhere else, but this subject really isn't signicant or notable enough to warrant it's own page. Robrecht 12:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I posted about eight talk page requests for those who are interested in this topic to add their thoughts to this AfD debate since more comment seem to be needed. Please keep this AfD open for at least another 24 hours. Thanks. -- Jreferee T/C 17:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Delete - as is, violates WP:OR. With much better referencing it could probably stand as a page in its own right. All of the discussion of the subject is not occurring in reliable sources, there's also heavy emphasis on weblogs and interviews with notable autistic people, who are themselves speculating rather heavily. Could possibly be merged with Intelligence tests and autism, much of the discussion is overlapping or talking at a similar idea. A good re-write with better sources and I'd probably change my vote; I think the information is out there but not on the page. WLU 18:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 13:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Diocese of Bungoma

Not really that notable. Notability is not inherited, and simply being part of something notable (The Catholic Church) doesn't make it notable itself. Individual employees and departments of Microsoft aren't necessarily notable. I don't feel that it satisfies WP:NOTE, since the sources are simply designed to list all similar organisations, and do not cover it due to its interest or notability. Rambutan (talk) 07:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a long series of articles on dioceses and no reason to delete this particular one without re-examining all the others. -- Necrothesp 09:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see what makes this Diocese not notable, but makes other dioceses notable. It would seem to me that individual dioceses, as the primary building blocks of the church's heirarchy, are all notable. I think the Microsoft example is misleading. I would compare it more to individual jurisdictions within a state, or individual legislators in a national government. Npeters22 12:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. That's a quote from policy.--Rambutan (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe. It's an irrelevant quote, however, as nobody is saying it should be inherited. A diocese is a major subdivision of the Roman Catholic Church covering a large tract of land and huge numbers of people. It's not just a department within a company. As Npeters22 says, it's more like a sub-division of a country. -- Necrothesp 14:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would vote to delete the great majority of articles on individual churches/parishes, maintaining a brief mention and perhaps an external link for them in articles about the towns/localities. However, dioceses of the major denominations do strike me as notable and encyclopaedic. The date that they were established gives some evidence as to the history of the church in that locality. (Disclosure: I'm a Christian but not a Catholic nor even a member of another territorially-organised denomination.) - Fayenatic (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as previous comments. I would consider a diocese as notable. KTC 03:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep dioceses. Fg2 10:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - status as a diocese is notability in and of itself. Comparing it to corporate offices is more than a little misleading, as they are also, in effect, local governments of the church, not just "corporate departments". John Carter 20:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Articles need to be broad in their coverage (not narrow) such as by staying focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details. Consensus is that these four additional content fork articles give undue weight to various issues and that one article broad in its coverage on Michele Bachmann should be sufficient to cover these same issues for someone of her political position. Jreferee T/C 10:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Bachmann, EdWatch, and MFI

Also nominated:

Michele Bachmann's 1999 school board campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Michele Bachmann and the 2000 election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Michele Bachmann and the 2002 election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A group of four articles about the early career of US Congresswoman Michele Bachmann. Although well-referenced, this material is generally covered in much less detail within the primary biographical article unless the topic is, for example, Shakespeare. --Dhartung | Talk 07:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The parent article seems overly long (problem exacerbated by large numbers of short sections, though), so the split might make sense; if there are references that go into such a level of detail about a person's life or career that it's possible to write so much, then I don't see any reason we shouldn't write so much. On the other hand, I'm not entirely comfortable with the precedent of having an article on every politician's campaign for every election. cab 11:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely strong keep: Important info. and insights into contemporary politics, the actions of a Congresswoman, and, in general, the interweaving and interlinking of different political factions, in this case right-wing Minnesotans. To delete b/c it is too long is ABSURD. Pugnacious 14:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: The only reason this information was split from the main article is because of length concerns on that article. The information is referenced and notable. The person is unquestionably notable. The real question here is if wikipedia should be a source for any notable information on a subject or limit its articles solely due to size concerns. If an article gets over a certain KB size, the current policy is to split it; the originator of this nomination is proposing that instead we should follow a policy of erasing information regardless of how well its sourced. In my opinion this school of thought reduces wikipedia to a bunch of articles without any depth, suitable for printing on the back of a cereal box but unsuitable for any serious scholarship.--Wowaconia 16:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I apologize for a vague deletion rationale. Let me try again. First, it may be possible to keep Michele Bachmann and the 2000 election and Michele Bachmann and the 2002 election if they are renamed and rewritten as Minnesota State Senate District 56 election, 2000 and Minnesota State Senate District 56 election, 2002, but they would have to be substantially rewritten to present a neutral point of view giving coverage to both major-party candidates and any broader view of the district elections. I am uncertain how many state senate elections actually have articles; I found Georgia's 24th state senate district special election, 2007, as one example, but several states have collective articles covering all state-level elections, such as Washington State Senate elections, 2006. I am concerned about giving WP:NPOV#Undue weight to one particular candidate (whether positive or negative) and one particular election, that doesn't on the face of it seem to have been that important at the national level or even the state level. I am very concerned about the undue weight given to the allegations in the topmost article listed, Michele Bachmann, EdWatch, and MFI, since it simply reads like an attack page, again giving undue weight to certain allegations against someone. It seems inappropriate for Wikipedia to become a directory of political allies and positions, particularly when there is no demonstrated notability of this connection other than creating a laundry list. Finally, I see no rationale for keeping an article on a school board election, given that school board membership is well below the bar set by WP:BIO. Again, it seems to give undue weight to the importance of this phase of this politician's career. Most Congresspeople have prior careers that have been at least slightly controversial in local terms, but generally doing this sort of detailed examination is beyond the encyclopedic purposes of Wikipedia. --Dhartung | Talk 00:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV forks and attempts to get undue attention. She's notable; conceivably, specific state senate elections might be notable; However, the articles nominated here are attempts to turn WP into a site for campaign literature. Just as wrong as commercial advertising. I am not the least certain of the overall neutrality of any of the articles including the main one--I think they give much more weight to the criticism of her activities and positions than the defense of them. And Dhartung is absolutely right about the tendency of the Edwatch page. DGG (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the articles are too long. But, that does not mean they need to be deleted, just shortened. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 20:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief, people, Bachmann is ranked 431st out of 435 Congresscritters in the "power ranking" index.[41] She is not notable enough for FIVE ARTICLES. Harry Reid doesn't have five articles. Nancy Pelosi doesn't have five articles. Not even John Boehner has five articles. Rick Santorum has four (santorum (sexual neologism), Santorum Amendment, Santorum controversy) and he was approximately the most controversial Senator in recent history, as well as being a top GOP leader in the Senate. I just don't get it, I guess. Maybe I'll write up my own Congressman's high school years; I'm sure it would be scintillating reading. --Dhartung | Talk 09:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG; we're an encyclopedia giving overview not minutiae of each elected official's career. Imagine if we had similar articles for each an every notable elected official. Argh. Carlossuarez46 05:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 13:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Utterback

Procedural nomination: was tagged for speedy deletion (A7) as not asserting notability. I take no position on the nomination at this time. David Eppstein 07:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 07:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was never a speedy due to the assertations made in the text. However, not counting the Original Research and biased point of view, (e.g. "is loved", "david on his work" etc.) I struggle to see how the grand claims in the lead match up to any Reliable Sources. Amazon have no works listed that I can see and Google seems slim - I can't be certain the e-bay refs are even him. Unless some verifiable information can be found then this looks un-promising. Pedro | Chat 09:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is the only option here as the article fails WP:BIO and WP:V.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything remotely like a reliable source for any of the claims, and I agree, it fails WP:BIO and WP:V. Accounting4Taste 21:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete major WP:MEMORIAL. --Yeshivish 03:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unfortunately, per notability requirements. • Lawrence Cohen 19:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 13:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Todd

Contested prod. Article is one of many created by indef blocked WOverstreet (talk · contribs) as part of his zealous promotion of his alma mater, the University of Florida. While Mr. Todd is certainly a distinguished alumnus, there is nothing indicating notability under WP:BIO. Dhartung | Talk 07:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He does appear in numerous news articles like any corporate executive might, but I fail to see why wikipedia should be hosting his CV. --Mud4t 08:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung and above. Does not pass WP:BIO. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung, doesn't pass WP:BIO AFAIK. Accounting4Taste 21:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletions. —John Vandenberg 16:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Keb25 16:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 05:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANEFS

Non notable association of coaches who coach indoor soccer (futsal) in Spain. No references given. Unable to find any references other than the groups own website. They are affiliated with some futsal team groups ans associations which way well be notable but WP:NOTINHERITED. OfficeGirl 19:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 06:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 07:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 05:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Meyrow

This person is described as an opera singer who lived from 1920 to 2000, yet no sources are provided, and her name generates no Google hits other than Wikipedia and its mirrors. If this person could be verified as satisfying the criteria of WP:MUSIC, I would have no objection to retaining the article about her, but right now the only evidence for her existence is a few comments on the talk page. In the absence of reliable sources, I would recommend a delete. --Metropolitan90 05:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although being of the era before the web, if Edith was in any way notable I'd expect at least one recording/review/news piece to appear. I think the never quite getting a breakthrough comment may be telling. As always, if someone can provide references I will reconsider. Nuttah68 18:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Valrith 21:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Superfuzz as the best short-term measure. If the band article is later deleted, then the redirect can be, too. — TKD::Talk 13:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Paharia

