Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 22: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
{{subst:afd3|pg=Takeover Radio}}
Line 131: Line 131:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nooner}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nooner}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell Quirk}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell Quirk}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takeover Radio}}

Revision as of 21:49, 22 April 2007

< April 21 April 23 >

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delphic of gamma sigma tau fraternity

Doesn't pass WP:N. Cool BlueLight my Fire! 18:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Centre

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

non notable mall, with little to no information actually in the article. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 19:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - comparison to the of quality other articles is not a basis for inclusion or deletion - it only serves to highlight the quality or lack thereof of the other article. - Tiswas(t/c) 17:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 18:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kozlov Centre

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

more non notable mall cruft. Again, no sources other than official site link. Again, no assertion of notability, etc. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 19:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm all for keeping a mall that is extraordinarily large, or is the biggest in a province, the first to do some notable thing, or is otherwise notable. But this mall does not appear to be any of these. Herostratus 01:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Owen figure-skating family

Owen figure-skating family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Duplicate page. Each member of the fmaily is notable in hir own right. Absolutely no need to have a seperate page for the family itself. Kolindigo 20:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but it would be a lot easier just to turn this into a disambig page than to use the AfD mechanism to try to get rid of it. Dr.frog 20:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about that, but I'm not sure a disambig page is that necessary. The way I see it, they aren't known as a family the same way that families who perform as groups are known as a family. I've always seen it as "Maribel Vinson and her daughters", never collectively as "the Owen family". But I could just not be reading the right things. :) Kolindigo 22:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Though the article does point out that it might be worthwhile to create a See also link in each individual article to unite all the members of the family. SilkTork 14:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Additional comment: I've just checked. Only one article had the links missing - I've now added that. All articles are linked. SilkTork 14:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unnecessary. Although I've supported "X family" articles in the past when they serve an organizational/navigational purpose, this is two generations -- parents and children -- and there is no need for a page showing the family tree. Every member's article should have this information already. --Dhartung | Talk 19:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cgarena Magazine

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

Previously a contested prod. Does not appear to have any reliable sources for notability. — coelacan — 20:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Worm

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

Appears to be a non notable calculator game. A Google search for "Uncle Worm" turns up a dozen or so websites where one can download the game, but none of the "multiple non trivial works" required by WP:N. The "sources" provided at the bottom of the article are merely sites where the game can be downloaded. Natalie 20:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Summit

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

The article was created as part of an astroturfing campaign by User:IEMA. Adraeus 22:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Advertisement. dcandeto 22:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep It may nonetheless be notable. It's a large industry, and if this is the top-level sales meeting it would be N. I asked for documentation about market share. If kept, the puffery can easily be removed--I just now did about half. There is no more justification for including the detailed schedule of a trade show than there is for a middle school. DGG 03:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There are plenty of "executive summits" for much larger industries. For example, the telecom industry collects more money than annual box office sales every two weeks. The games industry is small when compared to the movies industry, and the games industry is dwarfed by telecom. The size of an industry should not be a criterion for inclusion.
    More to the point, there's nothing particularly notable about this event. These type of events are as common as they come. Or should I start creating articles on every event I produce? As a bonus and worse, ethically and procedurally, User:IEMA and User:Gowardo appear to be working on behalf of Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association (IEMA) without identifying themselves as such. This makes their contributions astroturfing and conflicts of interest. Adraeus 08:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to establish notability beyond association with GTA video game. - BierHerr 17:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 18:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aluminij

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

I think it is an ad to promote a company I really do not think it is usefull information Jdchamp31 22:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)'[reply]

It's a company worth over 150 million convertible marks, one of the most successful in Bosnia[3]. It's significant both economically (in the post-war recovery) and politically/culturally (as largest employer of Croats in BiH). I certainly did not create it as an ad. --Thewanderer 00:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless some attribution is provided. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I would be satisfied with some figures for market share. DGG 03:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've rewritten the article and provided sources, inline refs, more info and less advertising. I have no opinion on whether it should be kept or deleted.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  09:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the article's stubby, it will be expanded. --PaxEquilibrium 21:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note, that I originally removed the speedy tag from this which claimed it was "blatant advertising", a criterion clearly failed by the article in all its revisions. It should probably be kept, but I say this based principally on reading the English version of their website which I accept does not usually qualify as an independent source. Searching for the reliable sources has proven hard since they are as a rule not in English. This fact shouldn't stop us carrying an article on it if it is notable, since a tag for sources would, we hope, eventually be answered by a relevant-language speaking editor who can accurately assess what a Google search returns. (NB. I say this in reference largely to the non-rewritten article which included a number of claims relating to success and awards which I found difficult to locate English-language confirmation of. They have now been removed, but we should bear in mind that the claims may nevertheless be true). Splash - tk 21:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Majorly (hot!) 23:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lawdex

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

Not quite a blatent ad IMO, so not a speedy. But no particular notability evident, and all listed sources are either PR releases from the firm itself, or simple directory listings that varify nothing more than its existance, and are probably based on content provided by the firm. Even based on thso sources, the firm started actual oiperations less than a year ago. Not notable. Fails WP:CORP DES (talk) 03:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Based on my nom abovce, delete. DES (talk) 03:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep because a/the claimed 7,000 users in 21 countries is a large number for this type of service, b/ the California application is only one of the applications of their software c/ they have a partnership arrangement with IBM, I added the link. d/ refs 1 & 3 are businesswire, published by Gale. it ultimately rests on the PR, but it's an edited and reliable news service, backed by a major publisher. I would expect additional refs, and, as usual with commercial organizations, would like to see a 3rd party report on market share. DGG 05:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - but im concerned the sources seem to mention the subject in passing, but not in depth. the_undertow talk 07:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rich Farmbrough, 08:53 28 April 2007 (GMT).

Mobile Performance Group

Mobile Performance Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 04:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Performance Group, though not widely popular or known, seems to have a niche in the electronic arts community. With a Google search I found a few people and groups interested enough in the group to write about it or post videos. Turbulence.org, A popular blog for network performance. A German University professor's curriculum. Besides these texts, there are videos on YouTube and some other video sites as well. Through another Google search I found the music director, Nathan Wolek, is a recognized part of the academic music community. Both founder Matt Roberts and Nathan Wolek have been collectively and individually invited to perform and/or speak at multifarious events in the United States and abroad. This is visible on their personal web pages,[4][5] which are among the first links to appear Yahoo when one searches with their names.

According to the Wikipedia:Notability (music) article if the group "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,3 " then it is "very likely that sufficient reliable information is available about a given group. . ." They have traveled to several locations within the U.S.

Though the interest may be primarily academic(besides the YouTube presence) there seems to be a notable interest from that community.

The group has performed at some of the most recognized international conferences in the new media arts field. International Computer Music Conference (ICMC 2006) and International Symposium for Electronic Arts (ISEA2006). These are both highly competitive international events. In addition to that the group has performed in several new media festivals http://www.mattroberts.info/mpg/about.html , featured in important new media arts web sites http://www.turbulence.org/blog/archives/002865.html and featured in the press San Jose Mercury News http://www.mercurynewsphoto.com/2006/08/11/mobile-performance-groups-parking-spaces/

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Turns of phrase like "there seems to be" or "seems to have" really hit WP:WEASEL hard; what independent evidence exists that they have a recognized niche or that the founders are as popular as they claim? There are zero reliable, independent, published sources about this group. Of the "performance" links in the article, only half of them mention MPG at all, and then only in lists of performers in street festivals. Only 45 Google hits [6], and it's a telling thing that this AfD discussion is actually in the top dozen hits the outfit has. Fails WP:V, WP:BAND.  RGTraynor  17:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the groups entry should be reconsidered. The group has performed at some of the most recognized International Conferences in the field of new media arts. ISEA and ICMC are widely recognized International organizations dedicated to new media or computer arts. The group has also received legitimate press coverage. Please consider the following ISEA2006 ZeroOne San Jose: A Global Festival of Art on the Edge & the Thirteenth International Symposium of Electronic Art (ISEA2006) The group was selected, from an international call to artist, to perform at this festival http://01sj.org/content/view/381/49/ Their participation was covered by San Jose's most popular news paper Mercury News http://www.mercurynews.com/ http://www.mercurynewsphoto.com/2006/08/11/mobile-performance-groups-parking-spaces/ ICMC 2006 International Computer Music Conference http://www.icmc2006.org/ The group was selected, from an international call to artist, to perform at this Conference https://attica2.tcs.tulane.edu/icmc2006/temp/Rehearsal-LateNight.htm and they were part of the subject of discussion in a panel at icmc2006 entitled The Laptop Ensemble as Pedagogical Tool http://www.nathanwolek.com/nathanwolek/papers/wolek_icmc2006panel.pdf this panel included faculty from University of Michigan, Princeton and Minnesota State University

Other international festivals they have participated in are University of Florida Electroacoustic Music Festival (15th annual) http://emu.music.ufl.edu/femf/fest15prg.html ConFlux 2006 (Conflux is the annual New York festival for contemporary psychogeography, the investigation of everyday urban life through emerging artistic, technological and social practice.) http://confluxfestival.org/projects.php?projectid=350 ProvFlux http://www.pipsworks.com/contact/projects/parking.html Ybor Festival of the Moving Image http://www.yborfilmfestival.com/2004/artists/mobile_performance_group.html

You can also find their work featured on the blog networked _performance http://www.turbulence.org/blog this blog is also highly regarded in the new media arts field http://www.turbulence.org/blog/archives/002865.html

I think it is clear that the group has been recognized by several important institution dedicated to the field of new media arts, and the entry should be reconsidered.

A local music festival doesn't magically become "international" just because the organizers claim it is. The purported "participation coverage" given by the Mercury News is, in fact, just a couple of photos on a website slideshow; the actual text article just lists the group with many others as having participated. That one of the group's members mentioned the group in a lecture he gave himself (and for which the source is his own website) confers neither notability or verifiability ... and heck, I've been on panel discussions with some of the top science fiction authors around, but that doesn't make me notable. There is not a single reliable, independent, published source which actually discusses this group or reviews their material, and no sources presented backing up the assertion that these "international" organizations and festivals are widely recognized or that they are competitively selective of the groups playing there.  RGTraynor  17:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These clearly are not local music festivals I believe if you take a look at these organizations about pages you will see that they truly are international festivals, that take place in a different part of the world every year. They are also some of the oldest festivals dedicated to Electronic arts. I have provided some links for more information. ISEA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISEA http://www.isea-web.org/eng/about.html a link to the list of international artist for ISEA 2006 http://01sj.org/content/blogsection/13/48/ More than 150 artists from around the world will present contemporary art "on the edge" in more than a dozen exhibitions throughout San Jose and the surrounding Greater Bay Area. once again ISEA is a highly regarded international festival for electronic arts. ICMC International Computer Music Association http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Computer_Music_Conference http://www.computermusic.org/about_icma/about_master_frameset.html The ICMA cosponsors the annual ICMC, which, since its inception in 1974, has become the preeminent yearly gathering of computer music practitioners from around the world. The ICMC's unique interleaving of professional paper presentations and concerts of new computer music compositions—refereed by ICMA-approved international panels— creates a vital synthesis of science, technology, and the art of music. You can find a web page with more information regarding the last ICMC at http://www.icmc2006.org. Florida Electroacoustic Music Festival http://emu.music.ufl.edu/femf/index.html The festival features an international selection of contemporary electroacoustic art music. Concerts included juried presentations, curated concerts, and concerts of special interest or topics. Papers presentations, lecture demonstrations, and studio reports are also presented during the three day spring festival. This festival is organized by the University of Florida School of Music which is a well known and respected institution, this festival has a long history this year is the 16th annual festival. ConFlux http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psy-Geo-Conflux http://confluxfestival.org/conflux2007/content/view/11/63/ Conflux is the annual New York festival for contemporary psychogeography, the investigation of everyday urban life through emerging artistic, technological and social practice. Although this festival is young it is highly regarded in the field of psychogeography, here is an article from the village voice about this festival http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0319,zimmerman,43875,1.html

Again I would ask that you reconsider calling these "local music festivals" calling themselves international. These festivals have a long and respected history and are truly international, they are highly competitive events featuring artist from around the world at the top of their field.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pon and Zi

Pon and Zi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Supposedly these have been on TV, but I can find no source. Lots of google results, but I'm not seeing anything I would use as a reliable source. That might change, but unless this article is referenced, it should be deleted as non-notable. — coelacan — 07:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dogs of War (history)

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

Article is a dictionary entry with very short context. WP:NOT Stoic atarian 09:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 06:47Z

Coach O Song

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

I don't know anything about college football but something tells me this isn't notable. Postcard Cathy 15:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Ixfd64 05:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jehad.net

Jehad.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notabable (Wikipedia:Notability (web)), and the web address doesnt even work. Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A notable domain? So we make articles on Wikipedia for all notable domains even if they dont work? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We do have articles on closed websites - but they must still satisfy WP:WEB like still-operating ones. Whether sources write about a website when it's operating or after it's closed doesn't matter either. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-17 01:21Z


just because the american media doesnt discuss a website doesnt mean its not valid......how often to you hear about or from al-jazeera in the united states??? the provisional authority banned the station in iraq after the occupation.....you cant delete an article just because no one has heard of it....thats precisely why it SHOULD have an article (-ME)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I guess according to the above note I put my comments here. The website's claim to fame is that it was ran by Islamic terrorists and some dope decided to "hack it" and change the password.[7] Some quotes from random articles I accessed:
"Jehad.net recently carried a message from bin Laden’s official spokesman, as well as copies of two purported jihadi training manuals: “The Mujahideen Explosives Handbook” and “The Mujahideen Poisons Handbook."[8]
"...of Islamist terrorist organizations, the Internet substitutes for the loss of bases and territory. In this respect the most important sites are alneda.com, jehad.net, drasat.com, and aloswa.org, which feature quotes from bin Laden tapes, religious legal rulings that justify the terrorist attacks, and support for the al Qaeda cause.29 In addition, website operators have established a site that is “a kind of database or encyclopedia for the dissemination of computer viruses.”30 The site is 7hj.7hj.com, and it aims to teach Internet users how to conduct computer attacks, purportedly in the service of Islam.31"[9]

It is fairly notable in its own right, regardless of the incident, based on the content that was there and who purportedly ran it. To my knowledge, it is one of the only so called "jihadist" websites that actually gained notoriety in the general public, mainly do to the "hacking incident". Do a google search and read up on the particulars of this domain. (Not being snarky - it is interesting) more [10] [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40517] If this is the wrong place for comments and this discussion is still open, please notify me or move my comments. Regards,El hombre de haha 22:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 06:48Z

Odesstrafe

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

No citations and no relevant Google hits in English; perhaps the term should be in another language's Wikipedia. Hickoryhillster 20:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6WIND

6WIND (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Software company that does not appear notable. Author contested speedy and asserted notability on talk page, but (1) the claims of notability don't make sense to me (maybe some software person can check them out); (2) no sources are cited to show notability (the attempted cite to Google doesn't seem to work). NawlinWiki 13:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6WIND's feedbacks:

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Evangelism. Nothing sourced to merge. Sandstein 15:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soulfeast

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

Contested speedy. Possibly original research, possibly nothing more than a dictionary definition. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 (T|C) ER 06:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aluka

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

No external sources, website launched early February 2007. Creators' name is weblinked in the lead. And it's the sole contribution of a single purpose account. Worthy, but no evidence it passes the notability guideliones and there is almost certainly a conflict of interest at work here. Guy (Help!) 16:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recognizing the author's link to the organization, article is written in the attempt to provide a comprehensive information about a family of non-profit organizations in the higher education community. Other organizations (JSTOR, ARTstor, and NITLE) already have entries and Aluka's entry is modeled after them. Organization's informational website was actually launched in 2006 with the first release of the content database in Feb 2007. There are numerous press releases from established organizations covering the event:

  • www.rbgkew.org.uk/press/african_plants_release.html
  • library.lib.binghamton.edu/mt/science/archives/biology_news
  • weblogs.lib.uh.edu/weblogs/africanastudies/2007/02/aluka_a_new_project_from_jstor.html

Please advise.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted again in hope of generating a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sponsor , Ithaka, is a well-know organization in the field. The money comes from the Mellon Foundation, which is sufficient to make success very likely. (I added the link). And, just from Google, I added 7 good references; some are connected with the sponsors, so I included one from the Chronicle of Higher Education and one from the Library of Congress. I could additionally have added at least 100, from the newsletters of the participating libraries in the US, Europe, and Africa. My apologies for not having noticed this before. A single keyword search on Google, and I didn't think to do it. DGG 03:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as improved by DGG. Good work. --Dhartung | Talk 04:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technology Group International

Technology Group International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Since a prod was contested, the author has added a whole list of references to establish notability. After looking through them, I'm kind of undecided, since some of them are press releaseses, quite a few of the articles are from the same author (Thomas R. Cutler) or mention the company relatively briefly. Overall I'd might keep it, but wanted others to take a look. S.K. 16:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep 35,000 ghits, combined with the current quality of the article, is enough. YechielMan 17:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional keep, provided that the description that they are a "provider of enterprise business solutions" gets edited to something more specific and concrete, and less buzzwordy. They seem instead to be a software business, not a chemical company; their products do not involve "solutions", and emptily grandiose promotional prose like that does not belong in an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


@SK: I was similarly undecided about my articles. However, I looked into Mr. Culver's contributions elsewhere and opted to give the benefit of the doubt - he's a regular contributor to nearly two dozen industry publications, most in the manufacturing and distribution sectors, where this company's software is used. @Smerdis: I respectfully disagree with your characterization of the use of "business solutions" as "grandiose". However, as it is the commonly accepted way to describe products/services that solve business problems, your point about buzzwords is well taken and I have edited accordingly. Missysedai 22:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

". . . (E)nterprise business software for manufacturers and distributors" is much better, describing both the actual product and who might find it useful in relatively specific terms. FWIW, "business solution" is a pet peeve of mine: my strongly held opinion is that the phrase is vague, and reeks of overconfidence. - Smerdis of Tlön 00:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the supporting articles were written by the same marketing consultant and say very little about the company. Although this article throws out big numbers, those simply refer to the annual sales of the companies that it is targeting. I see nothing that independently gives any basis for determining that this company is notable. -- DS1953 talk 00:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reads like an excerpt from a prospectus. Suggest author consult WP:CORP before re-creation. --Aarktica 15:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anjel. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 06:59Z

Tiffany Beaudoin

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

meets neither WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC, completely unsourced. Delete. Jefferson Anderson 17:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Anjel. Tiffany does not appear to be independently notable but since she is a possible search string a redirect is appropriate. Should she achieve independent notability at some point an article can be recreated. Otto4711 12:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect is good because she is apart of Anjel.69.114.197.41 02:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:, completely fails WP:V, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC. There's nothing in the article about the subject other than her name and age. Furthermore, the Keep single-use !voters rely upon her membership in this Anjel group as proof of her notability, yet according to the group's article (which is in itself a gossipy mess worthy of AfD) it never actually released an album, had any airplay or performed a single concert ... so what? Under those circumstances, the group has no notability absent the members, and Beaudoin has no independent notability.  RGTraynor  17:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anjel was nominated for AfD a couple of weeks ago, it just scraped a keep despite (or because of) a strong stench of sockpuppetry - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw that, and agree entirely with your assessment. I have that in mind to file another AfD after a couple months when the dust settles a bit, and take a stand against the sockpuppets.  RGTraynor  18:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Underground Cafe and Alternative Bookstore

Underground Cafe and Alternative Bookstore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article does not claim notability and does not cite any sources. Google yields only 49 results, none of which appear to be reliable,[11] thus a verifiable article cannot be written.

