Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 29

< June 28	June 30 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 07:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Hoag

Non notable wrestler, PROD contested. Darrenhusted 10:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Darrenhusted 11:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Worked for one of the two biggest wrestling companies in the world, made several PPV apperances - that he's unsourced is a different issue all together, it's easily verifiable that he wrestled for WCW and made several apperances in a non-jobber role. MPJ-DK 12:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ice Train is notable, pure and simple. --DanZero 15:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ice Train was certainly no jobber (heck, there over 400 unique G-hits), although his career was relatively short and he wasn't a headliner. He's at least as notable as your one-game pro player, whom WP:BIO entitles to an article. RGTraynor 15:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the above reasons. Callelinea 16:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:BIO as is suffiently well known --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was on several episodes of a national TV show, which makes him more then notable. Kris 18:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If someone adds some refs I'll withdraw the nom. Darrenhusted 21:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs to be sourced, but he was a mid-carder for WCW (one of the 2 biggest wrestling organizations in the world) for several years. TJ Spyke 23:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anas ^talk? 17:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Midgard in popular culture

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smilodon in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Strangelove in popular culture etc. Punkmorten 10:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge anything useful into Midgard Lurker 11:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, makes no attempt to inform us on the topic and is just a list of appearances. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then find out the culprits and delete them too: Oh my freaking god, "Midgard" in pop culture? Just another portmanteau of unrelated and obscure trivia, important to no one. Can we just do a blanket delete on every Wikipedia article with "in popular culture" in the title? For every one usable article that gets thrown out, a thousand worthless ones will go away. RGTraynor 15:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 18:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a directory of loosely associated topics. The items on this list have nothing in common past happening to have somthing in them called "Midgard." This tells us nothing about the items on the list, the topic of "Midgard" or the real world. Otto4711 12:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki 12:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vilayna

Doesnt seem notable enough. Only a handful Ghits, that too mostly user generated content. Originally speedied, but restored on request to list for discussion. soum ^talk 09:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as I think to recall that this model has done more publications and also has taken part in music videos I'll try to find referenced information to update the article. The IMDb resume lists several print, film, video appearances, which of course will have to be sourced. Optimale ^Gu 14:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, needs to be re-written, stating more of her notable achievments. Callelinea 16:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. As an actress, the major roles aren't there. Of the rest, the Muscle and Fitness piece impresses me most, but isn't enough. --Groggy Dice T | C 13:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although nothing major yet, great variety of appearances in TV, film, music video and printed media. Optimale ^Gu 09:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qst 15:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable sources. Vegaswikian 02:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - References by secondary sources in the article indicate notablity and passes WP:BIO. --Oakshade 03:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7 (no indication of notability), borderline g1 (nonsense). NawlinWiki 11:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy the Gypsy

Zero Google hits. Very possibly a hoax. Anas ^talk? 09:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonsense, with no context, could have speedy'd--Jac16888 09:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Definitely a hoax, seems to be something made up in school or work one day, not a single source or actual information to make it satisfy the notability guideline. The Sunshine Man 10:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 08:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bald faced stag

Nothing to indicate notability above any of the hundreds of eighteenth-century pubs all over the UK; if it can't stand alongside establishments listed in Notable British public houses (notable in that famous people are associated with them in some way, have been established for a particularly long time, etc.), I can't see the value of a Wikipedia article. ~Matticus ^T_C 09:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable in any particular way. Sparky 12:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Prominent (TQ2789) pub but no notability claimed in this write up. -- RHaworth 16:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neil ╦ 11:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Leigh