Non-notable member of a band. There are only 52 hits on Google. Keb25 05:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the The Superfuzz article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pills4 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC the band he's in, The Superfuzz, has a lengthy article but is described as "unsigned" and probably fails WP:MUSIC too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. —Keb25 22:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. —Keb25 22:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the The Superfuzz article per lack of notability of the individual and low-content of the article. - Likely it has nothing new compared to the band's article.--JForget 22:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 07:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; we don't have to be process wonks; A7 applies, so does G4 if you ignore some rules.. Maxim_(talk) 01:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Infanger

unsourced BLP for a college and then minor-league hockey and volleyball player, it reads like a copyvio but I cannot find the source, notability is also a question; was speedied before now it's back. Carlossuarez46 05:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Per A7 as before, possibly per G4 (I can't see what it was before)... SQL^{(Query Me!)} 06:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It hasn't been at afd before, that's why g4 doesn't apply. Carlossuarez46 06:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mea culpa! :) I though that applied to any valid prior deletion... Removed the G4 notice... SQL^{(Query Me!)} 06:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
added to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey#Candidates_for_deletion_.26_renaming Canuckle 01:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 13:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Online travel in australia

This page completely fails WP:N Digital ^Ninja 04:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be an essay and doesn't differentiate between online travel in Australia and elsewhere. Capitalistroadster 04:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster 04:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Hi there, sorry I'm still building upon this, and am going to add the external sources presently. I'm still coming to grips with the Wiki way of editing but it's starting to make sense. Thanks for being patient! Perthflights 05:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Capitalistroadster. AniMate 05:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment As I said, I'm filling in a gap in information. I'm not sure exactly what company you think I might be trying to promote by adding this?Perthflights 05:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Guess [42] ??? Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Patent nonsense essay. Keb25 05:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not patent nonsense, it actually makes good sense, but neither is it an encyclopaedia article. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Alright, I will concentrate on giving the article some encyclopaedic weight - i admit it does come across as a bit of an essay in its current state, but i do want to create something others can draw upon for their own uses. Perthflights 05:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment ~~My vote will change to a weak keep~~ if you can demonstrate why this article is note worthy to someone unrelated to the industry, and supply a source (such as a press release *wink wink*) This is one of the largest obstacles in this deletion hearing. Digital ^Ninja 05:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Hi - thanks for being such a help Ninja, I'll keep in mind that I need to account for a broader user base, and am sourcing published reading on this topic as we speak. Perthflights 06:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per capitalistroadster.--Kerotan ^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 08:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Capital. Twenty Years 09:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Capitalistroadster. That said, the creator does seem to know the field; might be interested in adding sourced material to Tourism in Australia. Recurring dreams 11:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Because of this conversation on the authors talk page, I'm going to nominate this article for speedy deletion due to WP:N, WP:SPAM, and WP:patent_nonsense.
comment I've requested a name-change to remove any connection to any existing company. It was silly of me not to search for existing companies with that name before I signed but there we go. In addition, I'd be quite happy to merge some of this content with the Tourism In Australia page, but I'm struggling to see where any of the content overlaps. My article isn't wholly related to tourism so much as being a focus on travel agent options in the online domain, which might involve domestic flights or outgoing flights, which are quite separate from the tourism industry.Perthflights 01:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and move sourced material to Tourism in Australia. Sebi _[talk] 23:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - specially because of the utter vacuity of the Tourism in Australia article - the effort is needed there not on this article - if the editor is so inclined - that is where the effort is needed Satu Suro 03:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment No problems, I'll add any relevant data to the Tourism in Australia page and delete this page. Thank you all! Harveybirdman 06:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Holliday

Declined speedy, because it does assert notability. My opinion is "delete", but it's not a speedy. - Philippe | Talk 04:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Furthermore, the only reference, a myspace profile which has been set to "private", in no way meets WP:V. Victoriagirl 04:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The things one see on Wikipedia! Lets try... WP:CITE then. :) Digital ^Ninja 05:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. AniMate 05:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Vanity, non-notable person. Keb25 05:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No basis in reality. --Bongwarrior 06:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. IMDB doesn't have a citation for this name and MySpace doesn't count. Accounting4Taste 21:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This definitely could have been speedied under CSD A7. Just stating that the subject is a movie star really isn't asserting notability. There aren't any sources to back up the claims. --Cyrus Andiron 12:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 13:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kill The Arcade

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. —--Rrburke^(talk) 19:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subject appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles: plenty of Google hits, but no non-trivial press coverage and no evidence of charting. Several gig notices, but apparently no "international concert tour, or ... national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources." The band is about to release its first EP (two or more albums is one notability criterion), so the article seems a little premature -- and, as with so many NN band articles, the possibility that the article's purpose is promotional is not to be discounted. (Article originally prodded, but originator removed the prod template). --Rrburke^(talk) 03:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear close to notability. MarkBul 04:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Non-notable at the present having only one split EP. Seraphim ^Whipp 21:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keb25 22:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 12:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raleigh Springs Mall

Inaccurate page on a mall in Tennessee; copy of Avenue Carriage Crossing but with a differnet title. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Data has been customized, but still unreferenced, with no indication of notability, and Wikipedia is not a shopping guide or the yellow pages. Hellosandimas 01:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shopping center fails notability criterias.--JForget 22:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 13:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary astrology

Self-sourced, apparently OR essay that wanders all over the solar system. It's not clear from the article what Mr. Green's work means, and there are no notable sources or references to the "prominent astrologers" who might enlighten the reader. Google reveals that Mr. Green teaches evolutionary astrology, but verifiability appears to be a problem. Acroterion _(talk) 03:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR. This is nonsensical rambling. GlassCobra 03:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be a book review, dropping the author's name some 16 times while never explaining what the heck evolutionary astrology is. Smacks strongly of commercialism. --Mud4t 03:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Drivel. Nick mallory 04:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR, nonsense and advertising. Also fails notability. ornis (t) 04:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Patent nonsense essay. Keb25 05:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be shown that this concept is discussed by third party reliable sources. As it stands, it is an unbalanced analysis of a book - verifiable only by reference to the original - in violation of WP:NOR --TreeKittens 22:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - WP:NONSENSE, WP:NOR, WP:BOLLOCKS, WP:NN, how many more do we need? This is the kind of crud that gives Wikipedia a bad name. Pete Fenelon 01:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Jeff Green published his signature piece Pluto, The Evolutionary Journey of the Soul, Volume 1, introducing what would become an important movement in the art of modern day astrological counseling" "Source: Green, Jeff, Pluto, The Evolutionary Journey of the Soul, Volume 1, Llewellyn Publications, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55164-0383, U.S.A." Kinda says it all, doesn't it? Mandsford 23:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR, also poorly written. Carlosguitar 09:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 13:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dog Breed: Rotador

Another "breed X + breed Y = neologism Z". No sources or assertion of notability, and the AKC most definitely won't register them. Most of the article concerns the source breeds, not whatever a "rotador" is supposed to be. Also Dog Breed:Rotador (note the crucial spacing difference) was created at about the same time. Acroterion _(talk) 02:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both non-notable neologism. (To say nothing of the fact that you can't mix two different purebreds and get another akc purebread. Bfigura ^(talk) 05:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete both this fails WP:N, WP:CITE, and a whole list of others. It should be speedy. Digital ^Ninja 05:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability in the article except for the claim that they can be registered with the AKC, which is false (it does not appear on a list of all AKC-recognized breeds). Besides that, not every named combination of two dog breeds is notable, as has been established in multiple previous AFDs (Cockeranian, Cavachon, Pom-a-poo...) As a procedural note, I redirected the other article to this one, as they were identical (besides the AFD tag). Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keb25 05:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom et al. Note that Dog Breed:Rotador is a redirect to Dog Breed: Rotador. --Evb-wiki 12:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes - I did that. They were duplicates, so I redirected one to the other. Zetawoof_(ζ) 18:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uhhh. Did you already say that? I guess I wasn't paying attention. Aarg. --Evb-wiki 18:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This may be a hoax. If not, it's a dogbreed that would not be noticed except for an interesting name, like the "bulldog/shih tzu" hybrid or the Sheepdog/German Shepherd that looks after itself. Mandsford 23:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck 22:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco Fucilla

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Non-notable biography article, only contributors were User:G.Stigliano, an anonymous IP (both contributed only to this article), and User:SantilliGalilei, who edits the same articles as User:Fucilla francesco. A Google search for his name gave 23 hits, some of them for other people with the same name, none of them supports any notability beside the links to his books. These have not been translated from Italian, as suggested by the article. His name is unknown to Amazon and his books are not available there. Interestingly, it is claimed that these books led to a number of popular Hollywood movies, linked to as "references".... Beside the commercial link spam to his company and a filed patent, no other references of notability are given Cacycle 02:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per well researched nom. I note that Fucilla's The Universe of History and Fairytales 2, which is claimed to have been published in London, is not found in the listings of the British Library. What's more "The Universe of History and Fairytales" garners not a single ghit. Victoriagirl 04:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. AniMate 05:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete Dear Sirs It is regrattable that you have listed Francesco Fucilla History page for Cancellation. First of all, his book are written both in English and Italian. Is it possible to find more evidences and references of notability. As a Scientist myself I can absolutely state without hesitation that there are no writers in recorded history known to me, that can claim to have produced a universal controversial debate on the nature of our world. The controversial work of Francesco Fucilla encompasses political sciences history, religion, philosophy and natural sciences the way no scientist or writer has ever done before. Francesco is a master of Dialectics, Philosophy and Sciences unlike any living writers. I can say without a doubt, that Francesco's books have lucidly charted a complete understanding of life describing the predicaments of man in a manner never seen before.