The article has been a battleground between User:TakingYourselfTooSeriously who has been introducing the unsourced "controversy" section and an anonymous editor removing it; both admit to having been/being part of the organization, thus having a conflict of interest. TakingYourselfTooSeriously also insists that the original author has a conflict of interest.

Given the lack of reliable sources and the edit wars on this article, I feel that it is best deleted. -- intgr 18:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - an edit-war is a content dispute, and as such is not valid grounds for deletion. However, there does not appear to be any reliable sources to establish notability. There appears to be some claim to local notability in some of the keep arguments from the previous AFD that resulted in "no consensus", but again, I can't find any sources to even establish that. -- Whpq 20:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep because there should be sources. It seems notable enough to keep trying. DGG 06:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - over 600 Ghits excluding mirrors; whilst some of these just list it as a venue, there are enough that actually discuss it to convince me that it's a focal point of the Canadian hard-left scene & warrants its own page. Two of the three reasons given by the nom (WP:COI and edit wars) are invalid reasons for nomination, and the third (lack of attribution) seems easily addressed. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The count on the first page of search results is wrong since it also includes duplicate mentions on a single web site. If you click on the last page of results, you can see that there are only 38 results. The only reason why I mentioned the content dispute was to add weight to the argument — we cannot have a neutral article without any sources and an army of editors with a conflict of interest, so that it is bound to be either a battleground or a biased non-verifiable mess. -- intgr 12:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the above, changing to Delete. You're right - on close reading of that website it appears it's actually some kind of local music venue with a peculiar name and a nice line in self promotion, and not the Canadian equivalent of City Lights they publicise themselves as - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides which, heck, I've been in Fredericton. It's a freaking small city, and if it wasn't the provincial capital and the site of the University of New Brunswick there'd be 57 people there. The kind of local club worthy of Wikipedia articles are like Club Passim, in which the likes of Bob Dylan and Tracy Chapman fought to play, and Bruce Springsteen tried and failed to play. Fredericton's not a place likely to generate an indie venue of that degree of notability.  RGTraynor  18:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Delete Eusebeus 11:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Console emulator. - Mailer Diablo 17:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NDS Emulator

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

Orphaned article, contains only general emulator trivia adapted to Nintendo DS and short list of emulators, which is unnecessary due to the "Nintendo DS emulators" category. Don Cuan 19:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Web Design. --Shirahadasha 03:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fluid website

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

Article does not establish the notability of this term. And there is already an article which discusses liquid layouts. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Unicode characters

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

If this list would be complete, it would be well over 1 MB large, besides, there's another such list on Wikibooks. Prince Kassad 20:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could always copy the list from Wikibooks. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 19:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - serves no useful purpose given that all this information is easily accessible from the character map. In an incomplete form it's pointless, and in a complete form it will be unmanageably long. A goodly chunk of the characters won't even display correctly on most people's computers, anyway. If it must be kept, keep it as a character map style grid, rather than this sprawling laundry list - iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is an ISO standard. See other members of Category:ISO standards or even List of ISO standards. See also Unicode - jc37 13:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this article is clearly useful and the space on wikipedia doesn't seem to be a problem (note how many pages of history there are for some articles). Dean Sayers 19:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While this could have been Speedy'd at the beginning (as it was obviously work in progress), I think it is 'full enough' to stay. Of course, the other options are:
Personally I'd sooner split it up but only as a secondary option to keeping. --NigelJ talk SIMPLE 20:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, with the possibility of spliting. Not sure how large this format would make the list. Then again, we could REALLY go nuts, and in the process rename to Table of Unicode characters --NigelJ talk SIMPLE 08:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as no convincing arguments have been presented for the deletion of this list; encyclopedias can and do provide tables of this sort, and there is no reason that an electronic encyclopedia, not bound by the limits of paper, cannot do the same. Burntsauce 17:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 15:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rubberband Man

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

Not notable, no information or sources, no categories. Suggest merging to album article. - eo 21:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there was a very notable song of this title back in the 1970s. It was a major hit and warrants an article based upon the WP:SONG provisions, however it's impossible to tell whether this article is about the same song (presumably the article is about a cover version). No vote as I'm unfamiliar with this group's work, however I will support keeping the article if it's expanded into an article about the 1970s song. 23skidoo 16:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The original song is by The Spinners - yes, very popular, hit #2 U.S. - as far as I know this T.I. version has nothing to do with it, except perhaps use of a sample? I don't know and I certainly can't tell from this article. - eo 16:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the face of it. Not sure what to make of 23skidoo's info. YechielMan 16:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing showing notability except an NN award. --Dhartung | Talk 19:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This song was a fairly sizable hit for T.I. I remember it received fairly frequent rotation when it was out. Article rather sucks in its current incarnation and could certainly stand to be expanded, though. GassyGuy 05:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This song was featured on three greatest albums, it went to #30 on the Billboard Hot 100, 11 on Hot Rap Tracks, and #15 on Hot Hip-Hop tracks. I have rewritten the article and added numerous references.Chris Croy 16:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change vote to Keep. Thanks, Chris Croy. Looks much better now, will look even better with an infobox. At some point I'll probably move this article to make room for the Spinners' song of the same name (as it was a much bigger hit) but at least at this point I don't think deletion or merging is necessary. - eo 17:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: This is one of T.I. most notable songs, Their is no reason for it to be deleted or merged. QuasyBoy 9:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge. Put it in the album article if you want to keep the info. -- Ned Scott 04:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Double Up (album). —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 06:50Z

Blow It Up

Blow It Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable, no information or sources, no categories. Suggest merging to album article. - eo 21:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Let's Get It: Thug Motivation 101. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 06:51Z

Trap or Die (song)

Trap or Die (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable, no information or sources, no categories. Suggest merging to album article. - eo 21:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason to have an article for it. - eo 19:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Let's Get It: Thug Motivation 101. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 06:52Z

Trap Star

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

Not notable, no information or sources, no categories. Suggest merging to album article. - eo 21:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason to have an article for it. - eo 19:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Let's Get It: Thug Motivation 101. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 06:49Z

And Then What

And Then What (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable, no information or sources, no categories. Suggest merging to album article. - eo 21:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason to have an article for it. - eo 19:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Back by Thug Demand. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 06:52Z

Tuck Ya Ice

Tuck Ya Ice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable, no information or sources, no categories. Suggest merging to album article. - eo 21:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Inspiration. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 06:53Z

Bury Me a G

Bury Me a G (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable, no information or sources, no categories. Suggest merging to album article. - eo 21:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason to have an article for it. - eo 19:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Red Light District. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 06:53Z

Two Miles An Hour

Two Miles An Hour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable, no information or sources, no categories. Suggest merging to album article. - eo 21:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hoodstar. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 06:54Z

Nike Aurr's and Crispy Tee's

Nike Aurr's and Crispy Tee's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable, no information or sources, no categories. Suggest merging to album article. - eo 21:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Parent Trap (1998 film). —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 06:55Z

Hallie Parker and Annie James

Hallie Parker and Annie James (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per WP:FICT: "Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article." FisherQueen (Talk) 21:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 09:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Braxton Hicks (band)

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

Insufficient notability - lacks mutliple independant sources to allow information to be verified. The first google hit is another UK band using the same name who play pubs and I couldn't find anything else about it. Spartaz Humbug! 21:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not having sufficient sources to verify notability per WP:BAND. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless some sources establishing notability are added before the close of this AfD. As it stands, it's actaully a good candidate for speedy under CSD A7 since there is no notability asserted. Given that the article was literally created only a half an hour ago, though, I guess I'll allow some time for the author to make an assertion and add some sources, rather than slapping the speedy tag on it right now. Mwelch 21:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - got national airplay on Triple J (national Australian radio station)

[12]. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 06:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

....actually not the band listed above...and neither's this [13]!cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 06:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Allmusic bio and discography: https://www.allmusic.com/artist/braxton-hicks-mn0000261198 and Amazon CD in stock: https://www.amazon.com/Modesty-Explicit-Braxton-Hicks/dp/B000CA9UKE Rod (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Rod Whisner[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think the mere fact there are two bands with the same name is kinda interesting...cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 09:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 07:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The band has reformed, is recording and playing live gigs. Pulling bios for members and notable articles from past. Thx!Rod (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Rod Whisner[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 16:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mauro Brandão Lopes

Mauro Brandão Lopes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Sergio Pinheiro Lopes's follow-up (AfD here). Fails WP:BIO. Húsönd 22:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My bad... --sumnjim talk with me·changes 23:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Full professors who have written several books are generally notable. Weak because this has not yet been sourced--including the books.DGG 00:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sr13 (T|C) 03:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raccomandata Ricevuta Ritorno

Raccomandata Ricevuta Ritorno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The band in Question only released one LP. Outside the debate over a speedy delete, this article has not been edited. The only two articles that link to it are lists of Bands, therefore not one article on Wikipedia feels a link to this article would be necessary Black Harry 22:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italian progressive rock produced a large number of highly regarded one-shot bands (a Google search should confirm that), and this is one of them. Leaving out one of the more important Italian bands would be strange. One wouldn't do that with a British band. Articles on Italian culture are still generally crude, which would suggest that links will be added with time. For example, see the article Culture of Italy. Narssarssuaq 07:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you could add more info about the band to its page, and get some more articles to link to it, then I'd agree that it should be kept. Also, maybe someone could translate the Italian Article (I'm assuming that one exists) on the band to English Black Harry 17:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Krimpet (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noarch

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

Jargon definition. WP:NOT#DICT —Ketil Trout (<><!) 22:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fenton, Michigan. Sandstein 15:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack R. Winegarden Library

Jack R. Winegarden Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

PRODded, but tag was removed by anon IP. Fails WP:NOTE,WP:ATT EliminatorJR Talk 22:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless citations provided to satisfy the above. Rockstar (T/C) 23:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'merge Generally, town or mall city libraries should be merged into the county system. As there is presently no article for the system, use the content here to create the beginnings of one one. I think what this amounts to is rename and edit to have the broader scope. DGG 07:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Fenton, Michigan. As much as I love libraries, I don't see that they generally have much opportunity to become notable (nor are libraries usually managed as part of a county system -- county "systems" are typically cooperative overlays to provide rural residents with library services). --Dhartung | Talk 19:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 18:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PunishHER

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

Speedy removed and prod subsequently removed to no avail. This album is only rumored, nothing on Remy Ma's website, Amazon.com ([17]) or allmusic.com ([18]). Unless proper citations are given showing a concrete release date, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and does not publish rumored albums. Rockstar (T/C) 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 15:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Fairway

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

Non notable wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent non trivial sources. The one "reference" provided can be seen here and the two sentences reference absolutely nothing in the article. Fails WP:BIO and WP:A. One Night In Hackney303 23:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Chip Fairway's notability has been established as a wrestler who has held titles in IWA Mid-South and the Heartland Wrestling Association, both notable promotions, appeared on the first Brian Pillman Memorial Show as well as appearing on both WWF and WCW television. Additionally, the nominator could have contacted me if he felt the article had been improperly sourced or placed any number of templates including {{citecheck}} rather then immediatly nominating it on afd. However, I've since specified the source in which Chip Fairway's particular "gimmick" is ranked no. 9 on a list of wrestlers whose personas are those other then a typical wrestler ("Keeping Your Day Job"). noted as one of the more unusual "gimmicks", others on this specific list include notable wrestlers Brutus "the Barber" Beefcake, Isaac Yankum and the Repo Man. MadMax 05:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment When you talk about notability, perhaps you'd like to stop talking about things that are notable to wrestling fans that are totally irrelevant to Wikipedia, and instead use notability guidelines? Has this person been the subject of multiple non-trivial independent sources? No. Is there a good deal of verifiable information available about him? No. Wrestling in minor wrestling promotions does not confer notability on him. Minor league baseball players are not generally notable, therefore neither are minor league wrestlers. An unsourced claim that he appeared on TV as a jobber does not make him notable, we don't have articles on every single actor that has ever appeared on TV, just the notable ones. There was absolutely no need for me to use {{citecheck}}, as I checked the reference myself and it did not verify anything in the article at the time. I suggest in future instead of applying the unhelpful method used by the wrestling wikiproject of simply adding references to the bottom of the article like a magic umbrella, you attribute information to the references. One Night In Hackney303 11:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please refrain from making widereaching, misleading generalizations about WP:PW and stick to the subject at hand MPJ-DK 12:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weither or not you feel the article itself is properly sourced, which seems to be your major issue with the article, Chip Farway is a notable wrestler. IWA Mid-South and the Heartland Wrestling Association are both notable promotions and the Brian Pillman Memorial Show is a notable event. I'll be the first to agree that Wikipedia should not resemble a wrestling trivia site, and wrestlers such as Texx Reed or promotions like as the recently deleted South Cali Pro Wrestling are clearly examples of non notablility. However, there are notable independent wrestlers specifically those who have wrestled for notable promotions and events. Wrestling as a regular competitor (nevermind winning titles) in a notable promotion does make a wrestler notable, regardless weither its properly sourced or not. There are plenty of wrestlers who have been included in Wikipedia whose career highlight was competing as a "jobber" for the WWF and WCW. This is not a notability issue, this is a matter of providing references as in many wrestling articles nominated for deletion. MadMax 17:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again, your comments have nothing to do with Wikipedia guidelines on notability for people, which can be found at WP:BIO. Rather than making up your own guidelines out of thin air, I suggest you use the existing ones. One Night In Hackney303
  • I'm not simply picking independent wrestlers at random an neither am I "making up guidelines out of thin air". The reason you propose the articles deletion is your claim he's not notable. However, while the article may be poorly sourced in your opinion, the fact remains he is notable as a professional wrestler having won titles in two notable promotions. Regardless, this article already has one reference as per a published book (as well as numerous ouces used by other wrestling articles as reliable sources) and I don't see how his notability above the "average" independent wrestler is still in question. MadMax 18:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes you are making guidelines up out of thin air. You're saying he's notable "for x and y", yet neither of those are in the notability guidelines. You claim two of the promotions are notable, yet neither of them has been proven to be notable, in fact they are unsourced at present. Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. You are quite correct in that he's probably as notable as the "average" independent wrestler, who by and large are not notable. One Night In Hackney303 15:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So are half the wrestling articles on Wikipedia, but I don't see anyone calling for their deletion. If you feel these promotions are non notable, you are free to nominate them for deletion. However, as they presently exist on Wikipedia, the assumption is that they are notable. According to your reasoning, if Bret Hart or Ric Flair were unrefernced due to ther accomplishments, then they too should be nominated for deletion as well. Also, please note I said "above the average independent wrestler" (winning titles in two major independent promotions, featured in a published book, appeared at notable event, etc.) not "the same as". Despite your own opinions, I've provided several references suppporting his notability, references which have been used in numerous other wrestling articles. I would urge anyone voting in this discussion to take this into consideration. Also, I've since provided references established both promotions notability and have removed the unreferenced tags. MadMax 08:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm nominating the articles at a steady and slow rate, I would only get accused of a violation of WP:POINT if I nominated 50 wrestlers for deletion in one day. You fail to understand the difference between someone's name on a title history page and a non-trivial source. The published book is a paltry two sentences, again not a non-trivial source. One Night In Hackney303 15:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never implied you were violating WP:POINT, and I understand your reasons for the articles nomination however I simply disagree with them. You claim subjects are non notable regardless articles clearly asserting nobility. Using this argument, you go on to make the claim that because the article may or may not be properly sourced, their achievements can be disregarded. You've nominated other wrestling related articles based on this point yet it has been shown through many prior nominations (see: World Xtreme Wrestling or International World Class Championship Wrestling) that such references can be provided. Also, if you feel independent wrestlers and promotions are by themselves non notable, you may want to consider discussing your views with WP:PW if you believe they should generally not be included on Wikipedia in regards to future afd nominations. MadMax 03:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Adding an article only two days after it has been created up for deletion seems a bit over the top. You didn't even give it a chance to grow! Govvy 09:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Segal

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

Article doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 23:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - although I disagree with Epbr123's apparent crusade to keep the porn off Wikipedia, in this case she appears to have no awards, independent coverage or notability within a niche genre. All the people !voting keep may want to take another look at WP:PORNBIO as the porn criteria are different than those for mainstream actors - iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing in the article right now that argues notability (especially since film count got closed out of the criteria) and the closest I could find to her winning an award is that she appeared in Real Female Masturbation 5, which was nominated AVN Award for Best Specialty Tape, Other Genre in 2001. That, folks, is just too tangential. Tabercil 00:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

UN DELETE!!!!

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 02:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trap (Internet meme)

Trap (Internet meme) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. A non-notable protologism for androgyny, with no assertion of notability. Apparently confined to 4chan, YTMND, and "similar web forums," though I can't find any instance of it used in this sense on YTMND. None of the references mention the term "trap" even once. I can't find any reliable independent sources at all confirming that this protologism is notable. Krimpet (talk/review) 00:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be right, though I have a few anime buddies who are quite insistent about this one, so... here are some search results. They do take a little digging, because it's hard to narrow the search down properly, but I found a few anime blogs and reviews using the term. Here's someone using it on the MegaToyko forums, but the thread dies too quickly to see if anyone knows what the poster is talking about. Maybe it's not so much an Internet meme as an anime fandom meme? I found a few Bridget trap references on YTMND without looking too hard, for what it's worth (see itsabridgetrap, bridgettrap, and bridgetisatrap; YTMND links are discouraged).
I could probably find more, or maybe do some but this is really silly when my involvement with the article started with capitalizing the 'I' in Internet. -.- One of the people who actually added content to the article should pick it up from here if that's not enough. Workingonmygooglefu 02:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, there's always another interesting link on the next page of Google hits. Wiktionary lists 'transvestite' as a meaning for (slang, pejorative) wiktionary:trap, and wiktionary:transvestite lists 'trap' as a (slang, pejorative) synonym. Workingonmygooglefu 02:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Krimpet (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lolcat

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

pick a reason, including but not limited to: stupid, non-notable, vanity crap Wedge 00:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per originl resurches and teh non-notabel part :) the_undertow talk 03:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's funny, it's everywhere!. And if people can find info about it here, where can they find it? betsythedevine 04:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep With sources this is a legitimate article, on a legitimate web meme. --Lastdoor 07:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article needs work on all levels, but this is a widespread phenomenon, should be documented Danja 08:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per David Gerard. Should be deleted, but may well be recreated, so let's compromise on redirecting. Batmanand | Talk 11:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Redirect - lolcats is an established internet meme. (Suggestion of redirect only to have the page at /wiki/lolcats - plural) Isofarro 13:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - lolcats is well known online, defiantly established. BinaryCleric 15:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I have no idea why we are going through this. lolcats are extremely popular (and annoying)! I think this comes down to a simple case of people either getting it or not. Those that get the meme, know about its popularity, and see no reason to delete it. Those that don't get the meme, think it is childish and obscure and should be removed. To those people that don't get lolcats: I'm sorry but this is popular and a legitimate topic. Of course, the article could use a little clean up and some sources, but once there I think this will be a fine article. --Hightentcat 18:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on strong keep, but add that some users familiar with the meme don't see the need for the article, while users like me who aren't find it helpful for this sort of thing to be documented.Mark Foskey 21:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to image macros - I agree with David Gerard. Nihiltres(t.c.s) 18:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not noteworthy & original research Kingsley2.com 20:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Redirect - to Cat Macros. If you can have O RLY? as an article, you can certainly have Cat Macros as it's own article. SaxofoneDL 02:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not noteworthy in really any regard. JeffreyAtW 03:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With Extreme Prejudice The page desperately needs improvement of course. It's a work in progress and should not be deleted outright. It just needs people well-versed in the topic at hand to cite sources and expand upon what's already there. -- ZachsMind 04:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a notable Internet meme; has been linked by Boing Boing[20], Gawker[21] and Metafilter[22]. The post by Anil Dash, already linked at the article, can serve as one source for the article, I think. There are possibly other reliable sources out there I haven't found yet. schi talk 05:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to List of internet phenomena, unless I can has reliable sources?. —ptk✰fgs 06:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this notable meme which is a piece of internet history that should not be so easily forgotten. The article's deficiencies can be remedied. Nohat 09:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Keep* - lolcat is a great meme, and one which has spread far and wide outside of the scope of the normal cliquey corners of the internets. Even my mum likes lolcat (although she does occasionally ask me to explain them). But clean it up, source it up, etc.londoninflames —Preceding comment was added at 09:26, 25 April 2007
  • Keep and improve article. Sources can be found, I think. ManekiNeko | Talk 13:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Language Log has referenced this article. *Dan T.* 14:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep ...but tighten up and edit substantially. I just came here from a LanguageLog article referring to the lolcat snowclone; without the reference I would have been mystified by the expression. The fact that a significant academic site felt it appropriate to link here (and not frivolously) shows there is a need for the page, which should be sufficient grounds for keeping it in some form. (OutEast) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.85.230.200 (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep this is just a newly found article, with the lolcats being a major internet topic nowadays, an article like this is necessary —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jkatticus (talk • contribs) 16:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • keep broad internet topic that deserves attention. Artw 17:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable internet phenomenon - ∅ (∅), 18:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball keep: An encyclopædia is an appropriate place to permanently document shifts in dialect. – 70.51.145.220 18:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC) (joeclark, which signature Wikipedia refuses to recognize after three attempts)[reply]
  • Keep -- I found it useful and informative. Sure, it wouldn't go in Britannica, but that's okay. 70.108.251.128 19:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The article may not currently have references, but I was just referred to it from Language Log, a respected linguistics blogroll. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.249.103.247 (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Incredibly Strong Keep. Hey, if "All Your Bases Are Belong to Us" has a longer entry than half of the public figures on Wikipedia, then damn straight this should be kept. This is a very popular viral meme, and it hasn't even come CLOSE to its full impact on mainstream media yet. Yes, it needs a substantial overhaul - it really needs to be rewritten in a much more encylopedic manner, and with more verifiable information. But last I checked, we flag those articles accordingly - we don't delete them. EDITED TO ADD: Yes, I understand the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS guideline. There is notability beyond the "other crap" POV. NickBurns 00:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reasons for deletion include when all attempts to find reliable sources to which article information can be verified have failed. I have looked; I'm sure that others have, too. We haven't found any reliable sources yet. When and if there are reliable sources to cite, we can keep or create the article. WODUP 05:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WODUP, I appreciate your laser-like focus and passion on the subject, but unless I have missed something, we're to have one vote - and therefore, one OPINION - on this page per Wikipedian, correct? You have made a NUMBER of comments, and it appears anyone who disagrees with you somehow needs a stamp of disapproval from you. You have well made your point - please stop slamming it home with a sledgehammer. Best regards. NickBurns 12:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but you (or I) may have missed something. I thought this was a discussion, not a vote. I'm merely replying to comments here, discussing the merits of some of these arguments. I will, however, try to tone it down a tad so it doesn't look like I'm a deletion-hungry madman. I do appreciate your concern and hope that I have adequately addressed it. WODUP 16:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WODUP - You're right - this is labeled as a discussion and not a vote. My apologies for being wrong on that. I don't want to crap on anyone's dissenting opinion, but to me, it did come across as being repetitive. I appreciate your contribution(s) to the debate, though. I know we're just trying to make the best decisions. NickBurns 18:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The reliable-sources line doesn't really work very well when dealing with Internet memes. The sources are right there in front of you, and I'm not sure that either NOR or no sources are really all that relevant when looking at Internet memes - that's the nature of the beast. It's as if the bar is set higher somehow for Internet-originated articles, and that smacks of snobbishness to me. --Mike 08:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reliable-sources line doesn't really work very well when dealing with Internet memes. The sources are right there in front of you, and I'm not sure that either NOR or no sources are really all that relevant when looking at Internet memes - that's the nature of the beast. It's as if the bar is set higher somehow for Internet-originated articles, and that smacks of snobbishness to me. --Mike 08:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm surprised this is being considered. I've encountered this term a few times lately, and the article provided useful context. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.80.177.6 (talk) 03:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Super-Duper extreme mega Keep What the hell? Wikipedia is organic, it changes as the world around it changes, everybody knows about lolcats, they are highly notable, and this would be one of the first places many people would go to find out about them. Anyone who spends a fair amount of time on the internet would know about lolcats, it may be difficult to fit this in under Wikipedia's criteria, but damnit people USE COMMON SENSE. We should be regarding that far above this multitude of helpful, but sometimes inapplicable, critera. Is anyone seriously calling this 'not notable enough'? If this article gets deleted, it will be the last straw, I will leave Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be keeping up-to-date with what is happening in the world, but the nay-sayers want this thing deleted because it is hard to find a few references? *sigh* I'm not going to say anymore, it's depressing what Wikipedia is turning into.Darkcraft 11:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with cleanup needed, of course - this seems to be a significant enough phenomenon to warrant an encyclopedic entry, as much as All Your Base. Puddleglum 17:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with cleanup and citations needed. This is a broad-based Internet phenomenon at least as significant as "All Your Base", with enough visibility to have attracted MSM coverage. Ccreitz 20:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitenely keep, Don't see why this is not a legitimate article: (1) it is not original research, because it describes an internet phenomenon that is referred to in a number of trustworty sites (at least sites that I would trust); (2) it is not nonsense, spam or anything else in that line for the same reason: people use the term to refer to cute kitty pics with stupid texts; (3) there's no trademark infringement (is there?); (4) There are sources referring to lolcats (I also got to lolcats from a LanguageLog link, which is connected to UPenn and refers to another article), so I'd say verifiability is not a problem here; (5) You (yes, you below, don't look so surprised) might think the whole lolcat-thing is silly or stupid, but that's no reason to ban it from an encyclopedia, as long as it really exists or existed. I personally find George W. silly, but that didn't stop him from getting a Wikipedia page. -- I agree with a lot of people below that the article could use some editing, and some checking of facts. -- (Rickus, 04:30, 27 April 2007)
  • Keep. "About" 77k ghits. Referenced in reliable sources here and (less clearly) here. Yes, these are blogs, but they are blogs written by subject matter experts - the former by Mark Liberman, who is a published professional researcher in linguistics, the latter by Anil Dash who is widely acknowledged as an expert on Internet culture. The former is certainly a reliable source by the definition at WP:V, the latter is a little less certain, but I contend is. JulesH 09:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've removed the original research from the article, which should alleviate some of the concerns expressed above. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I have already linked to this page in order to define and explain a term on my blog, which seems to me to be one of the main uses of Wikipedia in the real world. It describes and defines a common internet practice as well as documenting an ongoing meme and developing subculture (as there are now community sites growing rapidly around the sharing of modified/captioned cat photos). As a description of an existing cultural phenomenon, it is at least as noteworthy as dozens of articles describing individual Pokemon.Lizard sf 14:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete? No Wai! Chronic The Wedgehog 17:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I also found this entry linked by a legitimate academic blog (languagelog). I agree that the entry needs improvement, but this is a legitimate internet meme which is only gaining prevalence, the 'lolcat' term is the most common expression for it, and it is a subject which has garnered legitimate academic interest (cf languagelog posts). Cicatrix 18:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. I ran across the Language Log post a few days ago, but it was the only thing available that was close to being a reliable source. The Anil Dash article is still not terribly compelling, but is good enough to (along with the other one) justify a VERY SHORT article on this topic. —ptk✰fgs 19:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • STRONG KEEP. Since this has reputable citations, keeping it is the correct action, despite the anti-meme bias of many wikipedians. People will be looking the term up years from now, so it should have an entry. Also, the article should be as long as the available information allows. I hope no one would trim legitimate information of out the article just to make as short as they felt appropriate.68.11.51.159 22:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable, original research, etc. Cmadler 21:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fad or not, they are there and as an encyclopedia, wiki should have an article or summary about the "lolcats". Besides, it's not like not having an article won't make it go away. C$ 00:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Even memes and trends that are long over get to have wikipedia articles. And this is just the kind of slightly obscure internet thing that normal people look up on wikipedia when they don't get what it is. Add that to the fact that so many of wikipedia's users are the net-savvy kind, this should be an even more important article to keep....Also I just fixed it up so it's prettier. :)Superjanna 01:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Keep. Precedent says delete, (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Im in ur base killin ur d00dz) but I'm not sure I like that precedent (Inclusionist me). My best keep rational is that, well, I just Wikipedia'd Lolcat to find out what the hell it was. The Anil Dash ref is...kind of good? Better? Listen, internet evolution is a tricky one, but I vote we err on the side of having an article, rather than not. --mordicai. 03:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just ref'ed in the Mark Liberman stuff; with two at least somewhat notable blogs as ref, I think I'm going to upgrade my weak keep to a "keep." --mordicai. 14:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but not without reservation. It's been mentioned a couple of times I think, but language log did a post on the syntax of lolcats a few days ago. In that respect I think the article should be substantially changed to reflect their point (and the view of most linguists) that lolcats (among other such stupid things) are not "grammatically incorrect" or involve "syntax errors". Instead, they allude to particular demographics of society by appealing to regular grammatical changes. See here and here. --Aidhoss 05:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As someone above says, this "is just the kind of slightly obscure internet thing that normal people look up on wikipedia when they don't get what it is". I just did, now I do. This is what wikipedia is for. Mhardcastle 07:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As above, I have been seeing these sorts of images for a long time, it was only recently that I have been able to find a term to describe it. Any search terms I used only supplied more of the images, (many 100s, if not 1000s) but no real documentation on it until I recently found multiple articles and blogs linking to this page. 205.161.214.82 16:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, now that the article has been improved. I've been seeing these images for quite a while now, but never had a name for them. The shorter version of the article is appropriate for a long-lived Internet fad, and it has a couple of references. emk (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I think this is a legit article documenting a phenomenon. Even if one thinks it is stupid it doesn't justify deletion, and people do reference this page. In fact, I just found this page through a link from another blog refrerncing it. It has value. Oniamien 18:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as reasonably popular internet meme with sufficient nontrivial sources cited in the article. Kind of a no-brainer I think. Ford MF 19:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At this point, it's a verifiable Internet phenomenon. As others have mentioned, if AYB and O RLY have articles, then I really do think this qualifies. nmw 22:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article provides citations to notable sources, so claims of original research and non-notability are rebutted. Claims of "I do/don't think this meme is important" are irrelevant, we have objective measures for article importance, and it's notability of citations. Here there are notable citations, so "Keep" is the correct approach. Moreover, with Internet memes, references accumulate over time. It'd be absurd to delete the article and then rebuild it from scratch in two or three months when Conan or Colbert makes the off-hand mention. --Thomas B 03:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep This is a genuine subculture internet phenomenon. We look to Wikipedia to document stuff like this. It's widespread, wide-known, and has been analyzed intelligently by numerous sources. It's an internet meme that should be resourced here. StrangeAttractor 08:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are reliable and notable references for this now, so I see no reason to delete it. It's a notable folk culture phenomenon. Esn 09:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Referenced and reasonably noteworthy. MrZaiustalk 09:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The only reason I am relisting this debate is because there has apparently been revisions made to the article which could change the minds of those who have already commented. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ridiculously popular internet phenomenon. Resolute 15:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - changing !vote as the rewritten version now seems fine — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in ur commentz/ Votin for Strong keep Lolcats are a legitimate internet phenomenon; as the article now documents they are receiving some attention from mainstream media as well as academics. At this point it appears as though the best reason for deleting this article is that some wikipedians think it's dumb. Sorry, that's not good enough. Manderr 19:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep 1) This is a legitimate internet phenomenon, at the same scale as Goatse.cx or Randy Constan (Internet Peter Pan) - both of which have their own articles on Wikipedia. The growing popularity of Lolcat shows that this phenomenon is definitely making an impacting on the culture of the Internet (at least in English speaking parts). 2) One caveat is that the current Lolcat article is of poor quality, however; it should be cleaned up to show history of the Lolcat, including first use (probably from SomethingAweful) and popular uses (such as on Twitter). 3) The strongest aspect of Wikipedia is its ability to quickly take in historical and cultural events from around the world, that an "official" encyclopedia may deem not "worthy", but obviously enough people around the world do. The strength and breath of Wikipedia's articles is what makes it an Internet and human cultural force. Viscount9 20:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as this certainly is in widespread use. --Lunus 20:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I actually can't even tell what this was nominated for? Notability - it has multiple sources which back up notability? Attribution? It is studiously well-sourced, especially for an internet meme. I don't understand what the problem is. --Haemo 21:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems that the original nomination reason has been lost in one of the edits that created this trainwreck. The stated reason by the nom was "pick a reason, including but not limited to: stupid, non-notable, vanity crap". Or, basically, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Resolute 22:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep omg im changing my vote per the overhaul on this article shows notability and rids it of OR. nice work. the_undertow talk 21:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given the response, there's no way this article is going to get deleted. But I thought it funny to mention this. Of the 5 sources cited on the article only 3, all blogs, of those actually make mention to the definition of "lolcats" ([23] [24] [25]). Of those 3, one references one of the other three sources ([26]) and the other two reference this article for the definition. —Mitaphane ?|! 22:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in ur afds, mergins ur memes It's a geniune meme, but not on the scale of Goatse. The article is fluff anyday, talking about the "mystical origins of Caturday" Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 02:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is a related aspect not mentioned--libraries using cute name including "cat" for their online CATalogs. Some places have an obvious combination: Princeton's was called Tigercat until they sobered up. New York Public's is called CATNYP. Unfortunately I am not aware of any articles talking about the naming in general, though there are dozens of examples. DGG 02:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It should be noted that the same user argued to keep several times. --Coredesat 02:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RootThisBox

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

This article was created in spite due to a dispute unrelated to Wikipedia (see brief: HTS is awesome - rip offs are not) and is misleading in its entirety. It is intended to be divisive (the real RootThisBox is located at www.rootthisbox.org). Furthermore, the entire text is copied from this article in revision: Talk:HackThisSite/rev1 -- Kerowren (talk • contribs • count) 00:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep scenestar Kerowren I believe you yourself are using this deletion procedure for your own agenda.
You as a prominent hts member are (understandably) In favor of hackthissite. However I do find it highly inappropriate and to some extent offensive that from your own viewpoint of this situation you try to remove content from wikipedia which is in your opinion "controversial"
As for the copying of parts of the revision. The revision has been somewhat forgotten and albeit being under revision for over 6 months has yet to be used in the actual article. Last time I checked it showed very little activity considering only small minor edits have been made in the past months. Also, I would like to point out that me using it as a template/framework for a future more extensive article is perfectly OK under wikipedia's GNU Free Documentation License.
In repsonse towards charlene's argument of notabillity. The website has been around for years and has a dedicated following. However due to a dispute over the domain the .NET TLD was chosen over .ORG
.org In its current form has little more to do than a domain squatter gaining traffic from effort the efforts of the previous owner.
  • Reaffirming Delete - I have no prejudice towards rootthisbox.net scenestar, frankly, more power to you, but my concern is that you created the article so as to be divisive and "legitimize" rootthisbox.net. I say this because from what I have read on sources concerning the matter, it has been discussed and understood that rootthisbox.net is in no way a re-incarnation of RootThisBox.org, but your own separate project started after prominent mods expressed dissatisfaction with your lone choice to move the TLD:(There are other numerous sources testifying to this.)
  1. Meeting About Rtb, involving leadership change
  2. Recent changes, and soon to be releases
  3. HTS is awesome - rip offs are not
That alone is my concern, that if you are indeed holding animosity towards HTS that you did not create this article in spite. Please note also that in no way is the revision forgotten, it is being continually edited, and that it was recently put up for a requested move to become the main article. And on an another matter, your version has no where near the same number of active users as HTS. It only appears to do so being that you copied the entire database. So users who have never even heard of rootthisbox.net appear to have registered. -- Kerowren (talk • contribs • count) 20:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say Delete simply for the crap you're talking, scenestar. The .org site is the "real" RootThisBox project, and I haven't seen that many people move from .org to .net really. Hence I don't believe that you can say that the site has a dedicated following, or even that it's been around for years - because rootthisbox.net hasn't.
Either way, the stuff going on between RTB.net and HTS shouldn't matter here. To me, this is about notability, and if a webbased project like this doesn't get enough hits on Google, that's enough reason for me to vote Delete. -The preceding signed comment was added by Nazgjunk (talk • contrib) 10:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Looking at the above comments, I think AfD should stay out of this internecine dispute between members of different sites. DGG 09:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete also per WP:WEB, this site is non-notable. Regardless of it's status as a clone of HackThisSite (and I'm dissapointed at the utter hijacking of both the HackThisSite and RootThisBox articles) --EJFox 03:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be noted that user EJFox is author of several defamatory posts towards several RTB members and is extremely biased. -The preceding signed comment was added by Scenestar (talk • contrib)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a1 and g1, patent nonsense/no context. NawlinWiki 01:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mainland Homeway League