Francesco short stories such as ; Actus reus Mens Rea, History and fairytales, Its all relativity, Oedipus complex, Alice in teutonsland, Magnetic Monopoles……….., Dinner with the Pope…..The Divine comedy 1,2,3 represent a priceless cultural patrimony that must never be lost. Its ironic that in view of the great accomplishements of the man you should place his history page for termination. Dr Carlo Marafioti. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SantilliGalilei (talk • contribs) 21:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only agreeing with well-researched nom, but can't find a single g-hit for "Alice in teutonsland". Accounting4Taste 21:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Out of curiosity I looked up the contributions of User:SantilliGalilei and found Ruggero Santilli, which was proposed for deletion in March 2007 and the result was keep. The discussion may be of interest. Accounting4Taste 21:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page also... Cacycle 13:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete F. Fucilla demised the superman idea in his first book of satires, with the satire known as "Alice in Teutonsland" in 10 pages francesco demises nietzsche and his ideas I understand that the satire will be available soon on www.aliceinteutonsland.com I suggest you read and the think twice about cancelling the story page on Francesco Fucilla. Dr. George Nemeth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.51.48 (talk • contribs) — 81.158.51.48 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Do Not Delete My name is Dr. Giovanni Guglielmo. I have been reading philosophy all my life and incredible as it may sound Francesco Fucilla is the Maestro of Philosophers it would be a loss for Wikipedia not to have his story page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.75.157.203 (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC) — 151.75.157.203 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete True, Harvard did buy a copy of his magnum opus--but no other American library did. DGG (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. No evidence of notability. Zamphuor 10:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.252.224 (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - original author has blanked the page a few times, and there's a WP:SNOW consensus here. KrakatoaKatie 06:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Domani Harris

About a "producer, songwriter, model and entrepeneur" written by user:Domani Harris. Contains a long discography but none of the articles link back. No references. -- RHaworth 02:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Delete as a potential hoax; absolutely no sourcing. GlassCobra 02:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Speedy Delete Author has blanked the page. Guess she realized we were on to her. GlassCobra 23:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The only mentions of this name with "Bad Boy" is the T.I. article, where it's mentioned that Domani is the name of T.I.'s son. All other hits on Google are just for T.I.'s son also. Additionaly, site linked from her infobox leads to someone completely unrelated (I've reversed the link because subject is pornographic). Nate 03:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: What CSD criterion does this article meet? The discography is an assertion of notability (not proof, of course, since it seems to be WP:HOAX), but still an assertion. It's not patent nonsense, or an attack page, etc. I think we just need to let this ride out, or maybe WP:SNOW it. --Darkwind (talk) 04:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hard Delete CSD A7, no assertion of notablity Rackabello 04:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Non-notable vanity person. Keb25 05:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment AfD is also being blanked out of the article, possibly by an IP related to the Domati Harris account. Nate 06:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Author has blanked the page (except for the AfD notice) Bfigura ^(talk) 23:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck 21:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Andrews

Minor county politician, fails WP:BIO, I been prodding many of these, but this article been here for two years. Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 02:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, below WP:BIO bar, no attribution of notability to independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 02:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. Carlosguitar 03:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keb25 05:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Andrews is one of the youngest elected officials in New York State. He has indicated the possibility of running for Congress in the future. If you look at the entire realm of Wikipedia, there are alot of local officials on the list, and they are important to include. They have a large impact on their communities and have the ability to move into higher office and have a future impact on the country. In addition, there are a wide array of minor sports stars and entertainers with Wikipedia entries. We should not single out county officials for deletion. Don't Delete Empire2000
- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 21:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because politicians tend to be notable and of a nature that readers will want to look up information on them. References should be easy to find and added and the article is part of one with a nice bottom of the page template. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But they don't meet WP:BIO which is policy, and having a template is never a reason for keeping an article, also local politicians likely don't have any references that aren't indepentent (outside of the county) see WP:NOTABLE Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 01:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus.. w^L^{<speak·check>} 19:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justine Ezarik

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}}.

I only discovered this article when looking up on iPhone and considering somebody was going to nominating this, I may as well just to cut to the chase and do it. Nominated for deletion for purely non-notable one trick pony of an internet celebrity who is known for just that stupid bill which she requested for the sake of publicity which I heard has been sucessgfully afd'd