Mainland Homeway League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

obvious hoax Lemonflash 01:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 07:18Z

Matthew D. Martin III

Matthew D. Martin III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No references provided to back up the claims made in the article, and insufficient evidence of notability. I can see that an essay has been written by an individual named Matthew Martin, but there is no evidence of its importance.Strangerer (Talk) 01:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Ixfd64 01:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sun-Kyung Cho

Sun-Kyung Cho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Sister of Va. Tech killer Seung-hui Cho. Contested speedy; I think this one deserves a full AFD debate. See article talk page. NawlinWiki 01:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Her notability is established well past the level for WP:BIO. She is the subject, not just the source of multiple, independent reliable sources (see talk page). Her prominence and 'rising star' career has been described as a contributing factor in her brother's psychological make-up. Her success as the daughter of immigrants has been contrasted with the difficulties face by her brother. In addition, her eloquence has helped the world to sympathize with her family's predicament. Ronnotel 01:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reading through the delete votes, I find few that directly address whether this article meets WP:BIO. The standard for inclusion is clear: it is whether she has been the subject of multiple independent reliable references, which I believe she has been. There is no exception for whether she was only made famous by being the relative of a mass murder, or whether she deserves to have privacy, etc. I sympathize with Ms. Cho and her family, however, I think by any fair interpretation of WP:BIO this article should remain. Ronnotel 15:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability beyond being a relative of someone infamous. She is a primary source about a legitimate article subject, not a legitimate article subject herself. Articles should not be written based on speculation that a subject may become famous in his or her own right, so unless she does Oprah and gets a book deal out of this, I say no dice. --Dynaflow 01:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to recreation should she become notable in the future. We'd have to be awfully careful not to contravene WP:BLP here, and to be honest I don't think she's notable enough in her own right yet that we should bother. Notability generally takes some time to develop; most people don't become notable overnight. We all know examples of relatives of killers or other criminals that have had a few minutes' attention only to slide back into their preferred obscurity. A few minutes' attention isn't enough to prove notability. --Charlene 02:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dynaflow Pete.Hurd 02:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Charlene. She works for the State Dept., so who knows what she could go on to do. For now, though, no real accomplishments that merit an article -- just an accident of birth. —GGreeneVa 02:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dynaflow. If Cho didn't commit the mass murder, would she still be on Wikipedia? I think not. Sr13 (T|C) 02:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - no but that's not the argument here - it's that she has become notable both through her actions and by how she may have been an influence in her brother's life. Ronnotel 03:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and bulk up Per WP:BIO, all arguments for deletion are based on subjective reasons. All the information comes from Time magazine New York Times, and others prime sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
  • Delete. Grossly insensitive and inappropriate, and I am likely to speedy it very soon unless convinced otherwise by arguments much stronger than those here. Newyorkbrad 03:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I take exception to your characterization. In fact I am very sensitive to the family's grief. However, by her actions Sun-Kyong has placed herself on the public stage by becoming a spokesperson for the family. She's been the subject of many reliably sourced articles. Can you explain why you think this is insensitive and inappropriate? Ronnotel 03:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify that it's the presence of the article I find insensitive, rather than the subjective attitude of the contributors. Despite feeling compelled to make some statements, it's an involuntary notability and likely a fleeting one, and this article puts the focus very much in the wrong place. Given your reasonable comments I won't speedy it, however. Newyorkbrad 03:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I see your point and appreciate the thoughtful response. Ronnotel 03:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per other delete comments. This article is pure recentism -- she was mentioned in every newspaper published today but that does not mean that she will continue to be the subject of public interest in the future. As a remote second choice, redirect and merge to the article about her notorious brother, who is likely to be the subject of public interest in the future. --Metropolitan90 03:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Multiple sources, but kind of thin. Abeg92We are all Hokies! 03:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As Dynaflow, just a relative of someone infamous. She could achieve notability in her own right, but hasn't yet. Exposure is not notability. -- Mikeblas 03:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dynaflow. No justification for including information about someone who not only has not established notability, but may very well in fact be wanting to avoid the public spotlight after this horror. We should not forget that we are human beings and we should show empathy for fellow humans. Please let this woman have her privacy, as it is apparent that is what she wants. Khorshid 04:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Utterly unnecessary. --Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 04:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable before this incident, not notable apart from this incident, and not asserted as such. Therefore her 'notability' such as it is is inseparable from the incident, and can be more than adequately addressed in the article on that incident. Shenme 04:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Relatives of well-known figures are almost never notable except in rare cases. Biggspowd 04:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per reasons in the essay WP:NOTNEWS. She is a private person and not notable, except for a relative who was notorious, like Hitler's sister. Edison 05:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Godwin! =D --Dynaflow 05:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Hard to believe we're having this discussion at all. The sister is simply commenting what someone else has done. ACK Mikeblas: Exposure is not notability. Apart from that, a teeny bit of respect towards a person who has been involuntarily catapulted into the spotlights of the international media wouldn't hurt either. --Ibn Battuta 05:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - maybe mention her in the article on her brother, or recreate when she does become notable, but making a statement to the press and being the sister of a murderer do not constitute notability. Biruitorul 05:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - She is notable as a spokesperson and this should be given time to expand as the first victim of her brother Emily. Bnguyen 05:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, she is not notable and deserves whatever scraps of privacy she has left. For comparison, David Kaczynski actually turned in his brother the Unabomber and has written and spoken publicly about this decision. --Dhartung | Talk 05:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, please delete this. Even if she would have preferred to keep her privacy, it would have been very difficult for her not to comment (especially as the parents apparently hardly speak English), and the press would no doubt have made her seem insensitive if she had declined doing that. But she is so far not known for anything else and does not deserve the punishment of a page on Wikipedia reminding everybody she ever meets that she is the sister of the Virginia Tech killer. (And please make sure this discussion does not get into Google's cache or the many sites copying Wikipedia content either.) If she ever becomes "notable" in her own right, I suppose the relationship is difficult to avoid, but that can be dealt with at that future time. Pharamond 06:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I will fully support this article's recreation should she ever become notable for anything other than being related to and making a statement about an infamous spree killer. Jeff Silvers 08:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Merge relevant info to the brother's and massacre's pages. Seung-Hui Cho is the place for content on his family and family's reaction to the massacre. - BanyanTree 09:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. It could be that her work in Baghdad will lead to her becoming N in her own right, but at present this page is as inappropriate as the page on Hitler's dog (which I'm about to incur the combined wrath of dog-lovers and nazis for by prodding). As it stands she has no reason to have her own page other than being catapulted into the public eye by something a relative's done, and I agree with all those above who say that it's horribly insensitive to have a page on her up which serves no use other than prurience and will probably become a vandalism target - iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Totally unnecessary and most certainly it's mere prescence (unless she does something notable on her own) violates WP:BIO. Yanksox 14:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary, although she can and should be mentioned in the article about her brother since she has made public statements regarding his actions. Otherwise I don't see the need for her to have a separate article. 23skidoo 16:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She is not notable, and only is brought to attention through the mishaps brought about by her brother. └Jared┘┌talk┐  18:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, according to Wikipedia's definition of notable at WP:BIO and WP:NOTE she's clearly notable. But that says more about what a mind-numbingly awful guideline notability is than it says about the appopriateness of this article. --JayHenry 21:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it wasn't for her brother, would she still have an article? Being the sister of a murderer does not make someone notable. AgentPeppermint 21:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, preferably speedily. Good grief. --BigDT (416) 21:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep if people don't agree with WP:NOTE and WP:BIO, then they should try to have them changed. Unless they do, this article meets those requirements. -- Craigtalbert 23:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable in and of herself. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 23:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, just mentioning it in his brother's article suffice. --Pejman47 23:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, non-notable, shouldn't be given an article because of what her brother did--Daveswagon 00:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - She is only known by association, she has herself done nothing that meets the requirements for Wikipedia recognition. And the article's not even written in an encyclopedic fashion. A speedy delete is needed. --Mystalic 01:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 (T|C) ER 06:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of apologetic works

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

Bibliographies are acceptable as lists, but most of the books should have their own articles (see Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Selection criteria and compare, e.g., List of Oz books and List of books by P. G. Wodehouse) or be deserving of such under WP:BK (most here are not). If we were to redact the list to those which are notable under WP:BK, the list would be relatively short and should probably just be merged into Apologetics, Christian apologetics, etc. Flex (talk|contribs) 01:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because Apologetics is a big field, so that there is nothing worthless or non-notable about having a well-organized list like this. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no intrinsic reason why the list is unsuitable; except for the Christian works, the different religions do not warrant their separate list at this point, so there is a real reason to keep this combination one. DGG 03:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Basically as DGG says, there's a lack of places to put everything but the Christian stuff, which has developed articles. Keep this as a bridge to those eventual articles. (This is my third try to say why I feel don't delete yet - DGG helped me focus - the other areas aren't ready yet.) Shenme 04:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the main problem I see here is that there's already the copious List of Christian Apologetic Works. The Christian section of the list under discussion here seems to be a duplicate of the "Widely Read" section in the larger article. Wouldn't a link to the existing material be sufficient? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wysdom (talk • contribs) 04:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 17:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian Apologetic Works

List of Christian Apologetic Works (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Bibliographies are acceptable as lists, but most of the books should have their own articles (see Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Selection criteria and compare, e.g., List of Oz books and List of books by P. G. Wodehouse) or be deserving of such under WP:BK (most here are not). If we were to redact the list to those which are notable under WP:BK, the list would be relatively short and should probably just be merged into Christian apologetics, etc. Flex (talk|contribs) 02:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, you may be right... but, couldn't it be sourced like List of films considered the best ever? gren グレン 10:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure how sourcing would apply here. This is not a list of the most popular works as judged by various polls; it's just a bibliography. Also note that all of the works in that list are worthy of (and already have!) their own page, which is not the case here. What I'm opposing is the creation of lists comprised almost entirely of non-notable books. --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • At Wikipedia there is an article called List of boy bands. I see no afd for this article and do not expect to. On the other hand, this article is put up for deletion and it contains a list of excellent books defending Christianity the largest worldview in the world. Wikipedia has tons of articles like Polly Pocket yet serious articles/resources like this are put up for deletion. Flex, I think you should be ashamed of yourself for gunning after this article yet not saying a peep about articles like Polly Pocket and List of boy bands. Jazzman123 00:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see any reason why List of boy bands should be deleted (unless it turns out that most of the articles linked to are not notable), and frankly, I don't see the relevance of bringing it up (unless you mean to say something along the lines of, "The present list is important/useful, whereas that one is much less so," which is clearly POV). As for Polly Pocket, I've never seen that article, and I certainly can't be held responsible for every non-notable article/list that has not been deleted. Therefore, contrary to your exhortation, I am not at all ashamed. This is a collaborative effort after all, so if you come across an article or list you believe does not meet the WP's notability criteria, please discuss it on the talk page, propose it for deletion, or submit it as an AfD. In doing so, you'll help improve the overall quality of the WP. In short, the existence of other non-notable lists/articles has no bearing on the deletion of this list; only conformance to WikiPolicy is at issue, and you have not addressed that issue at all. --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jazzman123 00:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I might think differently if the purpose of this list was to guide readers to other articles, the majority of the books listed don't even have articles. The nom's reasoning is solid along with their guidance to relevant policies. janejellyroll 00:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 07:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not convinced by the arguments put forth. WP:BK is a guideline to help decide which books should have their own articles on wikipedia, not which books can be used as sources or mentioned in articles. Also, I'm not sure that the authors of Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) considered bibliographic lists when they wrote the selection criteria (judging from how the first paragraph is written). Actually, if you interpret the criteria literally you'll have a hard time writing a bibliographic list on almost any subject. Pax:Vobiscum 20:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not saying that non-notable books can't be used as sources or mentioned in articles. The point is that stand-alone lists are supposed to be lists of articles or potential articles ("Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." --Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Selection criteria, emphasis mine), and indeed, I think bibliographic lists like the two I mention in my nomination are perfectly allowable under the criteria. This one, however, is nothing more than a list of someone's favorites, which is an indiscriminate collection of information. I'd gladly support a list of notable apologists or notable apologetic works (using the existing standards for notability in each case), but the present list is quite a long way from either of those. --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still think, however, that a subject bibliography is a so special type of list that the selection criteria can't be applied mechanically (it would make more sense to me to use the inclusion criteria for sources). And just because a list isn't complete does not make it indiscriminate. Pax:Vobiscum 08:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just don't see why a lengthy bibliography of non-notable books is encyclopedic material apart from the context of an article that references it (in which case, WP:RS would certainly apply). If we expanded that list to 100, 500, or 1000 books on the subject, would you still think it belongs? This seems obviously beyond the scope of Wikipedia to me, but I don't see how WP:RS could keep this from happening (assuming there are so many reliable books) if the selection criteria for stand-alone lists are by-passed. --Flex (talk|contribs) 12:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I understand your line of reasoning, but I don't see that the current policies and guidelines are clear on whether or not this kind of "book organization articles" is beyond the scope of wikipedia. I agree with you that the article violates the selection criteria of Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists), but from what I can see this type of article wasn't foreseen and the guideline could therefor be ignored. I started a discussion on the policy discussion page to see if this is an old issue. Pax:Vobiscum 18:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - A list might be encyclopedic even if the individual items would not be. Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) might be violated, but I feel subject bibliographies are probably valuable on their own. Coren 01:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Weak Keep List of apologetic works had just survived a deletion attempt,at which the present article was cited repeated as a good example of how such a list could be developed into ones for the specific religions. There is no need to invoke IAR-- This is a careful list, with useful subdivisions, and that's one of the criteria for the guideline at WP:LIST--every statement in that guideline is worded very flexibly: I do not think that is accidental--it was very carefully written to provide for the diversity of possible good lists. . All that's necessary here is for the criteria to be made explicit. There are many subject-specific bibliographical lists. The ones that have good criteria and are carefully maintained are kept when challenged, the inadequate and sloppy ones are not. I am a little troubled by some of the comments about non-notable books; this is by no means an indiscriminate selection of the many thousands of potential inclusions. I hope it was not a reflection of any feeling that the subject is in some way unworthy or unimportant.DGG 02:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI, I nominated this article and that other one at the same time. That one was relisted and then closed so quickly that I didn't have time to cross-examine. (BTW, that one duplicated the contents of this one until I redacted it and put the {{main}} in there.) Can you give an example or two of bibliographical lists have done this well and where their criteria are spelled out? The problem I have with bibliographic lists of non-notable books — at least bibliographies that are topical rather than concerned with a single author (e.g., List of books by P. G. Wodehouse) or a series of books (e.g., List of Oz books) — is that there are no clear guidelines, and no authority to impose any guidelines someone may come up with, to stop the "enthusiast" (as you termed it here) from making the list into a rather indiscriminate collection of information. In this case, there are easily several hundred books on the subject from the early church to today, and while clearly not all of them are of equal significance or quality, there seem to be no guidelines to manage the list (WP:RS won't help except in extreme cases). Shall we add all of them? IMO, the best option is to exclude topical bibliographies as stand-alone lists altogether, and add "The Wikipedia is not a library catalog." to WP:NOT. --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Examples are in Category:Lists of publications in science. Good ones I have worked on are the ones for Chemistry & Biology. Some less good ones have been challenged and removed. BUT notice that both of these =lists are much more selective, and give significant information about each title included, including the justification for being on the list. The chemistry one has a particularly interesting talk page, where they discuss in an XfD-like manner the individual titles. Comparing them with this, the present one looks rather anemic, and I change my !vote to a Weak Keep. The difference is between an annotated bibliography, which is as worthwhile a work of assembling information as an article, and just a list. This would need improvement, but it can get it, so it becomes an editing question. Butthere is still an immense difference between the present list and the 1712 entries I find for Christian apologetics in the Princeton catalog ( note: the LC heading is, in an ethnocentric fashion , just apologetics.)DGG 06:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I much prefer List of important publications in chemistry to this one, though the title seems rather subjective. The biggest question is, how do we get from here to there? That is, how does this list become an annotated bibliography? If no editor or editors take the initiative, what do we do with this list, which is woefully incomplete, biased toward evangelicals, and rather snobby in only selecting recently published works -- where's Thomas Aquinas, for instance? Redact, delete, or leave it as is? And how long do we wait to take such action? --Flex (talk|contribs) 12:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasoning given by Coren. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To reiterate my response to Coren: Valuable is not enough. Why does this material belong in an encyclopedia as a separate topical list that is unconnected to an article? (Note that per the above discussion with DGG, I'm open to an annotated version of important works, but criteria for inclusion needs to be established.) --Flex (talk|contribs) 17:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neither of us was arguing "valuable" we were arguing "encyclopedic." I think the burden is on you to show that it isn't encyclopedic, considering all the points that have been brought up in support of this notable topic. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it is certainly not encyclopedic in its present form because it represents such a narrow, subjective collection (evangelical, late twentieth century) with no indication of why the books belong here or why more should or shouldn't be added -- this is all in distinction from, e.g., List of important publications in chemistry which I think certainly belongs. My question is how do we get from this list to one like that one? What if no one steps up to work on this? I daresay we shouldn't leave this list in its present form. So do we redact it down to bare bones, tag it as non-neutral, delete it (my initial preference, but I'm open to other options), or do nothing? --Flex (talk|contribs) 01:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Arbustoo 01:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Buxton Festival. WjBscribe 18:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buxton Festival Fringe

Buxton Festival Fringe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject, if notable, is not verifiable. Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 05:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 07:20Z

List of eponymous albums

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

Listcruft; not maintainable, no obvious point. Discussion as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#List of eponymous albums includes the suggestion that it be transferred to a category, but the original category was deleted, and there seems no point resurrecting it. Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 07:21Z

Jonah Kim

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

This article is clearly a resume, in violation of WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. It was most likely created as a vanity page, or by his manager: User:Globalartists, has created this article, and nothing else. The sources are not verifiable, in addition to being laden with peacock terms. Also, the article fails to meet WP:NOTE, as the only source given is his personal webpage, and I can't find any others confirming notability. [27] CA387 02:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 07:21Z

Solar hit

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

Insufficiently sourced nn neologism Dl2000 03:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 07:22Z

Holly Out

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

This article is entirely unreferenced, and concerns an apparent neologism. John254 03:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as copyright violation, and redirect to decantation. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-22 13:25Z

Decant

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

This is a pure dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I nominated it for WP:PROD on the grounds that it was a dictionary definition and appeared to be a copyright violation from a Merriam-Webster dictionary, but I wasn't 100% sure about that. The article creator removed the PROD tag and provided sources for almost everything in the article -- but that means that the article is basically a combined copyright violation of two different dictionaries (a Merriam-Webster and an Oxford). Due to the use of exactly copied text, I don't think Wiktionary can use any of this content. Delete. --Metropolitan90 03:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep and rename to Campfire cooking. I've merged some info into Campfire too. - Richard Cavell 06:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cooking on a campfire

Cooking on a campfire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT an instruction manual. Poorly-referenced, poorly written. Mikeblas 03:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep - bad-faith deletion with Teh Pulpo being a ReMine opponent and Walter ReMine being an admitted impersonator DS 15:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walter ReMine

NN. Teh Pulpo 04:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Apparently exceeds my ability to recognize non-notability. While he himself gets 278 'real' ghits, the search [ "Walter ReMine" biotic Message theory ] gets about 200 'real' ghits. I guess the chief problem is the limited audience for his ideas? I'm biased towards leaving the marginal in, awaiting the long-term view. Shenme 05:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - has multiple articles written from independent, restrictively published sources. --Eyrian 06:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Walter's work has yet to be remarked upon by a reliable third-party source. Walter ReMine 06:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 02:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chastity Houses

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

No reliable or verifiable sources. An article on temporary marriage in Iran (using valid sources) would be a legitimate effort, but this article is very poor quality. Khorshid 04:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not verified. Same ref to a dubious 'proposal' is used twice, with a third ref to some statistics. Nothing says this thing actually exists. All these articles (googling) are from the same time period back in 2002. If such a thing actually had been implemented they would be something more and later. This is bogus, and likely meant for embarrassment of Iran or WP. Let's deny both potentials. Shenme 05:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as argued above. A proposal is in itself rarely notable. --Dhartung | Talk 05:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable sources are added. Crotalus 08:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KeepThis article has many problems, but it can be improved. The article is about a really notable issue. The article used to read like an essay but I am fixing that. There is a New York Times article about the issue which is cited in the article[28]. Shenme is definitely right when he says the article is "meant for embarrassment of Iran". Unfortunately that is the way the article was written. But I have rewrote it and it is nuetral now. This article can be fixed. --Agha Nader 20:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I only know that the Islamic law about temporary marriages is much disputed between the different legal schools; but I can see that the article as written here is too much of a stub to be useful, and still has a nn pov. DGG 03:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very dubious. Note that the New York Times article cited doesn't actually say that the houses ever existed in reality. I suspect someone's pushing an agenda. BTLizard 13:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 07:23Z

Yeshiva Gedolah Of West Hempstead

Yeshiva Gedolah Of West Hempstead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable private institution that "currently services close to 20 young men" CitiCat 04:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jake "The Snake" Roberts: Pick Your Poison

Jake "The Snake" Roberts: Pick Your Poison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

nn DVD release, WP is not a directory, just a match listing of a DVD, does not needs it's own article. A precedent case, the similar Hard Knocks: The Chris Benoit Story, has previously been deleted and speedied. Any info for this could be easily put on Roberts' page (and other similar DVD releases). Biggspowd 04:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, That afd is not a legitimate precedent as that tried to tag about a dozen DVD pages, which varied in notability. There was no clear consensus, and many voters were torn between what DVDs should be kept or not. Doing things individually instead of grouping is better since not all DVDs are equal, and the Benoit DVD page was deleted, and this is very similar in terms of style and notability. Biggspowd 13:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - torn between which should be kept and which shouldn't, which leads to the logical conclusion that SOME should be kept right? Which also leads to the conclusion that this entry should be judged totally on it's own, that's the "legitimate precedent" set right? - not based on what happened to the Benoit DVD on the basis of this DVD - and this DVD, even if the article doesn't do it justice is a documentary about the career of Jake "The Snake", the matches listed are "Bonus" features and thus does not define the DVD. If it was a DVD which's main feature were matches I'd agree it should be deleted. MPJ-DK 13:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, no one is questioning that the DVD doesn't exist or isn't legitimate, or that Jake Roberts isn't notable, the question is if it is notable to have it's own page, which it is not. Biggspowd 13:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I am going with keep, if the dvd is biographical in nature then I feel that it should be okay to have on wikipedia. However I feel that the page needs more explanation in the Overview section on what is going on in the DVD. Govvy 12:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Phew that's a relief then that not every DVD is listed on here, not even near every wrestling DVD/Video released, heck not even every WWE DVD ever made is listed here. That argument is pointless here since we're discussing the validity of THIS specific DVD and it's inclusion on Wikipedia not if we should add ever wrestling DVD ever made, could we please discuss the validity of the inclusion of THIS specific DVD? MPJ-DK 12:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • COmment and then I took credit for it ;) if this article is kept I'm going to nominate it for the Pro Wrestling Collaboration of the Week so that we can get it formattet right and have the documentary part expanded MPJ-DK 07:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All the documentary's content is about his life, which is sufficiently covered in the main Jake Roberts article. Just rehashing that info into a page about a DVD is just totally redundant and unnecessary. I would suggest that the main Jake article has a bit of info about the DVD, but not its own article. If there are verifiable things in the DVD that are relevant and important in his life, just put it in his article. The DVD doesn't cover any new ground. Dannycali 22:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have not watched this DVD but from reviews it seems Jake makes a number of completely unverifiable claims that may not be appropriate for the main article. For example, I've read that he claims his crack cocaine bust in Florida AND his animal cruelty bust in England were both law enforcement conspiracies. Things like that give this DVD a unique element. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 23:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I disagree 100% with your statement. All the DVD is is a bio of Jake, that is already covered in his main article. Merge anything absolutely necessary to his article. The Benoit DVD page got deleted, so this and all the other low-selling DVDs about wrestlers should be gone too. They also have their own pages. Dannycali 00:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of similar articles isn't grounds for automatically carrying out the same action. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 01:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have decided to change my mind from keep to delete, I mean how many books are out there and how many DVDs are out there? The way articles have been done you use {{cite book}} or {{cite dvd}} at the bottom, yes you can explain about the information that comes from them. But in all honestly I feel we don't really need these articles as long as the DVD is just listed at the bottom of the actual biography article. Govvy 10:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the main Jake "The Snake" article and list the DVD in a "Filmography" or something like that on his page. Yes I did change my mind on this after long consideration on the matter MPJ-DK 21:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Merge/Redirect, take this content and put it on the actual wrestler's article. I'm not convinced that the DVD itself is notable on its own, but it's interesting enough to go on the actual person involved's page. Lankiveil 09:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
References
  1. ^ Govvy (23 April 2007). ""Keep"". Wikipedia.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 07:24Z

Volley League

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

Non notable competition, played among friends. Google provides Zero hits. Daemonic Kangaroo 04:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 East Coast Wrestling Association. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 07:24Z

ECWA Hall of Fame

ECWA Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Hall of fame for a low-level independent wrestling promotion that exists in name only. Should not have own article, clearly nn. Biggspowd 04:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 05:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lotus Reader

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

Does not satisfy our notibility guideline for web content Wikipedia:Notability_(web)—— Eagle101 Need help? 05:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
For the first deletion discussion for this page, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-humor (0th nomination).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-humor

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

Entirely original research-- which it has been tagged as being for the last five months; no reliable source has been put forth which actually discusses this apparent neologism as a concept-- as claimed in the article; a magnet for individuals' favorite non-joke/anti-comedian. See also, WP:NOT#OR: "[Wikipedia] is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge". --LeflymanTalk 05:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless referenced. This is a valid term[31] but most of the article seems to be personal observation/preference. --Dhartung | Talk 06:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as is. This exists[32]. I can appreciate it[33]. But I'm not sure the article helps me understand it. And it doesn't give the references needed to be sure they understand it. I want enlightenment. ( <-- note the period) Shenme 06:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't find this defined anywhere reliable. Definitely qualifies as a neologism. Mark Chovain 03:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a comment The article refers to anticlimax. According to the theory Isaac Asimov expounded in his Treasury of Humor, anticlimax is the essence of all humor. --hbquikcomjamesl | Talk 10:55, 23 April 2007 (PDT)
  • Cleanup —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 07:29Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Will Beback as repost of previously deleted page. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-22 09:11Z

David J. Silver

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

Recreated page of previously deleted material. New links appear to be self generated and fail to establish notability. Prior concerns raised in the first AfD debate and on the Administrators' noticeboard Delete (This is my first AfD nomination...please advise if this is not the best direction to take in this instance, thanks.) -- Greatwalk 06:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks-- I'll do so in the future. --Greatwalk 06:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm concerned that since the AfD notice was just removed (and replaced by another user) that the user who did that might remove the CSD notice as well. Edit because I forgot to sign. --Charlene 06:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've speedied it. It was a recreation of a previously deleted article. -Will Beback · † · 08:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 07:27Z

Disco grindcore

Disco grindcore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Discogrindcoretucker.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Absolutely unremarkable invented musical genre. Speedy was denied, prod was contested. Pioneering disco grindcore band "Holy Atomic Monosaur" receives zero google hits. Noted disco grindcore drummer "Tucker Leary" receives minimal google hits. Searching "disco grindcore" yields mostly unrelated genre lists. Bongwarrior 07:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted per CSD A3 ("No content whatsoever")—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

America's Next Top Model, Cycle 9

America's Next Top Model, Cycle 9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This started out as a procedural nomination, as I happened to come across an improperly tagged article. However, it's pretty clear that it's a hoax, as it gives results for a reality show that hasn't even aired yet. (The infobox gives airdates of September-December 2007, and Cycle 8 hasn't even wrapped up yet.) NORTH talk 08:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, given the recent edits it might qualify as patent nonsense, although it's blanked at present. -- NORTH talk 19:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a version in the history that is not patent nonsense, one should revert rather than speeying. DES (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The empty version with just an infobox and a tag that people seem to keep reverting to suffices. -- NORTH talk 21:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

50 Dollars Man

50 Dollars Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article about a pejorative term is mostly original research and novel synthesis of cited works. No sources are cited for the origins or usage of the term itself, only for the labour statistics and arrests for prostitution. The sources themselves do not use this term. I disagree with the de-prodder's suggestion that the article should be renamed, for if we remove all the uncited material about this term itself, we'd have bits of trivia that would not go well under any other title. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-22 09:10Z

I suggested it be renamed because your complaint seemed to revolve around the fact that the name was not sourced and therefore, appeared to be made up by the article's author. IF the rest of the article is valid and the only issue with the article is the name "50 dollars man" than I suggest that the article be kept and renamed with a more appropriate title. You said that the literature cited for the rest of the article did not use that name. I suggest using the terms used in the references. And I do believe the article is worth keeping for sociological reasons as well as public health reasons. Postcard Cathy 23:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 02:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defensive end/linebacker

Defensive end/linebacker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not an official position, also incorrect information, no sources to establish noteworthiness, and not enough content to justify an article. Also confusing and incorrect as outside linebackers in a 3-4 are almost always called outside linebackers, every player on this list is listed as either an outisde linebacker or defensive end on their NFL bio. Basically it's just some fans trying to reclassify thinngs based on maybe one story from a sportswriter. Tayquan hollaMy work 09:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How long does this run? Tayquan hollaMy work 19:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, may require some cleanup per discussion. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Ivory

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

Stub article about a person selected as a Parliamentary candidate in the UK. The general election is probably not for two years, and he has no other notability. Sam Blacketer 09:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very weak delete - he was the subject of multiple independent etc etc last year when (while he was chairman of South Norfolk Conservatives) he publicly said "Tony Blair should kill himself and cheer us all up" (or something along those lines), but that aside he hasn't really come to any attention - iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep – I'd have thought any [serious] candidate for [a significant] public office who is mentioned in mainstream media would, by definition, be notable. One aspect of being encyclopaedic, for me, means that nearly every public figure [(where 'public' means visible to a significant population)] should have an article. If this chap gets quoted somewhere, and I wonder who he is, wouldn't it make sense to be able to find a short Wikipedia article? I guess I am an inclusionist; I don't see the harm in having articles for minor figures and minor topics so long as they pass some triviality [but not trivial] threshold. I am uncomfortable with the idea of a cabal pronouncing somebody to be "non-notable". Trevor Hanson 03:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC) [Original text went further than I meant. DGG has it right. Trevor Hanson 04:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)][reply]
Comment - remember that the UK has 659 MPs, and nine major political parties - while a lot of those parties are regional so won't be contesting every seat, each seat will have a minimum of three serious candidates (Labour, Lib Dem, Tory) - that's a lot of articles - iridescenti (talk to me!) 08:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – a valid point, though "a lot of articles" (out of 7,010,744 articles in English) is a matter of interpretation. I don't see anything surprising in 2,000+ bio stubs being added each UK election cycle. A newspaper research desk would presumably be doing the same thing. (These comments may not belong here, but strike me as going to the heart of the matter discussed in M:Inclusionism: How minor a topic is too minor?) Trevor Hanson 18:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that, thanks to user:jayvdb, the article now has six media citations, two website references, and a handful of basic bio facts. For my money, it's a scanty but useful summary of who the person is. If I came across his name in a newspaper account and looked him up on Wikipedia, I think the current article would cross the threshold of usefulness. Trevor Hanson 22:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTLizard's right - they're only PPCs until the election's actually called (some time in 2009-10) - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keap. With several references, this article could probably stay on. However, it is pretty short, but could be expanded, not deleted. Harry Jolly
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:OR, then redirect to Structural analysis. Sandstein 15:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Structural research

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

Reads to me like an original research essay to publicise a neologism. The article provides no references to establish that the term "structural research" is widely used to mean "imitation of natural structures in art and engineering", let alone that the term is established as relevant to Antoni Gaudí, Antonio Vivaldi, etc. (Well, there is a similar article on the French Wikipedia, but I don't think that counts.) EALacey 10:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year (film)

Happy New Year (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

IMDb link dead. Creator mentioned that the director never created this but went on to work on another film. Here is what creator said on my talk page. gren グレン 10:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Krimpet (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WATMM


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

Notability not asserted. Could not find reliable sources to establish notability on a google search. Article written like a promotional piece. soum (0_o) 10:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although the site and group seem interesting. Noone outside of wikipedia, the site itself and blogs appear to have written specifically about it. No news articles or other reliable sources have show interest in the site. Although everything in the article may be true we cannot write an encyclopediac article without independant sources. The site fails the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (web) - Peripitus (Talk)
  • Delete per nom and comments by Peripitus. Adambro 10:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I originally fleshed out the initial stub to most of what is there today, this is an important site in terms of supporting a large community of musicians. Probably the most outstanding aspect would have to be its ability to provide peer review by both signed and unsigned artists. I well understand that longevity cannot support the acceptance of the article and save it from deletion, however the site has a history which reaches past the current cache of references in Google. It should be noted more for its involvement in actually releasing musical material in the same way as a traditional music label. This aligns the operations of the site with labels such as Planet_Mu. Reviews of releases from WATMM records can be shown [here] and [here]. News source references can be found [here] and [here]. I have involvement with a number of sites in the same sphere, WATMM has notoriety within the industry, is well known and involved in supporting major labels such as WARP and Rephlex Records. Cen 12:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In spite of the claims of notability in "news source references" asserted above, these resources are either blogs or incidental mentions in articles about a different topic. Zero reliable sources to establish WP:N for this website. Claims of notable persons accessing/using their website or incoming links from other notable resources still do not satisfy the lack of reliable sources. The bar for inclusion based on WP:WEB has 3 different qualifying circmstances - "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself", "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization", or "The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster". Three chances, three failures. Three strikes, yer out. Sorry, but this is just not notable enough for inclusion. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Arkyan. Hut 8.5 19:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Arkyan; no references? No article. --Haemo 21:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:N. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP once again, this organization has been involved with many important record companies and well known musicians, it easily deserves its own article. CITATIONS ADDED. --AlexOvShaolin 19:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carp Flying Academy

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

The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:CORP. Nv8200p talk 10:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 02:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

École acadienne de Truro

École acadienne de Truro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Simply not notable; or no reason has been provided and is likely to be provided; also the article was created post Jocelyne Couture-Nowak, who founded said school; notability is not inherited, especially when Couture-Nowak's entry itself is under deletion discussion. Pablosecca 10:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Although I generally try to follow keep-all-schools where possible there is nothing to assert or indicate any notability at all for this one. This was created by User:Plasma east after their article on Jocelyne Couture-Nowak was nominated for deletion; I strongly suspect to prove a WP:POINT by creating a circular "this one's N so that one is too" argument. Willing to change my !vote if anyone can add any source, information etc to lift this above "this is a school in Canada", which is pretty much all this contains now - iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, small 1-teacher-per-grade school even if it's K-12. --Dhartung | Talk 20:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is about the extreme of minimal information. if the discussion on J C-N can help us remove some articles like this perhaps it will have been of some use after all. DGG 04:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think there are reliable sources for this school which are not available online. There would have been a lot of media coverage about this school and the need for it at the time it was proposed and around the time it opened, but the online files of the Truro Daily News and the Halifax Chronicle-Herald don't seem to go back that far. The politics involved in creating a French-language school in a community which traditionally didn't have one would have been quite intense. --Eastmain 12:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If anyone finds some information about it, it can always be recreated — as it currently stands the article boils down to "this is a school" - iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Blackout (entertainer). —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 07:34Z

Gladys Ridgeford

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

Notability not asserted (subject of a prank call - how is that notable for an encyclopedia article?). Cannot find enough Ghits to even assert that the call was notable enough to be considered a (internet) meme, let alone the subject. soum (0_o) 10:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 07:34Z