When it come to fame, Justine Ezarik has the fame span of Chris Crocker, another already afd nominee who is famous for making an imbecille rant. Dr Tobias Funke 01:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article seems to be about a lifecaster/video podcaster who has both notability evidence and appears well referenced. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to have received sufficient coverage. Better this than an article on her one podcast. --Dhartung | Talk 02:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be pretty notable.--Sefringle^Talk 03:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable enough to me. Maxa megalon 2000 05:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable enough to me as well.--Prof.Thamm 06:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See the essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Please give reasons based on policies and guidelines, not just "Seems notable" or "Doesn't seem notable" or "ILIKEIT" or "IDONTLIKEIT". Edison 17:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The iPhone bill viral video obviously put her way over the top in terms of notability, as shown by objective evidence in multiple reliable secondary sources, so this AfD based purely on subjective judgments is absurd. She is at least marginally notable for other things including the Yahoo! contest, her celebrity in techie community, and for being a pioneer in the lifecasting medium. That's not just my POV--when she was interviewed in relation to the iPhone bill, the interviewers also discussed her other activities, which means they found them notable enough to devote air time to them, e.g. see: Fox News and NPR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaluza (talk • contribs) 10:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on all Keep nominations A few things to say, if she came 2nd in this contest, then why didn't the winner have his own page here. I nominated this as I feel this is created for the sake of making that Justine woman famous as stated by one person, plus that bill will all be forgotten in a few weeks or months time. As with the bill, I love to ask which one came first, the media coverage or this page - if this page came first, well that says it all, this website made her famous rather than anything else. I think I can smell fancruftism here, stated by somebody and look like you all who voted keep are people who watch her stupid website and have nothing better to do. Most of all, I would like to say to you all, state why is she notable other than that stupid bill which she requested as none of you have given a reason why. Dr Tobias Funke 00:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comment on the contest is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument which is irrelevant for the reasons given there. Your assertion that the bill will be forgotten is inconsistent with both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N. You can answer your own question about which came first by reviewing the article history, but it's not relevant to this discussion either, we are only concerned with the subject now. Your following comments appear to be inconsistent with the WP:AGF policy, because they speculate on motivation. Your final assertion is also false, as the references show, because AT&T used detailed billing as the default. Dhaluza 01:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now. She's merely news right now, but who knows? It seems she might be notable even besides the iPhone event. Bearian 00:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Strong delete I agree that she does not seem notable enough for an article of her own. Strictly judging the article on its own notability, it just doesn't seem to qualify. It seems like an advertisement for her 24-hour broadcast of herself and I don't really see that changing. That's my complete reason, and I'm not going to make this into a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument because that's not necessary, but the winner of the Yahoo contest does not have an article; getting a $300 Iphone bill, while garnering attention of the news outlets for one or two slow news cycles, does not make you inherently notable enough for an encyclopedia entry on yourself (and I believe the $300 IPhone bill article has been deleted also, so that's not notable by itself, either). Recently I voted on the deletion nomination of a Harvard scientist who is winner of a MacArthur genius grant award; most people voting agreed that this award itself did not make the subject notable (although I disagreed). If a person who receives the prestigious MacArthur genius grant is not notable enough for Wikipedia editors, why would a person placing second in a Yahoo video contest meet the qualifications? The only reason the article on the Yahoo video contest appears is because it's her local, hometown newspaper.--Gloriamarie 00:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your interpretation of notability is a purely subjective judgement inconsistent with the WP:N guideline, and your assertion that the story ran for 2 slow news cycles is demonstrably false. Google News has coverage over a 15 day period, and the subject was featured prominently in the coverage, including feature interviews. The interviews were also notable for the reactions of the interviewers to her life casting activity during the interview. Also, it was a 300-page not $300 bill. Dhaluza 01:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would like to state on between which 15 days, starting from when also, how many of it was there following the existence of the 300 page bill article and don't forget, even news office will use this site as an uncredited source. Plus to get attention from the press as I have found out recently, is not too difficult as all it involves is...John Doe goes to the press office and tell them about his lives, therefore if interesting enough, news coverage in no time and instant fame for Mr Doe. Talking about notability, considering that iJustine is more as they are in par with all other youtube "celebrities" and reality TV contestants who have not won the contest, try say that about people who have argued over deletions of reality TV contestants' articles as they have so much in common, they get heavy news coverage (despite not winning the contest) and their articles can never go anywhere without being successfully deleted following an AFD discussion, unless they achieved some notability, such as a long term showbiz career. In all, their reason for existence is purely nothing but fame, otherwise to keep themselves away from flipping burgers at Bugger King, well thats my POV. Willirennen 12:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENT. -- Craigtalbert 05:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - notable and well-referenced. Reccomend possible restart; creater canvassed peoples talk pages. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 11:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She goes on some YouTube rant which got a little coverage a month ago, now it's over and done with. As the nominator said, a one-trick pony. Cap'n Walker 15:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and per the essays Wikipedia:Recentism and WP:NOTNEWS, or Merge to the article about the actual bill,300-page iPhone bill which is apparently the only claim this individual has to fame, besides being a runnerup in a talent show. The article 300-page iPhone bill was deleted after an AFD, then restored after a DRV [43] . The bill which resulted from her accepting the default of detailed printed billing, then making thousands of text messages, then (amazingly) receiving exactly the bill she should have expected, then seeking fame by making a video about it. How many articles does Wikipedia need about one phone bill received by one individual? If someone requested junk mail from every conceivable source, then got an email inbox or real life mailbox full of junk mail, and it became a watercooler story for a few days, they would not be entitled to a permanent encyclopedia entry, and neither is she. Edison 16:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I tend to believe that "nobility" shouldn't be JUST among the Internet users. In my definition of nobility, you should at the very least be able to walk into a non-Internet town and a few people there would know who the person is. If you actually searched for my real name, I'd be found at several thousand places on the 'net. But I'm not going to create a wiki article because of it. Same thing with this Justine gal - she is notable only among the very intense of Internet users. I continue to question Wikipedia's current stance on notibility of Internet personalities, and will offer my delete vote to what I consider these frivolous articles. Groink 20:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you dismissing the Sydney Morning Herald [44] and San Francisco Chronicle [45] as frivolous sources? Dhaluza 02:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, not the external sources... Many of the Wikipedia articles themselves are frivolous - as they're kept up because of the nobability policy. To add to this, if you read WP:N, a person's notability must also be long-term. If it wasn't for the 300-page bill, Justine would not even be short-term notable. As pointed out by WP:N, "articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future." Groink 10:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think those sources show she was notable for her life casting activity even before the bill thing, and her article was originally based on those sources. Having full-length exclusive bio feature articles in two independent mainstream newspapers would normally qualify someone for inclusion as notable per WP:BIO, and as such, their notability is not temporary. The 300-page bill should add to that notability, not subtract as you and many other commenters seem to be suggesting. There is no need to speculate on future coverage, there is more than enough mainstream coverage already published and cited to firmly establish notability according to the WP consensus standard (personal notability theories notwithstanding). Based on the sourcing available, if you still think the article is frivolous, then this is a reason to improve the article, not delete it. If you think the subject is frivolous, then you are substituting your own subjective judgment for reliance on reliable sources, ignoring the guidance at WP:N. Dhaluza 11:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: NN, also less than trivial claim of fame and a deliberate attempt to kill a tree for a so-called environmentalist purely to seek fame. Also as the nominator said - "a non-notable one trick pony of an internet celebrity", also as I said with the 300 page afd, this site is not a platform to make people famous and it appears that this is happening with the afd nominee. Plus as stated, because its not out yet in the UK, I have not heard this in the news or anywhere, not even in Nerdtech Monthly as I only discovered the 300 page stuff when it was a DYK nominated article. to answer Dhaluza's question, I will answer this as I didn't have the opportunity to last time when the nomination was closed, 1st answer: as a corporation, do they give a damn, for me I wouldn't at all, 2nd answer: even corporation make mistakes, even Sony do and who doesn't, at the end of the day there will always be a high profile "first month of release" cock-up which typical of corporations. Willirennen 00:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What question are you answering? Dhaluza 02:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This one, it was for that I never got the chance to answer back when the nomination was closed. Willirennen 11:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It saddens me to admit that the amount of sourcing demands that we keep this completely moronic article. I honestly believe that we should ignore the letter of the law in this case and admit that this is inherited notability. Otherwise, it's setting a dangerous precedent. VanTucky ^Talk 03:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at the very least Merge to 300-page iPhone bill per BLP1E. ELIMINATORJR 11:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a sad day that this person is considered notable in any way or worthy of being included in an encyclopaedia. Delete per nom. Watchingthevitalsigns 11:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She really isn't too notable other than the Iphone bill. Most of her article is referring to the Iphone or her origins. I say merge with Iphone because she doesn't have any big claims to fame other than that 97.99.27.99 19:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RECENT--Macallan 12 01:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A notable individual whose strong claims of notability are backed up thoroughly by reliable and verifiable sources. It's a sad day if the deletionists destroy an article that documents notability this thoroughly. Alansohn 01:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject meets and exceeds WP:BIO as evidenced by the multiple and highly-reliable references provided within the article. It does not matter how WP:RECENT these references were published. Yamaguchi先生 01:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete her 15 minutes of fame are over... we dont need yet another random internet celeb who'll be forgotten next month. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your assumption is demonstrably false. This Yahoo! News feature by Kevin Sites published after the iPhone bill video discusses her lifecasting activities in detail, without even mentioning the bill. Dhaluza 16:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see a no-consensus coming up. I'd say weak keep if this passes WP:DRV if she gets famous. She has notablity only because of the iPhone bill, which makes me want to merge, but her other merits are borderline non-notable. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 04:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Well known and respected in various tech groups. It's not all about the iPhone bill, either. Peppery9 05:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Keep Admittedly I'm new to this but is there a more famous person that needs the space? Justine (or more properly iJustine) is just at the beginning of her rise. She is also (I believe) inventing a new business model that may someday prove to be useful. If you delete her today - you'll be putting her back tomorrow. This seems weird to have a quasi-intellectual discussion about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.250.33 (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Looks like somebody above is spamming on this discussion here

Keep. Appears to have enough coverage to establish notability as of now, and there is no reason to assume more will not be forthcoming. Notability does not degrade over time. • Lawrence Cohen 16:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, look like the way a less than notable person to become famous is by going for a round of attention seeking, then grab the local media to get some press, then hey presto instant fame, then some weirdo wikipedia editor who stalking on the forums decides to write an article claiming that she is notable, and then when theis becomes a afd discussion and then keep - why - because the article has been sourced.
Keep per Dhaluza, notability was evident prior to the whole iPhone bill debacle. RFerreira 19:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep She has some fame on the internet, after all everyone above me knows about her and I'm sure many of you found out about her through a news source of some sort. I don't understand why anyone would want to delete a wikipedia article of somebody that has made some form of impact on the internet, why should it matter how or why she has become somewhat famed and talked about on mainstream news broadcasts? The 300 page bill is a notable event that has its own article and the poster of the bill has acquired fame from this so her story is notable as well, it's not about how credible her achievements are, her popularity is all that matters as that ensures that an article on her will inform others of who she is. Thats my take on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XenoX101 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, under the impression that those who nominated keep are those who are regular visirors of her site, no other evidence of notability. Glen Watkins 13:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- — Glen Watkins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I was the first to argue to keep the article here and I'd not yet been to her site, although I have since for what that matters. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sane reason as nominator. — American Sockpuppet Society (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 14:07, 18 September 2007 UTC (UTC).
Delete, per Edison. --Jklamo 15:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Utterly Strong Delete - non notable person with less than trivial claim to fame other than that 300 page bill. Jelly the Supermodel 16:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- — Jelly the Supermodel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete I first heard of this woman on NPR, in relation to her 300-page bill. I was tempted, given I'd heard of her outside of here, to go for a keep. However, it was just a single news item, and appears to be over already. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 16:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, wiki isnt news. LightSpeed3 (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete hurry up and delete this LightSpeed3 (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Difficulty in finding sources is often a symptom of a lack of notability. The consensus here indicates that the provided sources are not substantial enough to warrant keeping this article. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dolcett

This article was originally speedy-deleted under CSD A7. DRV overturned, finding an assertion of notability was present. Still, deletion is on the table, given a lack of reliable sources, and notability concerns. Xoloz 01:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I'm sure that people later on in the discussion will claim that all the delete "votes" are WP:IDONTLIKEITs, but that has nothing to do with it -- I was unable to establish any kind of mainstream notability for this artist. Google hits are strictly fan sites, forums, and other language Wikipedias; I combed the first 5 pages and found nothing that would qualify as a reliable source. Same for the 68 results returned by dogpile.com. Library databases are completely devoid of any hits (not surprising, given the subject matter), and this all strongly suggests to me that if there are any reliable sources, it'll be an uphill battle to find them. --Darkwind (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dolcett is quoted by Allen Armac in his book along other writers of comics such as Jean-Claude Forest and Guido Crepax. Hektor 05:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: The book you cite as a reference in the article does not constitute significant coverage for the purpose of establishing notability. According to Amazon book search, Dolcett is mentioned exactly one time, in one sentence, as being part of the "dark age" of comics. --Darkwind (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hektor promised some sources, so I will wait to see what these are before voting. Mdwh 02:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I gave it a try on the intergoogle, and what I got was mostly webmasters using the name as a keyword to attract Google hits. The rest were fan sites and blogs. It would be pretty hard to get verification on this topic, although I'm sure he has fans within the genre. MarkBul 02:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 03:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Darkwind. Keb25 05:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources are difficult to find which is inherent to the topic, but when you go beyond the 120,000 google hits you see that some sources exist in print (I have provided a book source, plus the publication in EMMA in 1991), blogs (including non fan blogs), and articles about Second Life. I consider the first paragraph being adequately sourced, while unfortunately the next two sections sound like essay or original research. Hektor 06:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability seems to be satisfied now. Also there are sources - if people feel there is unreferenced material still in the article, it should be removed, tagged with {{fact}}, or taken up on the talk page. Mdwh 11:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: See my comment above about the book Hektor (t c) cited, which is the only reliable source currently cited in the references section. Notability is not established with one sentence in one book. --Darkwind (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Darkwind. The sourcing and notability just aren't enough to build an article around. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's no question. Marcus Cyron 17:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are not exactly reliable in the usual sense, but they are none the less sufficient to establish the popularity and the notability of this artist--considering the specific genre, they're as much as could be expected. DGG (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Did a google search, can't find anything with this keyword except fetish fansites, porn sites using it as a keyword, and other wikis. Oesor 00:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Darkwind. No assertion of notability backed up by a reliable source. Does not merit encyclopedic treatment and should be deleted forthwith. Eusebeus 09:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacking any good references. --Dragonfiend 17:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Darkwind. No verifiability, no notability. Valrith 21:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Darkwind. --Jklamo 14:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn nomination using speedy delete. Non- admin closure.--Sefringle^Talk 03:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idlerzlounge

Withdrawn: taking bold advice.Yngvarr 01:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC) ~~generally not really notable: vague, reads like an advertisement, and has no links to or from anywhere on wp. Yngvarr 01:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Speedy delete This is a prime candidate for {{db-web}}. Why not be bold and tag it? GlassCobra 01:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with no prejudice against future recreation if better info is available. CitiCat^♫ 02:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marija Skalovska

Delete - No objective proof of person's existence. Only ghits are wiki-originated. Nothing in NY Times or any other publication. Maybe I'm nuts but I think somebody created this for a friend. Pugnacious 23:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless notability is established Corpx 05:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: here's page at the Macedonian Institute of Theatrology (part of an university) about her (in Macedonian). Active singer for 20 years. Pavel Vozenilek 01:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said there was no mention of her anywhere on the English language 'Net other than the afore-mentioned wiki-originated mirror sites which all contained the identical info. and photo. Suggest that if she is genuinely notable then an article for her be created in Macedonian, and probably Serbian and Croatian as well; there is no notability in English-language philology as not even her death warranted a mention in any obit, and the NYT rarely misses the passing of a diva. Pugnacious 11:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not saying she's important necessarily, but the policy is that enWP covers the entire world equally, and that sources in any language are ok.DGG (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Seems not to be a hoax per this and this, but that just tells us she was an admired member of a particular company. I find absolutely nothing else on her (and the "Kosmix" link is just some kind of spam-mirror). If something appears showing she was notable in a formal sense I could change my vote.--Dhartung | Talk 02:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to mention that she was born Marija Mirčov, and is also known as Marija Mircov-Skalovska and Maria Mirchov-Skalovska. That being said, there is no info in English aside from the identical info everybody has already seen. I see now and cede that this is not a hoax, but I believe it is a vanity piece b/c it is essentially singling her name out of dozens of other names in the ballet and music troupes where her name is found. Stand by my delete vote given dearth of info and vanity implications. Pugnacious 12:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I've read the mk:Марија Скаловска, apparently a copyvio of Macedonian National Theatre page. The bottom line is that she acted between 1952 and 1975, and then retired. She also received the National Award of "11 October" for life achievements in 1979. That being said, I doubt that that deeper sources could be found (unless someone digs news archives from 1970s), but I don't see why the MNT page shouldn't be trusted. But essentialy, she's one of forgotten opera stars. Duja► 11:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...and, btw, she was most probably wife of Todor Skalovski, equally short stub. Duja► 11:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per agreement with User:Dhartung. Given the almost complete lack of information provided by the creator of the stub regarding her career, roles played, etc.

I see the page to which User:Duja refers, but it should be translated just to see if her roles were in any way notable. Being "most probably wife of Todor Skalovski" doesn't cut it either; Skalovski's article should be deleted on the exact same grounds as his "probable" wife unless both articles get some valid references. Watchingthevitalsigns 11:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The text on en: has only very little value. We should wait until someone cleans up and translates the Macedonian version. Pavel Vozenilek 13:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The information at establishes notability. Being a stub article is not a reason for deletion. Nuttah68 08:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say being a stub article is subject to removal if the info. in the stub cannot be confirmed, much less expanded or updated based on a consensus. Watchingthevitalsigns 14:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nuttah68 provided a Macedonian link for Todor Skalovski's article, but it appears to be an invalid link (I got an error message every time I tried to access it, but maybe that's my ISP). The website in question makes no mention of either artist, nor does it have an internal search engine, when I last checked (30 seconds ago), but I hope somebody lets me know if I got any of this wrong.

The Macedonian Institute of Theatrology link given earlier confirms the information given in the article. Nuttah68 14:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not in English, and per User:Pavel Vozenilek, who voted to delete (see above), not adequately. Watchingthevitalsigns 14:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement for references on Wikipedia to be in English, which has already been mentioned in this discussion. Pavel's comment appears to be delete because it is a stub, which we have already covered. The information at the Macedonian Institute of Theatrology goes beyond what is in the article, including details of her 20 year career and national awards so I don't understand your 'not adequately' comment. Nuttah68 14:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can anyone rely on the Macedonian Institute of Theatrology if they don't understand what it says? Pavel knows what he is talking about since he appears to understand the language somewhat. If anything Marija Skalovska's stub should be created in the language in which all info pertaining to her exists. Watchingthevitalsigns 14:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try again, policy at WP:V does not disallow non English language references. I dare say most people do not understand the references for quantum theory, that does not mean they cannot be used as reference. Being a stub is not a reason for deletion. The information at the Macedonian Institute of Theatrology establishes notability and backs up this article. Nuttah68 14:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that non-English language references are allowed, but usually their gist has been translated and incorporated into the body of the article, and are there as source material. I continue to hold that each case should be decided individually and/or by consensus, since you are so fond of quoting policy, keep WP:IAR in mind. Watchingthevitalsigns 16:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do not argue that Skalovska is not notable. My opinion is that this poor quality stub would be better deleted and we should wait until someone translates the text from Macedonian. Give the future editor clean desk - having such a stub could be quite discouraging. Pavel Vozenilek 00:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Corbitt

Non-notable person, does not list sources, possible vanity article SevereGape 23:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. May be notable. According to this source: [46]

"Once he got out of the joint, Corbitt joined forces with true crime writer Sam Giancana, the nephew of Momo Giancana, and penned a bestselling tell-all book. 'Double Deal: The Inside Story of Murder, Unbridled Corruption and the Cop Who Was a Mobster,' was released in 2003. His story also served as the basis for the 1992 TV movie 'Deadly Matrimony.'" Television promotional appearance here: [47] Seems like a high profile case that happened before there was a lot of coverage on the internet. See here: [48]. OfficeGirl 23:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It cites numerous references, how is it not notable? --RucasHost 01:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nom may want to review the new sources and see if they still want to continue the discussion. A message has been left on their talkpage to that effect.--Darkwind (talk) 02:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research- not notable.--Sefringle^Talk 03:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject passes the threshold of notability (barely). AniMate 05:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect to Whitehouse (band). this afd shoudnt proclude any future recreation of properly sourced detailed article. Gnan garra 14:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Bennett (noise musician)

Non-notable musician, fails WP:BAND. If the "pioneer" comment were cited, I might withdraw, but there are too many "William Bennett"s to sort this one out of the "noise". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep You can cite the "pioneering" part from AllMusicGuide's entry on his band (of which he's the only stable member). Quote: Created by William Bennett, they pioneered a branch of experimental noise known as "power electronics," a genre explored by Japanese artists such as Merzbow. If you really want to track down more sources, a search of "whitehouse" "william bennett" noise will filter out all the unrelated hits. He certainly seems to be notable within a particular niche, and has been so for around 25 years. Thomjakobsen 01:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete no evidence of any notablity, no sources. Should be deleted per WP:CSD#A7.--Sefringle^Talk 03:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Bennett's band Whitehouse easily satisfies WP:BAND. They are highly influential. It doesn't seem important to me to have a separate page on Bennett himself; any information about him could just go on the Whitehouse page. Keeping the page seems plausible too, though. SethTisue 03:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Whitehouse (band). My library turns up several good sources like Washington Post March 4 2006: "recognized as a noise pioneer." Edmonton Journal Dec 16 2006: "biggest name in noise at the turn of the '80s." Village Voice March 22 2005: "creating the biggest buzz ... notorious ear assaulter Whitehouse, noise's purest actualization since forming in London in 1980..." etc. --Dragonfiend 04:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Whitehouse. If more information emerges it can always be recreated.P4k 08:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Whitehouse (band). Whitehouse and Bennett were/are extremely influential in the noise community. The Whitehouse article has more information about Bennett than this one does, so merge seems like a good idea. Doctormatt 19:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of notability, as several sources cited in this discussion attest. In addition to his work with Whitehouse (what he's most famous for, of course), it'd be worth expanding this article to mention other things he's been involved with, such as his record labels (Come Organisation and Susan Lawly) and the attendant controversy (e.g. the dispute with Maurizio Bianchi), as well as his previous bands, Essential Logic and Come. --Delirium 07:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, sources mentioned in the debate demonstrate notability. — Caknuck 20:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terri Hollowell