Forest Rangers Football Club (Australia)

Forest Rangers Football Club (Australia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non notable amateur football club Mattinbgn/ talk 11:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Keep. wL<speak·check> 18:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eve Laurence

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

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 11:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I don't see what has changed since the last AfD, which was less than a month ago.. EliminatorJR Talk 13:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is to keep. PeaceNT 16:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blondi

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

This one is no doubt going to provoke howls (if you'll pardon the expression) of protest from dog-lovers, history buffs & Nazis alike, and I apologise in advance to the closing admin for the fact that you're probably going to have to wade through 200 lines of WP:WAX on this. I initially planned to prod this, but in light of the number of editors who've worked on it there's no chance this won't be contested. I realise she's a famous person's dog, but at the end of the day she's still just a ****ing Alsation, who accomplished nothing in her own right other than have five puppies (she didn't star in any propaganda films, or die while attacking the Russian soldiers, for instance). The sole source is a single-line sentence from the (itself highly controversial) Anthony Beevor book "Berlin: The Downfall"; although I've no doubt that every word in this article is true, she doesn't seem to have had much coverage even at the time. The only comparable articles I can find (in an admittedly not very thorough search) are Checkers, who is only covered in terms of the Checkers speech and not in his own right, Humphrey who probably just about scrapes through WP:N on the grounds of the press coverage regarding his alleged poisoning/shooting by Cherie Blair, and Socks who probably ought to go as well since his 15 minutes of fame are well and truly over. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, now I just have to decide if I'm a dog-lover, history buff, or a Nazi... Okay, it's a really weak keep, but, I do think we WAX precedent. gren グレン 12:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can find [over 150] google books and [lots] google news archive hits which ,from what small snippets I've read, shows that the article will be attributable to reliable sources. Has attracted enough attention to sustain an encyclopediac article - Peripitus (Talk) 12:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The dog's the subject of multiple, independent sources, even if they're not cited on the article here. As everyone knows that Hitler's dog was called Blondi, and that he killed it before he committed suicide, it's probably one of the most famous dogs in history. Not in the Lassie class but nevertheless notable. Nick mallory 12:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Peripitus and Nick mallory. Jeff Silvers 15:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that the pets of (in)famous people tend to be notable. In addition, the unusual manner of her death makes her notable. I just watched a documentary yesterday on the History Channel noting that all her puppies were poisoned by Himmler's cyanide as a test of the poison's potency. Ngchen 17:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:N utterly, which states that to be notable a topic must be "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." A one- or two-sentence mention in a several hundred page book is a trivial reference. One-sentence mentions in news articles are trivial references. Those who are asserting the existence of such sources, please back up your claim by adding citations to the article before the end of the AFD. Otto4711 18:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge To the main article on Hitler. Even if the dog received passing mention in many books about Hitler, that does not require that it have a separate article. See also Laddie Boy (dog); same plan of merging would be appropriate for that little-known Presidential dog, as well as Fala , Barney and Socks. Checkers is appropriately given a mention in Checkers speech. They got passing mentions as a consequence of who their owner was, so mention them in an article about the owner. Edison 18:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, famous for her infamous owner, died in an infamous manner in one of the major events of the 20th century. 129 Google News Archive results for "blondi hitler" when limiting the search to free articles (300+ when searching behind paywalls). --Dhartung | Talk 19:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totting up Google hits is not a measure of notability. All it tells you is that the words "Hitler" and "Blondi" were used in the same article. Try actually looking at some of those articles and you'll see that they are trivial mentions. Repetitions of "Hitler had a dog called Blondi," even several hundred repetitions of it, does not constitute non-trivial mentions of the animal and the dog is not the subject of the articles. Find a source or two of which the dog is the primary subject. Otto4711 19:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is that there is sufficent published information to write a sourced article, not that the number of hits equals notability. On Google News Archive, the majority of the results are reliable sources, which is not the case with "regular Google". --Dhartung | Talk 22:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dhartung. Famous dog, infamous owner, died in an infamous manner in one of the major events of human history. The article is totally verifiable and totally NPOV. To delete it based entirely off a narrow reading of the WP:N guideline would be ludicrous. --JayHenry 21:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not for any notability of her qua dog, but as a spin-off of the main Hitler article. That man is (unfortunately) one of history's most notable people, which is why even details of his personal life (if sourced) deserve a thorough encyclopedic treatment. Sandstein 22:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment since we have articles on Harry Potter's friends' pets I suppose it puts Blondi in perspective. I still think all that needs to be said could be said on a single sentence on the main article, though. Since there are delete !votes I can't withdraw this, but if any passing admins want to WP:SNOW do feel free - iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - content is referenced, we have other articles on famous dogs, and a dog owned by one of the key figures of the 20th century for over a decade, who was an important part of his life and helps shed light on his character, is quite notable. Biruitorul 00:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Noting that there are other articles about pets of the famous and infamous is the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. Please address the problem of the sources being passing references made while talking about the owner. Edison 05:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I missed that. He still owned her for most of the war, and was in the bunker. We have articles on some pretty obscure people, just because they were in the bunker. Edison: passing references are good enough for me in this case. Biruitorul 16:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I'm usually a pretty strong deletionist -- however, aside from Checkers, Blondi was possibly the most geopolitically important figure of canine heritage in the 20th Century, and her contributions to the Nazi regime should not be allowed to be scooped out of the yard of history by dog-apologist historians. --Dynaflow 05:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I just realized this whole discussion was doomed to Godwin closure from the very beginning. =D --Dynaflow 07:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 fracture, no assertion of notability. If you want "want as much people as we can to know the band", a better site for this purpose will be www.myspace.com . —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-22 13:32Z

The Band Fracture

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

Band is not notable (by its own admission, only just begun), unencyclopedic. This should be a speedy delete, but since "owner" keeps removing tags, I thought I'd go through a process not so easily removed. GJD 12:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recherche structural architecture

Recherche structural architecture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism. There's a single Google hit for "Recherche Structural Architecture" -wikipedia, and that doesn't even look human-authored. Article possibly intended to promote the structural research article created by the same user. EALacey 13:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 07:36Z

Stores inside Centrale

Stores inside Centrale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. A list of stores will be constantly subject to change and seems unencyclopaedic. Readers are better served by the link from the article Centrale to the shopping centre website which has a store directory. Adambro 13:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 07:37Z

Electrical Material

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

The article appears to stem from some material that might be contrived to be linkspam. Contributed by User:Msadaghd, user added links that were either "comming soon" (sic) or very poorly written entry level external links. Propose deletion, please comment User A1 14:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Webber

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

Indie musician and filmmaker. As far as I can tell none of his LPs were released under a record label that allowed for significant distribution. As a filmmaker, the movies he's directing are to be released within a year or so. No sign of significant third-party coverage (at least not yet) so we're pretty much forced to assume that the article is an autobiography and the content is pretty much unverifiable. Pascal.Tesson 14:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Heroclix. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 07:38Z

Justice League (heroclix)

Justice League (heroclix) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

list of game figures, violates WP:NOT; Delete --Mhking 17:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason -- they are simply lists of game figures and as a result, violate WP:NOT:

Hypertime (heroclix) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unleashed (heroclix) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Legacy (heroclix) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Icons (heroclix) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Collateral Damage (heroclix) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Origin (heroclix) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Indy HeroClix (heroclix) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Infinity Challenge (heroclix) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Clobberin' Time (heroclix) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Xplosion (heroclix) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Critical Mass (heroclix) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ultimates (heroclix) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mutant Mayhem (heroclix) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fantastic Forces (Heroclix) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Armor Wars (Heroclix) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sinister (heroclix) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Supernova (heroclix) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Avengers (heroclix) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete per WP:L and WP:NOT#INFO. YechielMan 18:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect though I have no inherent objection to articles on individual sets in the Heroclix franchise, these pages are indeed nothing but lists. I believe further content could be developed like the average set of Magic the Gathering on Wizkid's pirates game, but there's little to nothing on these pages that is worth including. If somebody wants to take up the challenge of describing the sets as opposed to just listing there contents, I'll change my opinion FrozenPurpleCube 18:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Your assertion that these pages are nothing more than lists is correct. However, you should realize that we had, at one time, much more content regarding these sets and the pieces. They were deemed to have too much content and too many links and were targeted for deletion. In order to keep them up on Wikipedia, we pared it down to what you see today. Now you are saying that it is too little content!?!?! If the moderators would make these pages "protected" and not allow people who are not even registered users to modify and delete these pages, we could make them more interesting to gamers and potential gamers on Wikipedia. Firstlensman 13:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps you could provide a link to the diff of one of those better versions? Or perhaps you might want to work on the page in your user-space. Right now, with just a list of characters, it's not very good. What would make the pages better is a description of the reaction and response, how the set sold, and where appropriate, addition of new types of figures and modifications to the game rules. FrozenPurpleCube 00:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cbrown1023 talk 14:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Walton Need some help? 09:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Harley

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

Non-notable. A Google search turns up various John Harley's, but only the Wiki entry for this guy - nothing else. The article itself reveals he has done nothing significant. SilkTork 14:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, a number of quotes from his time at Budweiser Budvar, during tumultuous negotiations over the brand name, but otherwise unnotable. Has another job since March 2006 anyway, no update in article showing this.[37] --Dhartung | Talk 20:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Slightly altering the searching to remove wikipedia and obvious mirrors reveals only 67 hits [38]. Still seems like vanity as it stands. Most of these seem directly connected to Budvar - maybe merge into the Budvar article. ? Megapixie 05:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The guy is not very interesting on his own, but the confrontation between Anheuser-Busch and Budweiser Budvar is a very notable topic, not just for beer lovers, since it's part of a much wider pattern. The article provides some valuable contextual information, from the alliance between Harley and Roger Protz (who is not only a "beer writer") to the local vs. global turf battles. Merging would be fine if that info could be kept. I might actually do a bit of work on this, although I prefer Pilsner, by a long shot.Stammer 06:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:OR, WP:POVFORK. WP:NOR is not subject to consensus, and Valich's comments here indicate that the article is intended to promote novel theories. The place to discuss these would be Genetic code, but discussion there would seem to oppose a merger. Nonetheless, if anyone wants to try and merge this, the content is available on request. In the meantime, I'm creating a redirect. Sandstein 15:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Universal genetic code

Universal genetic code (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article has been written by a single author. It seems to be "original research" in the sense that it is "a synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position". In fact, the author's own words seem to assert that it is a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". On the talk page the author, Valich, says: "Radical integrative conceptual frameworks break down walls, explain phenomena, and fuel scientific growth. I hope this is the direction this article takes. It should evolve in theoretical structure, as will the field." There already exists an article appropriate for the subject, Genetic code. To be gentle, I had originally proposed the article for merger, but the consensus so far (see also comments on Talk:Genetic code) seems to be that there is little or no value in this article. Madeleine 14:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

problems with merger I wanted to note here that, since this discussion started, Valich added some content to Genetic code (presumably some sort of merger). I heavily edited it to try to fit into the stuff that was already there, and added a website reference. There were no references in the content he added, and I found two factual problems. (A) "In common molds, for example, the DNA sequence "UGA" is translated into the amino acid tryptophan. In the standard code, it's a "stop" signal." As far as I can tell, this statement is wrong. The mitochondria of molds do have this alternate genetic code, as do mycoplasma (a type of bacteria), but mold does not. (B) "However, although Crick and Watson thought that the current canonical genetic code was "frozen," many now view it as evolving in complexity toward a greater number of amino acids." Crick and Watson? They figured out DNA structure, but the genetic code had a lot of work of other people over later years. Maybe Crick said something about it, since he was a heavy theorist and involved in the observations of frame shift and the triplet nature of it, but throwing in Watson's name makes me reject this statement as nonhistorical hyperbole.
I am not willing to sift through the Universal genetic code article to figure out which parts are real and which are not. I'm afraid the article has very little to contribute; in my opinion a support for merger is effectively support for deletion unless there is someone willing to go through the article and find worthwhile parts of it. -- Madeleine 16:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the problems go further than that: Valich is trying very hard to make the case that the term "universal genetic code" is outdated, however, in doing so, she ignores that the existance of alternate codes were predicted long before the first was discovered. This means that the view of history is a bit biased as well, portraying the discovery of alternate codes as a complete surprise as opposed to the validation of a prediction already made on evolutionary grounds.
Frankly, the only way to use this article in a merge is to re-evaluate the sources. and check everything. Too many errors to use it without question. Adam Cuerden talk 04:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to be a fork, and I'm not sure the references support it enough for it to be merged. We could do more with the Genetic code article, but I don't think this has anything to add. Adam Cuerden talk 15:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge with Genetic code. There is some useful content here, including historic aspects. This article has significantly more references than Genetic code. Biophys 19:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have updated the article to clarify it, and have deleted some parts. The article provides a much more realistic evolutionary perspective of the genetic code than can be found in the genetic code article. It provides an approach with tons of insightful and important information that cannot be found on any other Wikipedia article. This is important for progress in the field and for expanding the horizons of those curious enough to delve into the subject. Somewhere we have to address the variations to the standard genetic code and the emergence of new amino acids - the 21st and 22nd, and up to 30 more now. I felt that this was the place to do it. Valich 20:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Then you need also to improve the introduction and make it shorter. Still I do not see any serious reason to have two separate articles, Universal genetic code, and Genetic code. Would not it be better to merge them and improve in the process?Biophys 20:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 21:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's quite a good article. i don't think its a POV fork, or devoted to a specific theory. I would change the title to evolution of the genetic code to make clear the fdifference in content. DGG 04:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • MergeDelete The Universal genetic code page is the work of a sole author, one whose talk page is a bit worrying. I see concerns raised that he doesn't realize when he's citing an Intelligent Design source [39], uses citations that don't say what his text implies they do [40]. I'm a pretty mainstream biologist, and statements such as "... we have no idea what lies before us in evolutionary time and space. You cannot label something as being "universal" if it only exists on one planet, and the evidence for it being as such only exists here" [41] make me do a double-take. I think the material in the Universal genetic code page needs to be vetted by other editors familiar with the topic. It is currently insulated by being in an independent article. The subject matter in Universal genetic code belongs in Genetic code. The salvageable material can probably fit easily into Genetic code#Variations to the Standard Genetic Code without disrupting that article too much. Pete.Hurd 06:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Changed from "merge" to "delete" on basis of more recent comments by nominator et alia above. Pete.Hurd 05:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not think that the article as it is should be kept due to already mentioned issues. If this is to be kept not only a new title is necessary (I wouldn't name it evolution of the genetic code as it also implies the evolution to the standard genetic code, whereas this article mainly deals with variations from the standard one), but one would also have to prune everyhing unnecessary elements, which, in my opinion, would not leave much. For an article dealing within the field of natural sciences it has to be more concise and not swarming with quotes and half quotes from abstracts of the cited articles. Honestly, I believe that it is easier to create an article on this topic de novo rather than try to disentangle the given article.CharonZ 16:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: I believe that Universal Genetic Code should be merged into Genetic Code. An experienced and meticulous editor should come through UGC and make sure that any significant additions and improvements that can be made to Genetic Code from UGC will be done. The article is very large, and I find it hard to believe that there is NO beneficial information that could be added to Genetic Code. Someone PLEASE carefully merge this. Thanks! WiiAlbanyGirl 02:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with madeleine's WP:OR complaint. The article is long and contains references, yes, but it's not clear that all the references are appropriate (see talk page, for instance), and length is no measure of quality or information content. In addition, the article IS arguing a POV, that deviations from the standard genetic code are somehow "significant" and constitute radical departures from the universal genetic code. This does not represent the view of anyone in the biological community, as far as I know - departures are oddities, hacks, and slight modifications, nothing more. Previous insertions into the article suggest that this argument has been advanced by the likes of Jonathan Wells, whose viewpoints are extreme fringe views, and who was quoted approvingly by User:Valich, which makes me leery of the author's motivations, as well. Graft | talk 03:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, userfied. --Coredesat 02:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pteronophillia

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

Unsourced, and will most likely stay so, according to the article itself. The very model of a minor general 14:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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[42] Pan Dan 17:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uchiha Clan's Dark Secret

Uchiha Clan's Dark Secret (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Was in speedy but author added {{Hangon}} and requested an AfD instead, reason given for speedy was "As stated at the bottom of this page, "Remember, everything here is just a theory. Nothing is completely proven as of yet but, at the same time, what I have mentioned is actually fits with the Naruto series and gives you something to think about." This is reason enough for the article to be deleted." (WP:NOR). No stance. Cbrown1023 talk 15:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Hmm, Cbrown beat me to the AfD. Oh well. The article is complete nonsense and is nothing but original research. As stated by the author, it is all in theory. Also, the content of the article reads like a fansite or magazine article. An example would be: "You might be confused about this: when was it stated that Kakashi’s MS jutsu is Amaterasu? Well it has never been stated, it’s just another of my bold speculations." It also contains You's, Me's, and "...". It doesn't deserve an article. // DecaimientoPoético 15:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well if this my article deserves to be deleted than by all means do so. I feel as though this is an imporant article because it makes you think and it makes good points as to the Uchiha Clan's origins. And if my article violates the rules and therefore deservers deletion, I have no objections.YungLegend07 15:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a copyvio from [43]. WjBscribe 15:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Copyvio, and even if it weren't it's totally unsourced fan speculation/OR. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 07:39Z

Beefday

Beefday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Cheeseburger sunset.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

I believe that this is a hoax article. It was prodded once, but the tag was removed. I can find no confirmation of this "holiday." The meticulous formula for the adequate amount of beef, as well as the linking of the event to Zen Buddhism also raise my suspicions. Joyous! | Talk 15:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 07:41Z

Laz Rojas

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

Fails to meet WP:BIO, I think. Laz is somewhat well-known in the DOOM community for his various WolfenDOOM level packs (so he'd probably be notable enough to have an entry in the DOOM wiki on Wikia, for example), but that certainly isn't enough for a Wikipedia article, and I don't know if he's otherwise notable. That being said, I'm not 100% sure he isn't - maybe it's just me who's never heard of him -, so I'm listing his entry here. Schneelocke 15:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 07:40Z

Nancy Beard

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

As per a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey it is felt that just because a persons name is inscribed on the Stanley Cup (NHL championship trophy) they do not warrant their own article unless they were an actual player on the team. This particular person was a secretary for the team. I feel this does not make her notable enough to be on wikipedia as his own article, and instead intend to create a list of the people on the trophy that were "staff" members on the winning teams to cover their inclusion in wikipedia. Djsasso 15:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 02:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Call for help