Was tagged speedy, but there are claims of hitting the charts which I cannot confirm and of international tours, also I cannot confirm. On google there are many hits for her as a singer, downloadable from itunes, etc., so the story seems plausible. If we get some confirmation, keep, otherwise delete. Carlossuarez46 00:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Keep, per sources added, which satisfy 2 of the WP:MUSIC criterion and per this: "From the late ‘70s, Walker ran his own independent label, Con Brio Records, serving as its talent scout, arranger and producer. Under his leadership, Con Brio racked up a total of 47 nationally charted singles for such artists as Don King, Dale McBride and Terri Hollowell (who is now Mrs. Jeff walker)." from walkerboutmusic.com Sethacus 03:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added comment" Apparently, she reached #35 in the country music charts in the 70's with the song "May I", per thisSethacus 03:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've formated this reference into the article. ♫ Cricket02 14:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. No evidence of any notability, no sources, article is pure garbage.--Sefringle^Talk 03:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity article, non-notable person. --EndlessDan 12:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but no prejudice against a NPOV and well-sourced rewrite. Currently it's way too fluffy/promotional in tone: it sounds like something someone would write for the "about me" box on their Myspace profile. She does pass WP:MUSIC (by a hair) so a real article might be possible, but this ain't it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Fluffy/promotional? It is the artist's biography...It is no different than another biography on wikipedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.43.165.118 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've done some research and she did perform in Australia in 1979, Toured with Don Williams in the UK in 1979 and also performed at Wembly Festival in 1979. I found it in an old magazine newspaper I had called "Country Music People" May 1980 article, also it was also in "Country Music RoundUp" May 1980. Her LP's are up for sale on iTunes and Amazon.. so she is a notable person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GMVNASHVILLE (talk • contribs) 15:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please add these sources to the article with a all information you can, i.e. date, author, name of publication, etc. and I will help format them. ♫ Cricket02 14:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO, no assertion of notability provided, no sources. --JForget 00:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Keep The article has been greatly improved since my comment, sources have been added and a song hit a national chart which passes WP:MUSIC.--JForget 17:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. No "assertion"? There is assertion throughout this article such as charted hits, so you obviously did not read it. The problem is verification and I will try and help with that and cleanup up for WP:NPOV. ♫ Cricket02 13:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Certainly there is enough assertion of notability to keep this article, i.e. national charted singles and international tours, and meets notability criteria per WP:Music. I've attempted a rewrite and cleaned up for WP:NPOV. There is a Billboard Books chart reference which is reliable. This artist would not have much information available on the internet as quite simply, the internet hardly existed between 1978 and 1980 when this artist was most notable. I have asked the author to cite additional print-form references. Still, one book reference is enough for me to assume good faith, and believe the assertions of notability provided within the article to be true. ♫ Cricket02 14:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Crickey02 and WP:MUSIC. The article asserts that she had a hit on Billboard. Needs more cites, for sure. Bearian 23:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sorry. Not enough reliable source material from which to compile the article. With none of her important accomplishments being reported in a news paper, she probably needs a better publicists. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 08:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable singer. Keb25 08:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per WP:Music An artist is notable if it meets any ONE of the criteria and this artist meets #2: Has had a charted hit on any national music chart and there is proof of that in a reputable Billboard published book source. Period. ♫ Cricket02 13:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Also satisfies WP:MUSIC, per the tour criterion. The sources provided state, quite clearly, she toured Australia, the UK and possibly the US. Come on! This article doesn't need deleting, it needs fine tuning.--Sethacus 16:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maxim_(talk) 20:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Futurama products and Slurm

AfDs for this article:

Previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Futurama products, where it was correctly stated that "an actual episode may be used as a source for information about the episode" but ignored that secondary sources are still needed to establish notability. All of the products listed are referenced to episodes of the show; there are no secondary sources provided, and Wikipedia:Verifiability states that "if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." I'm also including Slurm, which is in the same state and provides no reliable secondary sources. 17Drew 00:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and also because it is a bit too trivial and fan-crufty for Wikipedia.--Danaman5 00:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thats why they aren't individual articles, they are a list. Your using article space criteria against a list. As for slurm, see Slurn in Google News --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you under the impression that lists are policies or essays? They're a kind of article; that's why they're in the article namespace and not in the non-existant list namespace. None of the products has significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, and neither does the topic of products in Futurama. The list also isn't an important subtopic of another article, unlike for example, lists of episodes. The Google News search doesn't turn up anything useful for the Slurm article. In the first five pages of results, there are three passing mentions of the product, and one article has a brief plot summary involving Slurm. It's all primary information, nothing to assert real world notability. 17Drew 00:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Futurama products" does not meet WP:N or WP:FICT. Therefore, this is a list of non-notable things that fit a definition of a non-notable concept. Jay32183 01:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Slurm to Fry and the Slurm Factory. Jay32183 23:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was considering taking the first AfD to Deletion Review because the closer never seemed to take into account the keep votes never addressed that there were no secondary sources about any of these products, but this will do. None of these products have any coverage in reliable sources or establish real-world notability aside from being one-off or recurring gags on the show. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I love Futurama, but really... SolidPlaid 02:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fancruft, listcruft. Keb25 05:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If Slurm is also nominated for deletion (and it is tagged as such) shouldn't it also be listed at the top of the page? I notice some of the comments seem to only be addressing the list, not the article and the list. Stardust8212 12:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed that. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List of Futurama products. An unnecessary list trying to capture every one-off jokey reference to any fake company. Merge and redirect Slurm to the episode article. Otto4711 18:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, alphabeticaly organized list concerning a notable animated show with seventeen references. Some of these items also appear in the video game and other Futurama media and so have recognizability even beyond just the TV show. Plus, the previous discussion (a keep) was only in July. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change and the last AFD had pretty light participation. The notability of the TV show does not automatically extend to every one-liner or image from it. Otto4711 21:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Slurm into Fry and the Slurm Factory. While this product is pretty important in the Futurama fan world, not sure there's much more to say other than what would be plot-summary-ish. Not sure what could be found for independent notability—I do see toys, lunchboxes, T-shirts, etc of it, supporting cultural notability, but having trouble finding actual WP:RS writing about Slurm itself or its logo'ed real-world products as a cultural or popular icon. DMacks 16:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both per Norton and Roi. Mandsford 23:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both or merge/redirect selected information as examples and/or to their respective episode articles. Without real-world information, there is no justification for being this detailed about what happened in the plot. -- Ned Scott 05:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if I have contributed to the page. This sort of thing should really be on a fan site, not in an encyclopedia.CarlFink 00:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Slurm into List of Futurama products and Keep the list as a compromise solution. --Eastlaw 03:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There needs to be a compelling reason to include material that has no real-world notability and frankly there is nothing in this list that suggests that is the case. Delete primarily on grounds of notability; lack of proper sources is a secondary, although also legitimate, concern. Eusebeus 13:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary sources or demonstration of notability outside the fictional world of Futurama. — Brian (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly legal list IAW WP:SAL. Put a refrence tag on it since it needs references, and that takes care of the reason for nomination to AFD and all valid complaints about the article. Viperix 19:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is not the lack of references; it's the lack of secondary sources (see WP:V). 17Drew 20:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In addition, the problem isn't that sources aren't listed, it's that sources aren't available. This isn't a problem that can be solved by putting effort into it. Jay32183 21:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, now that editors have had an opportunity to find reliable secondaries and have apparently failed. Cool Hand Luke 19:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Slurm to Fry and the Slurm Factory, Delete the list. Both per no secondary sources. shoy 19:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as CSD A1 (lack of context), as the name of the article bore no relation to the subject, and the subject was -- to be polite -- very obscure and impossible to discern with any degree of confidence. One might have still speedy tagged this; PROD is unnecessary for articles this jumbled. Xoloz 01:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gu weidong

A contested prod. Seems to be an OR Essay that has absolutely nothing to do with the title (the creator's name is the same as the article, however). If I could find a speedy reason for this, I would, but I can't, so I'm putting it here. UsaSatsui 00:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck 20:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Hoffmann

Was nominated for CSD, is a borderline notable subject. Neranei (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable bio. Keb25 05:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:BIO. --Gavin Collins 10:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 13:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cuadrilátero

Non-notable boxing company that makes no claims to notability. GlassCobra 00:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page for similar non-notability reasons:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No claim, or proof of notability. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent sources to establish notability. Cap'n Walker 14:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:V and WP:N VanTucky ^Talk 22:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 13:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bear Creek Country Club

Article is about simply a local golf club with no real assertion of notability and is also written as an advertisement. It has been tagged for unclear importance since several months, but doesn't seem to have been worked on. Delete JForget 00:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to pass the Gated Communities with Attached Golf Courses and Tennis Courts Notability Guidelines. Qworty 00:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N. Google search turns up only the country club's own Web site, along with entries in golf-course and real-estate directories and similar passing mentions. Deor 01:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion that there is any bears. But seriously, WP:N concerns, and it does seem a little spammy. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 02:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim of notability. Keb25 05:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. No claim of notability, no sources to verify. The argument could also be made that the country club is an organization, which puts this article subject to criterion A7 for speedy deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to establish notability. --Hdt83 ^Chat 23:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck 19:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filipa Moniz

Delete: Non-notable, unsourced, unreferenced. Mazur-Grosskopf 00:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article's strongest citation: "There are no existing records of Felipa's marriage to Columbus." Oh, well, by all means, if it's not even true, surely let's have a Wikipedia article about it. Qworty 00:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Christopher Columbus, where she is briefly mentioned. There are plenty of Ghits for her, but she is not notable on her own. Clarityfiend 02:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blessed Trinity Catholic School

The article is basically an information guide about a local school in which the only possible notable aspect is Jim Carrey being a former student but the fact is not supported by any sources. Without that ,it is basically the typical local nn school. Delete JForget 00:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there's some evidence that Jim Carrey exists, there's no evidence that the "Blessed Trinity" exists, nor is there any evidence that this school is in any way notable--so I say delete this non-notable school that's named after a Roman Catholic myth.Qworty 00:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Searching for "jim carrey" "blessed trinity" gives around 600 hits of varying quality. Here are the first two I read. I'm not too sure what makes a school notable, but a famous ex-pupil is surely a start. Thomjakobsen 00:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Thomjakobsen, although it's not much now the article certainly has a lot of potential. --RucasHost 00:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Has Jim Carrey ever golfed at Bear Creek Country Club? No, of course not, that's why it's a non-notable golf course and we're deleting it. Come on. A place doesn't become notable just because Jim Carrey shows up. Anybody know where he's eating dinner tonight? Qworty 01:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If Jim Carrey had worked at that country club for a few years, that might confer notability. Similarly any comedy club he'd played at for a long period. Schools become notable on the basis of their alumni (barring gun rampages and sex-abuse scandals), and an A-list Hollywood star scores pretty highly. The school even gets namechecked in stories about him. You obviously haven't read the guidelines at WP:CARREY. Thomjakobsen 02:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this is a good case for "Notability is not inherited". A passing mention in the media that he went to the school is not an article about the school. Unless the references are about the school itself and tell why the school is particularly noteworthy, they don't count. MarkBul 03:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. While I buy into the argument that high schools have some automatic notability, this school is not a high school. So, does it have anything that qualifies it as notable? Just an unsourced assertion that Jim Carrey attended. No clear claim of notability exists, and there are no independent reliable sources cited in the article. Fails notability, fails verification. I'm open to an article compliant with the School project guidelines being written about the school in the future, but this article...there's nothing here worth saving as a starting point. —C.Fred (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should we have articles on every school formerly attended by an A-list celebrity? Cap'n Walker 14:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The arguments in favor of this article remind me of that great line from the movie Heathers, wherein a group of people wants to establish the notability of a hotel--and prevent it from being demolished--because "Glenn Miller and his band once took a shit there." Gee, imagine if Jim Carrey had dropped by! Qworty 19:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A single notable alum does not significant coverage make. Without multiple RS's to verify substantial facts, there is no hope for the article. VanTucky ^Talk 22:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete; I believe that high schools have automatic notability, but the article does not state whether this is a high school or not. StaticElectric 16:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 13:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Briggs

Delete unsourced BLP that claims to be a famous UK radio exec. Lots of ghits for "Mark Briggs" but his not prominent among them. Carlossuarez46 00:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's no more notable than any other minor-league executive or boss. But there might be a fight over this one. Lots of guys who throw their weight around at work want to have their own wiki articles, not realizing that when they come here they are no longer in the office. So let's be prepared for the inevitable hauling out of those 27 community awards and church plaques intended to establish "notability" by showing how he has uniquely transformed our world for the better. Ahhh! Qworty 00:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity, non-notable person. Keb25 05:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Complete vanity article. --EndlessDan 12:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If he's so famous, why aren't there any independent citations? Cap'n Walker 14:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat^♫ 01:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sell Out

Was nominated for speedy deletion, but not for a valid speedy reason, in any case this album does not seem to assert why its notable and needs an encyclopaedia entry. In addition no references. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 00:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Selling out because Sell out does and I could imangine someone typing that term captialise the word Out by mistake. --70.48.109.25 02:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. If this is deleted, a better redirect would be to The Who Sell Out. Note that this is also the title of an album by Dia Psalma, which has an entry in the Swedish wikipedia (sv:Sell Out). If these are deemed notable, perhaps a disambiguation page would be best. Rigadoun (talk) 04:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - The band Halfcocked has had an article on here for years, which probably means they are notable, which probably means their albums are notable, according to WP:MUSIC. While it's true these articles aren't much more than tracklistings, the three Halfcocked album articles up for deletion haven't exactly had much time to grow, being created only yesterday. --Bongwarrior 05:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was the one who nominated this for speedy deletion, although at the time all that was there was a tracklist and one line of info. I'm still new to this line of wiki work and so I'm still prone to mistakes :). Personally, I don't think notability is inherited and the album should be deleted since it has no sources and no possibility for any. Rigadoun raised some interesting points though... a dismabig page will probably be needed. Seraphim ^Whipp 09:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With Precious Roy's additions, I change my vote to keep.Seraphim ^Whipp 22:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Halfcocked, unless more material can be found specifically pertaining to this release. Bondegezou 16:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's an album by a notable (-enough) band. The article needs work, not deletion. Precious Roy 13:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a bit to the page (AMG review link + rating, more info, cat + stub tags) Precious Roy 13:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is nothing that can be done to improve these articles. There are no references in the articles and no sources that exist to ever improve this article. Seraphim ^Whipp 15:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is a ridiculous statement. Further research can be done, more content can be added. There's a reason that we have "stub" categories here on Wikipedia. The AMG link is enough of a reference for the the content that currently exists, and other references can be added along with additional content. Precious Roy 15:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's truly not ridiculous. No one has written about this album ergo, there will never be anything to write about this album apart from OR. There is one link and that seems to be all. You say other references can be added, but you've missed my point. My point was exactly that no sources exist. Also in case anyone is wondering, my reasoning for copy and pasting the same arguments in each of these related afds is that different people participate in different afds. Seraphim ^Whipp 16:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I have not missed your point. Your statement that "no one has written about this album" is truly ridiculous: A simple check of All Music Guide shows that someone has written about this album. Going to just one site I was able to find a source. Claiming that "no sources exist" is a fallacy, to say the least (it's more like dissemblance on your part). With a little effort I don't doubt that more sources can be found. (I too am pasting my comments from the other album—these really should have been bundled in the same AfD). Precious Roy 19:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupation: Rock Star (album by the same band) to see that additional references were found for that album. I don't have time this evening to research more but I think that's proof enough that a simple Google search is not proof of non-notablilty. Sheesh, I was never a fan of this band and here I am doing all this work. I truly have a Wikiproblem. Precious Roy 21:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat^♫ 01:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Star

Was nominated for speedy deletion, but not for a valid speedy reason, in any case this album does not seem to assert why its notable and needs an encyclopaedia entry. In addition no references. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 00:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong~~ Speedy Delete Very little substantive content, appears to be little more than a track listing. No context, no assertion of notability, CSD A7. Rackabello 04:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - The band Halfcocked has had an article on here for years, which probably means they are notable, which probably means their albums are notable, according to WP:MUSIC. While it's true these articles aren't much more than tracklistings, the three Halfcocked album articles up for deletion haven't exactly had much time to grow, being created only yesterday. --Bongwarrior 05:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was the one who nominated this for speedy deletion, although at the time all that was there was a tracklist and one line of info. I'm still new to this line of wiki work and so I'm still prone to mistakes :). Personally, I don't think notability is inherited and the album should be deleted since it has no sources and no possibility for any. Seraphim ^Whipp 09:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With Precious Roy's additions, I change my vote to keep. Seraphim ^Whipp 22:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Major label album by notable (-enough) band. Article needs work, not deleting. Precious Roy 13:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing that can be done to improve these articles. There are no references in the articles and no sources that exist to ever improve this article. Seraphim ^Whipp 15:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 13:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of the Love