Call for help (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nominated for deletion in Aug 2005. Last Afd. (Wasn't sure how to do this, if I jacked it up someone please fix, sorry). Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, this article is a how to and little else. All of the important information is redundant and what isn't can be merged with the appropriate article (as was suggested the first time around). On top of this there are no references (its factual accuracy is disputed), the radio section is almost entirely OR, I would say. All of this and not a comment on the talk page since November 2005. IvoShandor 15:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On second glance a lot of the article looks like original research. IvoShandor 17:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Maybe but I really can't see anyone typing "call for help" into the Wiki looking for the result to be distress signal, I suppose it's possible.IvoShandor 06:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 07:41Z

Paul Boyer (hockey)

Paul Boyer (hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

As per a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey it is felt that just because a persons name is inscribed on the Stanley Cup (NHL championship trophy) they do not warrant their own article unless they were an actual player on the team. This particular person was an equipment manager for the team. I feel this does not make him notable enough to be on wikipedia as his own article, and instead intend to create a list of the people on the trophy that were "staff" members on the winning teams to cover their inclusion in wikipedia. Djsasso 15:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 19:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magma Poetry

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

Does not assert notability of the magazine - tagged for notability for past month. Article existed since mid 2006 but has never been expanded over one sentence. Google search reveals no reason for notability Davewild 16:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 15:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poorism

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

Ridiculous neologism; Fetches very few hits on Google, possible hoax. mcr616 Speak! 16:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Neologism at best. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Poorism" may be a neologism, but Poorism is not an article about a neologism. It's an article about a type of tourism that at least two reliable sources, cited in the article, discuss. Both sources even call this type of tourism "poorism," which may help justify this particular Wikipedia pagename. Pan Dan 16:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - may be a neologism, but the article's about the phenomenon, not the neologism. The term is used by a number of sources ranging from the "Observer" to the Smithsonian. And don't know where the nom gets "very few Ghits" from, I get 15,000. As per Pan Dan, this seems to be the term in general use for this phenomenon so this is probably the correct page title (although possibly Poverty tourism would be more appropriate with this as a redirect) - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 07:42Z

The Lonely Lonely Bad Boys

The Lonely Lonely Bad Boys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Hoax. 53 unique Google hits for group with a triple platinum album most of them Wikipedia related. Disappearing to join a Dragon-Worshipping Cult in New Zealand ... VirtualDelight 16:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primal sounds

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

Original research, and almost nothing links to it. Do we really need a page on this? At best, it could be merged or redirected into another article like onomatopoeia.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google scholar has a couple of references to this being used, especially when describing singing. The references don't seem to be published, though. I'm thinking that "Primal sounds" meaning human noises of some sort is a neologism, but it seems distinct from onomatopoeia, for what its worth. Either way, redirecting to onomatopoeia seems better than delete to me, because this could be a valid search term. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some additional information. My research indicates primal sound differs significantly from onomatopoeia. Please check out my edit. If you feel I am all wet - chuck it. But primal sounds do exist and are used today, principally in chants. These chants credit "primal sound" as part of their basis for legitimacy. Lynnbr2 4/20/07.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 16:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the one scientific source present is a very general one indeed, and the article goes way beyond it. OR at this point. DGG 04:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, despite the new sources, I'm still inclined to look at this as OR. Just because people have recorded themselves grunting at one point, it doesn't prove anything said earlier in the article. Lankiveil 09:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 03:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Third Testament

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

also:

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

From the very first paragraph, it is obvious that the purpose of this article is to push a POV, not to explain or introduce the reader to an arcane topic: "The purpose of The Third Testament is to provide the intellectual and logical basis for neighbourly love being the very highest goal in life and the way to a personal experience of the eternal Godhead." The article is so heavily-weighted toward pushing its spiritual message, I fail to see how it can be edited into something encyclopaedic. I recommend deletion, and then perhaps something more closely resembling an article can be written by someone who does not have a stake in the subject. Charles 16:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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


    • Comment. Is it impossible to make an article about "Martinus" because any search on this word is ALWAYS redirectet to the name "Martin". To bad for anyone of this name, they simply don´t exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.89.25.102 (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2007 (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. Multiple keep arguments by a single user, as well. --Coredesat 03:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Information Security Association

Professional Information Security Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Speedy deleted by me as an article about an organisation that made no assertion of notability. Article's creator, who is connected to the subject of the article has argued that they are notable, have advised government agencies and points the following Google search [44]. As I am not linguistically capable of evaluating those ghits, I am listing the article for deletion so that we can have wider community input on the matter. I remain minded that this organisation does not meet our notability standards but make no opinion pending an evaluation of those ghits. WjBscribe 16:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I put forth the following links (of more than 10,000 thanks to an independent google.com) from different sources for PISA in support for it being notable.

http://www.google.com.hk/search?num=100&hl=zh-TW&q=pisa+professional+information+security+association&btnG=%E6%90%9C%E5%B0%8B&meta=lr%3D

http://www.google.com.hk/search?num=100&hl=zh-TW&q=%E5%B0%88%E6%A5%AD%E8%B3%87%E8%A8%8A%E4%BF%9D%E5%AE%89%E5%8D%94%E6%9C%83&btnG=%E6%90%9C%E5%B0%8B&meta=lr%3Dlang_zh-T

I do appreciate your point of view and I'd further appreciate if you would attempt the following google link and search for our organization. It comes out with more than 10,000 links and citations from different sources after being established since 2001.

Mailcpathetsang Talk 01:09, 23 April 2007

  • Delete The first search is invalid because it doesn't use quotes, merely searching for pisa+professional+independent+security+association. This means that even inside the first 50 GHIts, the search is picking up irrelevant hits from combinations of those words. A more correct search, for PISA+"Professional Information Security Association" reveals just 179 unique hits [45]. Given this, the fact that no notability is claimed, and the complete lack of sources, I have to go with a delete, though I'm quite prepared to be proved wrong. EliminatorJR Talk 18:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to Delete User EliminatorJR's discusion on "correct search" is not the most correct because the acronym is included in the search. A better search should be performed using English and Chinese. It reveals 2,050 unique hits. About 30% of the name is cited in Chinese newspapers. [46] Nonetheless thanks to EliminatorJR for pointing out other forms of search under Googles which reveals a more realistic results. Mailcpathetsang Talk 11:28 pm 2007/4/24


  • Speedy Delete. It is the responsibility of the editors of an article to assert notability. This article makes no attempt to assert any kind of notability. This article is nothing more than spam for this association. The assertion that some number of g-hits makes something notable is not true. In any case, 180 hits supports a finding that this group is not notable. Vegaswikian 21:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to Delete Vegaswikian's reasoning ignored the definition of notability, which is "A topic is generally notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable. The depth of coverage and quality of sources must be considered in determining the number of sources required and whether the coverage establishes notability." [47] "Subjective evaluations are not relevant for determining whether a topic warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability criteria do not equate to personal or biased considerations, such as: "never heard of this", "an interesting article", "topic deserves attention", "not famous enough", "very important issue", "popular", "I like it", "only of interest to [some group]", etc." It is believed that Vegaswikian has other non-bias consideration for a speedy delete rather than a normal delete. It is appreciated that Vegaswikian could further prove this thought process on a logical basis. Mailcpathetsang Talk 1:31 2007/04/25
  • Not to Delete Vegaswikian's reasoning on spam is another example of labeling without justification. Wikipedia has its own definition, namely "There are three types of wikispam: advertisements masquerading as articles, wide-scale external link spamming, and "Wikipedian-on-Wikipedian" spamming or, "canvassing" (also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting"). Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website. However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities." [48] Neither the tone nor its content exhibits a tone of advertisements, not to mention a solicitation for a business (PISA is non-profit and has no business profit objective), sales-oriented (Vegaswikian fails to show any sales so far). In other words, Vegaswikian fails to show why a well-cited page (see above, 2,050 independent source) would still need further self-promotion of any sort. Lastly, PISA is an organization anti-spam, and its opinion has been submitted to an Office. [www.ofta.gov.hk/zh/report-paper-guide/paper/consultation/20041102/org/19.pdf] Mailcpathetsang Talk 1:31 2007/04/25
  • Not to Delete Again Vegaswikian's reasoning fails to update the latest link with more than 2000 articles showing up in google.com search. Referring to yahoo.com's site [49], Vegaswikian is welcome to enquire why yahoo.com would list PISA together with other information security organizations. Mailcpathetsang Talk 1:31 2007/04/25
  • Not to Delete Under these observations it is proposed that virtually all Vegaswikian's propositions listed here are merely hearsay [50] and much are advised laid on grounds without facts and supports, and possibly ad hominem. Mailcpathetsang Talk 1:31 2007/04/25


  • Delete not speedy because n is asserted. You can't get anywhere much by counting ghits. You have to look at them, so -- Looking at them, they seem almost exclusively repetitive directory information from local chambers of commerce. NN. DGG 04:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to Delete It is suggested that our wise DGG takes a closer look at the links cited. No. Not many of these links are of chambers of commerce in nature. Mailcpathetsang Talk 1:31 2007/04/25
  • The above covers roughly 1/4 of the unique citations. Mailcpathetsang Talk 1:31 2007/04/25
    • Mailcpathetsang refers to a list of citations that I have moved from here to the article (people should always look at an article before commenting on its deletion). Mailcpathetsang, although you can give additional reasons, repeating your opinion each time is not necessary. We get it. Gazpacho 07:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nebraska Cornhuskers Women's Soccer

Nebraska Cornhuskers Women's Soccer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable as a collegiate athletic group. The article talks about spring training for a season that has not yet occurred, and does not cite external sources to bolster notability. YechielMan 16:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 07:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 07:43Z

Destructive Forces

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

Fails notability guidelines for software (WP:SOFTWARE) and verifiability (WP:V). These concerns were raised in a prod, which was removed without comment. Previous to that edit, the page did include the statement "Because of the mod's sucess, it was placed Top 30 in ModDb's Top 100.", but I'm not convinced ModDb is a reliable source. Marasmusine 17:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, lacks context. Fram 09:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Azhakath Mahadeva Temple, Kulavanmokku, Kuzhalmannam - 678702

Azhakath Mahadeva Temple, Kulavanmokku, Kuzhalmannam - 678702 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This stub does not provide much context. It is poorly written and reads like something that came out of an online translator. I was unable to find anything online that could help expand this article. Nick—Contact/Contribs 18:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 07:44Z

Robin Hood: Return to Rottingham

Robin Hood: Return to Rottingham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It is pretty clear this is just something someone made up. Google searches for this title only result in the Wikipedia article in question, as the supposed movie does not even have an IMDb entry. Furthermore, most of the text in this article is lifted word-for-word from the article for The Dukes of Hazzard: The Beginning. It's obvious that without outside verification, this is just some fantasy created by a user.CatraDhtem 18:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and page redirected to Counter-Strike by User:Jestix. PeaceNT 14:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pubnub

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

Redirects to a deleted page. Decided for AfD instead of speedy because history contains some content. Jestix 18:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 07:46Z

Morgan-Manning House

Morgan-Manning House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested A7 speedy. I think the reasons pretty much speak for themselves on this one. I wish Mr. Broughton's 4th grade class all the best, but Wikipedia is not their personal web host - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep as the subject is listed in the National Register of Historic Places, a sure sign of notability, and the only two who had favored deletion have since withdrawn that position. Burntsauce 17:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 07:47Z

Narcolasticism

Narcolasticism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:N45201025 30668139 7046.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Almost certainly a hoax - 0 Ghits, the tone of the article has a distinct whiff of hoaxery and the image is a blatant joke photo - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 15:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triclavianism

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

Not notable. The article consists of a definition of Triclavianism, the assertion that the number of nails used to crucify Jesus has been debated for centuries (but not that this debate is of any great importance, or that the belief in three was ever popular or significant), and also a long quotation from a single book that itself only established that some people believed this, but does not say why this should be significant. The Storm Surfer 19:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable. The quotation does a good job of explaining why the matter was debated, and why it is important. As the quotation indicates, St. Francis of Assisi, a major figure in the history of the Catholic Church and an ally of Pope Innocent III, had stigmata from four nails. Innocent's enemies wanted to discredit St. Francis, and did so in part by promoting Triclavianism. Although the article doesn't mention it, there is also an art history angle to this. Over the centuries artists portraying the Crucifixion have gradually changed from using two to three and now four nails. Thus the fact that a religious painting uses a triclavianist (as opposed to biclavianist or quadriclavianist) depiction gives a valuable clue to when it was painted. Andrel 21:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, my primary rational is based on what i've already noted on the article talk page, in summary, the author of the quotation in the article appears to be the only highly notable source that is verifiable who uses this term, the Catholic Encyclopedia external link doesn't use the word, the google search offered on the talk page isn't for the same word, the only other halfway notable sources i've seen for this term are a parody website and Stormfront.org, and because this single author being quoted appears to be the only really notable person who uses the term, I think this article fails the spirit of WP:NEO, while one notable and verifiable source seems to use the term, that person seems to be pretty much the end of it. Homestarmy 23:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) has an entry on triclavianism. It is a real word, albeit obscure. Furthermore, as demonstrated by the websites you cite, the word is still in modern use. Andrel 13:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the websites I cite were cited by myself because they are not very notable websites in and of themselves for this topic. (And because they seemed to be basically the only two) Homestarmy 14:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the websites themselves are notable is a red herring. There are many technical terms in Wikipedia which one would be hard-pressed to find on any "notable" websites. --joXn 20:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the websites themselves are notable is not a red herring. (See how easy and fun it is to make blanket accusations about people's comments? :D ) Technical terms on Wikipedia that do not have notability to them should be deleted, their existance simply means the process is not 100 percent effective at deleting 100 percent of deletable articles 100 percent of the time. Even if they do have notability, if they are just dictionary definitions, they certainly fail WP:NOT a dictionary, no matter how notable they are, and should be transcluded to Wiktionary. Homestarmy 00:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the argument that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" seems a little specious. The point is that the word is notable enough to have made it into the premier English-language historical dictionary. Granted, the purpose of an encyclopedia is a more thorough explanation of a concept than a mere dictionary entry, and granted, this article does not yet have such an explanation, nevertheless there is more to the concept than the mere definitional "The belief that Christ was crucified with only three nails". As mentioned below, this means only that the article is currently a stub. --joXn 20:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Andrel's initial counter-argument consisted entirely of "It's in a dictionary, it must be notable enough to keep on Wikipedia.", and going on that alone, I saw little recourse but to mention WP:NOT a dictionary. I already gave my hand at looking for more on this topic to expand the article with and came up with what I wrote on the talk page, and as far as I know, there is nothing more notable to this concept than a single author's mention of the word. Homestarmy 00:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Both the iconological and the theological aspects are of historic importance; that these questions may not seem to be of much importance to some of us now is just an indicator of presentism. DGG 04:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The article could be more expansive on the theological and art-historical applicability of the concept of "triclavianism", but that just means that it is a stub. The concept itself is interesting and of historical importance. --joXn 20:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This may seem like just being silly, but now I feel compelled to call your attention to WP:INTERESTING, though of course if the term's historical importance could be demonstrated, (One long quote from but a single historian and no sources which could be trusted much on history doesn't seem very important to me) then the article should indeed probably be kept. Homestarmy 00:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. I see that this article is subject to content disputes, which might better be addressed by the mediation cabal. Non-admin closure. YechielMan 01:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

72 Virgins

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

The article uses primary sources that is Quran, and Hadith to make a point. Even if sources could be found it is not evident to me that this subject even needs an article. In case we think that subject is encyclopedic then he could recreate article with secondary sources later. Current POV filled unsource, disputed article should be deleted. ALM 19:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While it is mainly primary sources, it seems there are a couple secondary sources whch are reliable. An encyclopediac article could come out of it with time. The topic is clearly encyclopediac and notable. Consitering the article is less than a month old, I think we should give it some more time to develop.--Sefringle 20:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly reverting to this version which seems the last not tainted by edit-warring. I don't see a problem with citing primary sources in this context, since all the article is using them for is "this is what the Quran says and here is the chapter & verse", rather than attempting an OR analysis of them. Even if it's not really what Muslims believe etc etc the fact that some people think they do and why is what this article's about (in the same way that we have an article on Well poisoning) - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no prohibition on the usage of primary sources. Beit Or 20:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it is discouraged.--Sefringle 20:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong speedy Keep: This is another attempt to censor information. "72 virgins" is a very notable term in the media. Everyone knows about the term (200,000 hits in Google). Infact if you were to ask anyone on the street some of the things they know about Islam or found interesting to hear about, one of the things they would probably say is "whats up with the 72 virgins thing?" If you have concerns about OR, you should discuss that on the articles page. And as people said, its ok to use primary sources. The fact is that after I introduced the sourced statement that Quran mentions "women with big breasts", this article has become an issue. It was untouched before. Facts are facts, sorry. People want to know about the 72 virgins and we should improve this article instead of trying to brush the subject under the carpet. Unsourced? POV? I dont think so. Why dont you take these claims up on the Talk page of the article instead of just getting deleted. Now we'll see huge edit wars going on in this little article after this AfD fails. AfD'ing it was "lets just try to get it deleted first". As we can see now, doing things like this only causes more focus on the article so its good in a way. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep KazakhPol 23:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep .Quite notable and perMatt57 -- Shyamsunder 11:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Speedy Keep Having only primary sources is not grounds for deletion. As far as unsourced, this article is rather well referenced. SirBob42 00:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Heath, Texas. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 07:48Z

Rockwall Heath High School

Rockwall Heath High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable — Kpalion(talk) 19:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 15:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Max Karson