Nominated for speedy deletion, but it does not match any of those criteria, so I'm going to put this here. The reason for speedy deletion was: Rumor, no source given--no album title has been confirmed. We should also note that there are no assertions of notability for this album, or any references. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 00:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried to find things for this album. I found nothing at all to confirm even the production. It is crystal-ballism at present. Acalamari 02:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You can definitely confirm the production (just look at the sources provided in the third album section on Ashlee Simpson). Everyking 03:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right. :) How did I miss that? At any rate, nothing is confirmed though. Acalamari 16:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The title is completely unconfirmed and probably some fan just made it up. I tagged it for speedy deletion and feel that it would have been better to kill it immediately due to the probability that it is a hoax (if it is true, it's based only on inside info and not published sources). I am in favor of going ahead and creating an article for the album, even though it's still untitled, but there's no sense in working off of this mess (Ashlee has never described the album the way this article claims she has--quite the opposite, actually--and the date of release is also fake). Everyking 03:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Keb25 05:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Very minimal hits while attempting to google this. At worst it's a hoax, at best it's a guess. --Bongwarrior 05:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 03:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation: Rock Star

Was originally nominated as a CSD canidate, while it does not fit one of those criteria, I do feel that this album does not assert why it is notable, in addition to that it is un-referenced. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 00:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect To Halfcocked. i ^said 00:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm thinking that this one should go, as well as Sell Out, The Last Star, and more than likely Halfcocked itself. None of it establishes notability. GlassCobra 00:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, sorry, I didn't see the AfDs listed above. GlassCobra 01:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - The band Halfcocked has had an article on here for years, which probably means they are notable, which probably means their albums are notable, according to WP:MUSIC. While it's true these articles aren't much more than tracklistings, the three Halfcocked album articles up for deletion haven't exactly had much time to grow, being created only yesterday. --Bongwarrior 05:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true. It says that albums may have sufficient notability. It even says that if it is just a track listing, it can be merged into the main article. This seems to fit the exact situation outlined there. i ^said 06:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not saying I wouldn't support deletion myself a month or two down the road. As I mentioned earlier, the articles were only created yesterday. It doesn't seem to me that the best way to encourage growth beyond the tracklisting stage is to immediately nominate it for deletion. --Bongwarrior 06:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So is there an automatic grace period? If so, then isn't the entirety of the CSD process wrong? i ^said 22:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not automatic, no. But I think in a case such as this, where some degree of notability may be safely assumed, it's not a bad thing to give it some time to see if it can/will be improved. I'm not sure I follow you regarding the speedy deletion policies. --Bongwarrior 02:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was the one who nominated this for speedy deletion, although at the time all that was there was a tracklist and one line of info. I'm still new to this line of wiki work and so I'm still prone to mistakes :). Personally, I don't think notability is inherited and the album should be deleted since it has no sources and no possibility for any. Seraphim ^Whipp 09:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With Precious Roy's additions, I change my vote to keep. Seraphim ^Whipp
Strong keep As with the band's other two albums, also up for AfD, this is an album by a notable band. The article needs work, not deletion. Precious Roy 13:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing that can be done to improve these articles. Please don't be offended, but all you've added is an AMG rating which can easily go in the artist article. There are no references in the articles and no sources that exist to improve this article. Seraphim ^Whipp 15:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is a ridiculous statement. Further research can be done, more content can be added. There's a reason that we have "stub" categories here on Wikipedia. The AMG link is enough of a reference for the the content that currently exists, and other references can be added along with additional content. Precious Roy 15:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's truly not ridiculous. No one has written about this album ergo, there will never be anything to write about this album apart from OR. There is one link and that seems to be all. You say other references can be added, but you've missed my point. My point was exactly that no sources exist. Seraphim ^Whipp 16:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have not missed your point. Your statement that "no one has written about this album" is truly ridiculous: A simple check of All Music Guide shows that someone has written about this album. Going to just one site I was able to find a source. Claiming that "no sources exist" is a fallacy, to say the least (it's more like dissemblance on your part). With a little effort I don't doubt that more sources can be found. Precious Roy 19:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        My implication was not clear. It was that noone other than the AMG reviewer has written about it and that no sources other than that exist. Seraphim ^Whipp 21:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        This is what I was using as a basis, [49]. Of course, it seems that this conversation has now been made redundant by the fact that you have provided sources, which is excellent. I shall change my vote. Seraphim ^Whipp 21:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have added additional references from the Boston Herald and MTV.com. Also, found that the album won a Boston Music Award for indie debut album. Precious Roy 21:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Drake & Josh. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drake & Josh book series

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Drake & Josh book series

This article seems borderline notable to me. It is very badly written, and has no references or sources whatsoever. It was tagged for speedy deletion at one point. Neranei (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2007

Merge to Drake & Josh, where the books are already mentioned but not linked (the AfD'ed article is orphaned) and where the text will receive more attention for cleanup. This vote is not based on notability of the subject but what's best for the article, I suppose. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge I'll support either conclusion. GlassCobra 00:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Poorly written but it can be fixed. I'm more concerned with the notability and whether it is really necessary to create a separate article of its own. mirageinred 00:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Book tie-ins are a dime a dozen with kid's shows these days, and generally lousy (still regretting my purchase of the Gilmore Girls book series). This is no exception. Pretty much the show scripts sold in book form. Also only edit from article creator. Nate 02:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable series. Keb25 05:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge With Drake & Josh Yamakiri 11:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe I'm missing something here, but as far as I can tell the book series seems to be notable enough for an article. Could use cleanup, sure, but hardly seems a deletion candidate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Linahan. Okay, the article was obviously written by a young fan of the books, probably a 13 year old kid in middle school. The concept for the article itself is notable, however. Books of this nature are more important for literacy than most people realize, in that they provide something interesting to persons who might not otherwise choose to read a book. Hooray for the kid for submitting an article. The style can be brought up to code. Mandsford 23:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with Starblind. There's nothing un-notable about the books, and a crappy article doesn't warrant deletion. I've tagged it (stub, cleanup, etc.) and will try and improve it a bit, but there's no reason to delete. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 12:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cuill

This page was originally nominated for speedy deletion under A7, and was contested with the {{hangon}} tag. I felt uncomfortable speedying it, so I bring it to you. It seems that the search engine is on the border. Of the five pages cited, only one is sufficiently "reliable", which still fails the whole idea of multiple reliable sources, but it's got one. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not really noteworthy, if it was, I'd have heard more about it. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable search engine. Keb25 05:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB. --Evb-wiki 12:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 18:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 12:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf Hudson

AfDs for this article:

Found while looking through the articles for speedy deletion. The reason was: does not meet WP:PORNBIO. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 00:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible merge with one of his films, such as Porn Pig Playhouse? No, just delete it. If none of his work is notable, neither is he. Qworty 01:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I was the editor who added the speedy tag but the subject (who posted his own article) wanted to "holdon"; no worries there. I quoted the provisions of WP:PORNBIO to him, and he doesn't meet them. Accounting4Taste 03:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Keb25 05:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails both BIO and the proposed PORNBIO. I do find the movie titles hilarious though. Only one of his film credits is recognised by the IMDB, and even that is listed as still filming. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Andrew Lenahan that WP:PORNBIO was explained and has not been met. The 'multiple orgasisms' nearly makes him notable, but the necklace of notability is still a few pearls short. Colon el Tom 13:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The brand new editor technically was told about the requirement and even responded in the talk pages (I spent some time formatting the responses and adding sig tags to clear up who stated what. And very likely thought that simply responding to those brusk decrees from on high was enough. I messaged them on the editor's talk page but it's still quite likely they don't know what exactly to add and how to ref to fulfill the requirements although it seems likely the article's subject meets at least one of the WP:PORNBIO requirements. Benjiboi 18:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- NO NOTABILITY whatsoever and I am so sick and tired of this sort of article popping up with no significance, no notability and blatantly for the purpose some guy who took his clothes off in front of a camera to brag to his friends or advertise illegal sex services -- DELETE IMMEDATELY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.42.65 (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- This article is pointless to keep and should have never been written. DELETE IMMEDIATELY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roz Lipschitz (talk • contribs) 05:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteBy all means DELETE this article! It is bad and not notable - why is it that Gay Porn Stars have the worst articles written on them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin Redford (talk • contribs) 19:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Splender, without prejudice against merging material from the history, as appropriate (if you do, please tag the redirect with {{R from merge}}). Consensus is that this shouldn't exist as a separate article, but it is a plausible search term, so a redirect makes sense here. — TKD::Talk 12:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Slutsky

I declined A7 speedy deletion of this article because the article's talk page claims it meets WP:MUSIC. I disagree – the band, Splender, may be notable, but that doesn't necessarily make an individual member notable. The creator has already removed CSD tags and seems likely to recreate it if it's deleted without an AFD, so let's have the discussion. - KrakatoaKatie 23:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. I've removed most of the glowing praise and wikified it a bit to drill down to the basics. KrakatoaKatie 23:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity, non-notable drummer. Keb25 05:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I originally nominated this as a CSD. there is only one entry at Allmusic.com which only has him credited as being a member of Splender. I can't find him listed anywhere as part of the bands mentioned so I can only presume (assuming good faith) that he was sessioning on the tour rather than actually being in the bands. gHits (using ""marc slutsky" -blog drum") gets 97 hits.--WebHamster 08:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Slender That seems to be his most notable role in his career since he was there for several years.--JForget 00:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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