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

Yet another bio related to the Virginia Tech massacre. This article is about a student from Colorado who got arrested after allegedly mouthing off in class that he "would be capable of killing 32 people" following with "if anyone in here says they've never been so angry that you wanted to kill 32 people, you're lying." While interesting, we don't need an encyclopedia article about every kid that's ever shot their mouth off in class. BigDT (416) 19:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The notability of this subject is so marginal as to border on a case of briefly-compromised anonymity. I support the call for deletion as per WP:N.--Dynaflow 19:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I greatly sympathize with all of the victims and families of this shameful incident, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Ali 19:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, this person is not even a victim. He's just some college student who got suspended for saying something grossly impolitic about the VT shooting. His primary involvement, and indeed his secondary involvement, in anything of remote significance is approximately nil.--Dynaflow 19:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah ... I was just about to say that. I'm sorry if my nomination made it sound like this was a victim - this is about a student from Colorado. I have reworded the nomination to make that clear. --BigDT (416) 19:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Woah, woah, woah. Did you read the entire article? E.g. the parts the come before his arrest for making inappropriate comments in class? The controversy over his newspaper was big news in Boulder for a long time. Moreover, see WP:NOTE, Notability is NOT SUBJECTIVE. If someone becomes notable for whatever reason, they are still notable. -- Craigtalbert 20:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is not just another "Virginia Tech massacre bio" though I'll agree it is the largest part of the article. But the subject has been written about in reliable sources before over The Yeti and The Crux. This meets the criteria in WP:NOTE. Is substantial as the source material covers the topic in sufficient detail, there are multiple sources, source material is credible and reliable. There's much more than what I cited in the article, see google news archive results. It took me six hours to do the research and writing for the article and I'll be very angry if you axe all of it for excessively emotional reasons. I wouldn't have written it if it didn't meet notability requirements. -- Craigtalbert 19:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We will similarly try to not factor in your apparent stong emotions about the article. As for the Google test: In some cases, articles have been kept with Google hit counts as low as 15 and some claim that this undermines the validity of the Google test in its entirety. The Google test has always been and very likely always will remain an extremely inconsistent tool, which does not measure notability. It is not and should never be considered definitive.--Dynaflow 20:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, my "apparent strong emotions" about the article? If you spent as much time on a wikipedia article, on a topic that is more than notable, and it got axed because of other editors proprietary emotions on the topic, wouldn't that make you a little upset? Don't talk down to me. The article meets all the requirements in WP:NOTE, the google test isn't perfect but in this case it is further evidence in it's favor. You haven't produced a shred of evidence against it's notability except your own judgment. Yes, that makes me angry, and it's wrong. -- Craigtalbert 20:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was referencing this statement: "I'll be very angry if you axe all of it for excessively emotional reasons." Neither anger nor excessive emotions should come into play here. Your personal investment of time has nothing to do with whether an article is notable or not. We want to be objective here.--Dynaflow 20:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, they shouldn't be apparently they are -- on both sides. So, let's get back to the basics of notability. If you don't trust google news archive, then do the search on highbeam or lexis-nexis a la carte. Reliable sources are reliable sources. Multiple sources are multiple sources. You still haven't produced a shred of evidence otherwise. You don't get to ignore WP:NOTE, or pretend it say something it doesn't, just because it doesn't support your point of view. -- Craigtalbert 20:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My main objection is that this is pure recentism and its already low significance will most likely fade even more over time. The article also suffers from a local myopia. If the article could be rewritten in such a fashion that the lasting significance of this person in a context meaningful to users of Wikipedia is made clear, I wouldn't object to it. the problem is, I can see no way that can be accomplished. Voltaire couldn't make this guy seem significant beyond Boulder, and perhaps not even in it.--Dynaflow 20:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't read WP:RECENT before, and I agree according to the definitions in the essay, this article does have a lot of "recentism." But, as the essay points out, WP:RECENT is not a guideline, and is not sufficient reason to delete an article. Maybe Max Karson is significant outside of Boulder, but there is nothing in the notability requirements about that. I don't know why you're pointing out things that aren't guidelines and even if they were aren't sufficient reason for deletion in AfD nomination discussion. Maybe you can explain that to me? -- Craigtalbert 21:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My main objection is the recentism; my criteria for judging whether the article suffers from a recentism bias is WP:N, and specifically WP:BIO.--Dynaflow 21:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe you understand WP:BIO and WP:NOTE better than I do. I've been editing wikipedia for awhile now, and I feel like I have a pretty good grasp on them, and like I said, if the article didn't meet the requirements in both of them I wouldn't have wasted the better part of a day on it, and a few hours on it now. So, could you kindly point out the contradictions between this article and WP:BIO and WP:NOTE so I don't make the same mistake again? -- Craigtalbert 21:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete this is ridiculous. If we had an entry on every schoolkid who got in trouble for acting like an idiot, we'd be up to ten billion pages by now. "The Yeti & Crux controversy" are nothing of the sort, they're a minor spat about a kid getting in trouble at school with no significant coverage - those "references" are to the schools website and the student law centre (and incidentally, are dated in the future). The only part of this whole saga with any non-trivial coverage is the Virginia Tech bit, and I'll bet nobody except his family and his principal even remember the story now three days later. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WHAT? The controversy over The Yeti was covered in The Rocky Mountain News (three times), The Colorado Daily, The Westword, The Daily Camera and Salon.com. Now, maybe you don't know how to use wikipedia real well, but each of those newspapers have wikipedia articles, and you'll notice that none of them are "references to school websites." -- Craigtalbert 20:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correction then - the references are to the school's own website, the student law centre, a local paper, two local freesheets and a website who's lead stories today are "I like to watch The Apprentice" and "The best wet-battered fried chicken in New Orleans". I can provide far better sources for a story about a man who has sex with goats or a bird being eaten by another bird; that doesn't mean I think they pass WP:N. Show me a single piece of evidence that anyone outside Boulder has ever cared about this kid - or that anyone in Boulder is still talking about this now, three days later - and I'll reconsider. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the pigeoniverous pelican doesn't have its own Wikipedia article? That story was absolutely HUGE after DrudgeReport ran it on a slow news day.--Dynaflow 21:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make. The Rocky Mountain News and the Westword are published state-wide. Unless you're trying to say newspapers in Colorado don't count or something like that? If a newspaper ever writes an article about something that isn't of the utmost importance to the state of the world that it doesn't matter? Maybe you can explain to me what you're getting at. To address your second point, he was publishing the The Crux in Amherst, which seems to be significant enough to show that people outside of Boulder "cared" about him. If that's not, then if you do a Google News Search on "Max Karson" you'll see his story has been published by the Boston Herald, Daily Hampshire Gazette, First Amendment Center, KVUE, The Jawa Report , St. Petersburg Times, WDBJ, The Seattle Times, Inside Higher Ed, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and Cybercast News Service. So, it seems pretty clear to me people care about him outside of Boulder. Can I prove that people in Boulder are still talking about this three days later? I'm not sure how I would do that. If you give me your telephone phone number maybe I can have some people I know in Boulder call you. I can tell you there are plenty of people talking about it on the CU Boulder campus. How else would you expect me to go about this? -- Craigtalbert 21:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For a similar debate on a not-quite-unrelated subject that covers many of the same points as this discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sun-Kyung Cho [EDIT], which started, with discussion that is also germane forthis AfD, here: Talk:Sun-Kyung Cho.
In this case this is either whole thing is either a complete waste of my time, or I'm correct in believing that editors are trying to have this article deleted for their own proprietary reasons. Not only have I wasted close to eight hours now on the research, writing, and subsequent debate on the topic, the people disagreeing with me claim to know more about wikipedia guidelines than I do, and won't explain where I'm wrong (if I am). I've made my point, no one has pointed out anything from the guidelines showing this article isn't right by WP:NOTE and WP:BIO. If your motivations for wanting this article deleted can be explained in terms of wikipedia guidelines, I would appreciate a quick write-up about them in my talk page. Finals are coming up and I'm not going to waste any more of my time on this debate. -- Craigtalbert 22:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to pry, but do you personally know the subject of this article?--Dynaflow 21:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. I am a CU Boulder student, but I've never met him. When discussing his recent arrest with other students, staff, and faculty, it seemed that no one (including me) knew the facts of leading up to and surrounding it real well. So, I decided I'd do the leg work and condense the relevant information in to a wikipedia article, as it more than met the guidelines for one. -- Craigtalbert 22:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, it wasn't all that notable on campus, from what you're saying. 132.205.44.134 15:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't see how that is relevant. Our decision whether to keep or delete this article is not based on whether the individual is known about on campus, it is based on the Wikipedia notability criteria. Adambro 16:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Recentism with no long-term ramifications or true relation to the Virginia Tech massacre. If any mention were necessary at all, a single sentence in that article would suffice. --Mhking 21:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BIO. This person "has been the subject of [multiple] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". Adambro 22:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Adambro TJIC 01:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete seems like the whole article is here just to promote the guy. I mean, do you know how many nutjobs shoot off their mouths and create a whole fury about it being a "free speech issue", especially at college campuses? Do you know how many people, especially at colleges, "publish" their own "underground newspapers"? What's the circulation of those "publications"? I don't see anything particularly notable about this person or any of the so-called publications he created. Tejastheory 00:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No, I have no idea how many "nutjobs" "shoot of their mouths" and "publish" "undergroun newspapers." I don't know that you do either, and since the significant of this article is related to that, you shouldn't pose that question rhetorically. At least this "nutjob" seems to have a lot of people supporting him (see: technorati stats, and blogpuse stats). Moreover, the criteria for inclusion in wikipedia has nothing to do with your opinion's about the topic of the article, and everything to do with WP:NOTE and WP:BIO (which this passes). -- Craigtalbert 00:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above arguments. --Oreo Priest 01:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep first of all, notable nutjobs are notable, and much of the news and their interest and present day notability of people could be seen as falling into that general category. Major national newspapers report what is notable to their readers. In borderline cases we can inquire whether it is or is not a major story, but this is not a borderline case. I am not sure of the reason for the attempt to remove the articles about individuals involved in these events. My instinct was strongly in the other direction, and I do not think of myself as particularly sentimental. Are we trying to prove the high quality of WP by rejecting anything that might be considered sensationalism? Frankly, that is hopeless, WP is a representative of the common components of our culture, whatever they may be. DGG 05:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Not a victim of violence, just of zero-tolerance. Numerous well publicized incidents, several newspaper articles about different controversial speeches or writings over an extended time and in different parts of the country. Comment Please use the name= technique in the inline references so the same sources do not get repeatedly listed in the reference list. Edison 05:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was wondering how to do that. I named all the references. I'm not sure if I did it the most correct way. If there's documentation on this (I searched and didn't find any) let me know. -- Craigtalbert 07:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I teach at a university on the other side of the country from Boulder. Since this story broke I've googled Karson's name every day to find out the latest. In addition to this case's obvious relevance to the (1) First Amendment, the Karson fiasco has wider implications regarding (2) the potential abuse of power by college administrators, and (3) academic freedom, which some might argue includes the right for students to question normative opinions. After the shootings, most instructors initially encouraged honesty and openness in classroom discussions about Virginia Tech. The classroom was a "safe space" where no single opinion/emotion was privileged as "right" or denounced as "wrong." For many of us, the freedom to speak openly about our emotions was an important component to the healing process. Nobody went so far as to support the killer; but some empathized with his pain and loneliness; others said they'd decided to be more sensitive in the future toward social outcasts like Cho Seung-Hui. The tone completely changed, however, when Karson was arrested. Not wanting to be the next arrest victim, students and professors reverted obediently to reiterating the politically correct, "Fuck Cho Seung-Hui" attitude. Karson's situation opens the book on a whole new set of questions: Can professors still allow critical thought? Are all ideas equal, or are some more equal than others? Should we encourage dissent, or should we fear its consequences? In the post-911 era of surveillance and zero tolerance, how can we protect the Max Karson's of the world from being too radical, or from simply saying the wrong thing at the wrong time? These are important issues, and I can assure you people are talking about them a thousand miles from Boulder. That said, I do advocate making some major changes to the article. The only thing newsworthy about Karson is his arrest following the Va Tech massacres. We don't need to know where he went to high school, or the nature of his pissing contests there. We don't even need to know about 'The Yeti' except for its suggested connection to his being arrested. Obviously, more needs to be added to the article as the story develops. I could see the Karson case going all the way to the Supreme Court, but I could also see it fizzling out in 2 weeks. Let's keep the article concise until we know the case's outcome, at which point expand it we can revisit deletion.M. Frederick 10:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. It's fine that you're interested in the case, your just because you're interested does not make the subject notable. It's also fine that you think the case may one day go to the Supreme Court but understand that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If and when the case goes to the Supreme Court, we can revisit adding an article for Mr. Karson and/or the Supreme Court case. --Crunch 00:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WP:NOTE. Coverage by multiple reliable independent sources has been clearly established here. Jpo 14:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let's not allow our vision to be fogged by recentism. This character is a non-notable publicity seeker of no interest or merit. His fifteen minutes is just about up. BTLizard 14:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Notability is permanent, not temporary. As I said in my previous comment, this person meets the notability criteria set out in WP:BIO. I'd also highlight that the references goes back to 2002. Adambro 15:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am in agreement with the points detailed by M. Frederick above, and as such I won't repeat them. The relevance of the article is to the circumstances and specifics of how Karson is being handled, not the man himself. resonance 18:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the Comment from the deletion log, it looks like no one ever created an article for Nicholas Winset [52]. So, maybe you could explain why that is relevant to the status of this article? -- Craigtalbert 00:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Recentism" is not a guideline and is not sufficient cause for deleting an article. Please see WP:RECENT. -- Craigtalbert 00:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not long-term notable, minor appearance in media related to a major event does not qualify. Perhaps reduce to one or two sentences in the "response" section of Virginia Tech shootings. Sad mouse 23:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see any of these requirements mentioned in WP:NOTE or WP:BIO. Perhaps I'm missing them and you could point them out to me? -- Craigtalbert 00:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We went over this for every victim, some people wanted each to have their own page, but since their notability is restricted to the event, that is a more appropriate place. Likewise, while this guy is semi-notable, really it is just the event he is associated with that is notable. Sad mouse 00:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again. Karson meets the requirements in WP:NOTE, and WP:BIO — he is not semi-notable, he is notable according to those guidelines. I have not see anyone cite a wikipedia policy that says otherwise. Unlike the victims of VTM, it does not contradict other wikipedia official policies such as WP:MEMORIAL. Creating a wikipedia page for this guy doesn't mean that "we" are some how saying he's "good." All I've tired to do with this article is get people the facts about a notable person in a controversial situation. If you think there's POV, or would like to trim the article down, those are all good discussions to have — and I would appreciate the help and collaboration. But policies are policies and guidelines are guidelines. -- Craigtalbert 04:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He possibly meets the requirements (which is what I mean by semi-notable) - the only criteria which he could meet is that of multiple independent media reports, he fails all other criteria (which is fine, you only need to meet one criteria). My concern is that the subject of the media reports is actually the Virginia Tech shootings and not Karson. Using the example of the many victims who made the media multiple times because of the shooting, we decided that the subject of those media reports was the shooting and the victim was not the subject, so only those with external notability (eg the academics) kept their own article. So my position is to delete unless there are multiple non-trivial independent reports about Karson that do not involve the shooting. As a side note, I think you would be better off treating this discussion less personally, it certainly does not mean that your work is not appreciated. Sad mouse 20:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With due respect, those who continue comparing Karson's newsworthiness to that of the VT victims appear to be unfamiliar with the recent debates surrounding academic freedom. Academic freedom is defined as "the freedom of teachers, students, and academic institutions to pursue knowledge wherever it may lead, without undue or unreasonable interference." The Karson case marks a rare instance in which a student was arrested for comments made in a classroom. These developments have implications for the First Amendment, and for whether or not freedom of speech in the United States applies to educational settings. My point is that Karson's arrest represents more than simply a subplot to the VT massacres and is relevant irrespective of the subject of his rants. It seems that many folks from the "Strong Delete" camp are wary of rewarding Karson's apparent cry for attention with further publicity. I understand and share these concerns, and will join in voicing them on the discussion page. M. Frederick 04:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, he was mentioned in the Rocky Mountain News, which is a "local" paper, though it is also distributed in Wyoming, and some other surrounding states, from what I've heard. But, you're right, if it wasn't for the 100+ other sources he's been mentioned in, that wouldn't be enough to pass WP:NOTE. -- Craigtalbert 01:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did you notice that almost all of your "100+ other sources" are from papers near his college in Colorado or from his hometown in Amherst, Massachusetts? This is recentism and localism being confused for significant notability. --Crunch 10:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are there wikipedia guidelines on localism? I looked and couldn't find any. WP:RECENT hasn't changed since I last read it — it's not a guideline, and if it was, it's not a sufficient argument for deletion. I would expect that there would be more media coverage in Colorado and Massachusetts for the reasons you gave. Either way, still passes WP:NOTE, WP:BIO. -- Craigtalbert 00:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas lengyel

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

Information in article fails WP:ATT. Even then I think subject would not meet guidelines in WP:BIO. Nv8200p talk 19:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ragnarok Online. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-27 11:08Z

Rogue (Ragnarok Online)

Rogue (Ragnarok Online) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a game guide. This content would be better if were moved to the StrategyWiki. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 20:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ragnarok Online. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-27 11:08Z

Thief (Ragnarok Online)

Thief (Ragnarok Online) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a game guide. This content would be better if were moved to the StrategyWiki. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 20:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 07:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but take info out of article and put into Ragnarok Online. This article is NOT a game guide, just because it deals with a game, does not mean it's a guide. I read the article (takes like 1-2 minutes) and it was in NO WAY coming across as a guide. However, it's just too short and unneccesary. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 16:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 07:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Robot

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

Tagged with {{notability}} since january, and article does in general not assert notability. Was created by a user called jensrobot (talk · contribs), and does not appear to satisfy WP:MUSIC. He does not appear to have any releases on other labels than the one he started (Illphabetik.com), and have so far only released his music free on the internet. Also couldn't find any publications to support any claims towards notability. Delete. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 20:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Virginia Tech massacre List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. --Coredesat 07:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reema Samaha

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

Another Virginia Tech massacre bio. I suggest, in the interest of keeping this topic area presentable and not having xFD templates all over everywhere a speedy/snowy delete if everyone is agreeable to it. BigDT (416) 20:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 07:49Z

Nooner

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

Even if it is a real product, it sure isn't notable. No articles link to the page and it doesn't cite any sources. TheOtherSiguy 21:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Quirk

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

Municipal politician who attracts virtually no press coverage. Does not meet WP:BIO. Lincolnite 21:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed for deletion. Unnecessary page - suggest local politician using to show he has an "entry" on wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VirtuosoRusty (talk • contribs).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 07:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Takeover Radio

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

This article concerns a local radio station in the UK, or a "Community Licensed Radio Station". The station appears to broadcast children-produced content. The article includes a complete programming schedule, and now several of the "DJs" from the station are beginning to write articles on themselves. I'm uncertain how significant this station is in the UK, and hope to solicit input from native contributors. Clearly, the article needs cleanup; until verfication of its notability exists, Delete'. Xoloz 21:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_April_22&oldid=124969239"