Non-notable fandom personality DasGreggo 09:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)DasGreggo — DasGreggo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - Notable in the cosplay world which is very big in Japan and Brazil. Outside of two article talk pages and their own talk page the nom has never made edits outside this topic.[1] --Oakshade 16:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Who cares about her outside of the cosplay world? I have a good friend who I care about as well. He is notable to me, my other friends, and the people who go to our school. Does that mean I should write an article about him on Wikipedia? --Potato dude42 01:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:BIO. One would think if she was genuinely notable in the cosplay world, she'd have more than 89 Google hits ("Cynthia Leigh" + "cosplay") [2], where such searches overwhelmingly favor subjects with technological fanbases. She was thoughtful enough to give her deviantART profile, which only has 4,000 pageviews; an astonishingly low total for a three year old DA account, where popular cosplayers with active works routinely reach a hundred thousand page views or more. There are likewise only 96 Google hits for her "clothing line" [3]. I'm sure that there are a couple cosplay boards and conventions where this gal is a Big Name Fan, but that doesn't translate into notability. Ravenswing 18:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:03, 4 July 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 16:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article fails to state what makes her particularly notable as a cosplayer - indeed, the stated fact that she is apparently only 'semi-professional', and has various other jobs as well, suggests that she isn't. The references aren't particularly useful here - they include her own blog. In the absence of any obvious notability, this should be deleted. Terraxos 00:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add cleanup tags. I'd also like to request a checkuser on the nom as it's edit history, or lack thereof, is rather odd. Jtrainor 10:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just out of curiosity, how do you feel that's pertinent to the nomination? Ravenswing 12:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sock-puppet, particuarly relavent during AfD debates.--Oakshade 15:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, basically. I could be wrong, but better safe than sorry. If it is a sock puppet, not like the page can't be renomed by someone else, after all. Jtrainor 17:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets aren't illegal, per se; it's the use of them in impermissible ways which is the problem. This isn't obviously a bad-faith nomination, and it isn't as if there's a string of SPAs involved in the discussion. Ravenswing 17:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even just one possible SPA should be noted. There doesn't have to be "a string of SPAs" for editors to take note.--Oakshade 18:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, not a sockpuppet. I'm a "big name fan" much like this person, and I've asked the people of the convention where I'm a "big name fan" at *not* to make a Wikipedia entry for me, because I'm not notable. Neither is this person. DasGreggo 06:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)DasGreggo[reply]

Delete Non-notable and fails WP:BIO. --Potato dude42 01:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ck lostsword•T•C 23:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Vietnamese Youth Organizations

this article is a total cut-and-paste of a single section of History of Overseas Vietnamese Youth Organizations, with no new info Chris 09:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:05, 4 July 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 16:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It appears this article was created first, then most of the content was moved to History of Overseas Vietnamese Youth Organizations, leaving the stub article we see here. The remaining information should be deleted as well and the page merged into History of Overseas Vietnamese Youth Organizations. Terraxos 23:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination Recurring dreams 13:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Twenty Years 15:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farmer Boys

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus seems solid, notes failure of WP:BIO. Cheers, Wily D 18:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Genovese

1. non notable person 2. this page appears to be an advertisement of some sort (see history) Kripto 08:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A candidate for a state senate seat is notable Lurker 12:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No they're not. Merely standing for office isn't enough if there's nothing else there. Nick mallory 12:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Running for state office is not, by itself, enough for notability. The page was created by someone very close to the campaign, and had severe WP:COI issues before it was stubbed yesterday. But in general, not notable, IMHO. - TexasAndroid 12:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, needs to be re-written and more sources.. If she is a candidate, she should have articles written about her. If it was written by someone on her campaign, they need to be fired, article doesn't make me any more likely to vote for her.. This discussion is larger then her entry. Callelinea 16:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They're talking about this version. Morgan Wick 16:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm sorry, but this is a prima facie failure of WP:BIO. Politicians get a pass if they "... have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and [are] members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures." It's long been held that mere candidates are not in of themselves notable, unless they pass WP:BIO on other grounds. What in this subject's resume does that? RGTraynor 18:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Someone holding a statewide or higher office is at the very least debatable, by virtue of their office and by the fact it's likely to generate enough news and information from a variety of sources to base an article on. A mere candidate with nothing else going for him or her? No. --Calton | Talk 23:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, it's not debatable. WP:BIO clearly states that members of national, state, and provincial legislatures are always considered notable. --Charlene 12:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia precedent is that mere candidates for office (except for national leadership roles such as president and prime minister) are not notable simply because they're candidates. --Charlene 12:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - merging can still be done by editors if they obtain consensus on the relevant pages. No problems with self-reference, as discussed. Cheers, Wily D 14:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China

This is likely to be a contentious deletion, but I believe this page goes against the spirit of WP:ASR. I don't know that Wikipedia is any more notable than any other site censored by the Chinese government, making this an unnecessary fork of Internet censorship in mainland China. It doesn't help that the page has apparent OR (the "Third block" section has no sources except links to Chinese Wikipedia that lack the external link icon, violating WP:ASR) and POV (the "First block" and "Reaction" sections especially) problems. Please don't give me WP:EFFORT arguments. Morgan Wick 08:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The blocking of Wikipedia in China has been covered by lots of mainstream sources [4] and is an important part of the wider story of the communist dictatorship's efforts to suppress freedom of speech and information. It's notable because Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia used by millions, is the best and most egregious example of this censorship. Here's an article on the BBC about it [5]. Here's one from the New York Times [6]. There's this story from the International Herald Tribune repeating the NYT piece. [7]. This is from CBS News in the USA [8] and this from Reuters in Canada [9] Heck, it's even covered by those lovely people at Al Jazeera [10]. Certainly looks something of international significance and interest to me. If that article needs improving then it can be improved but deleting it because it has POV problems in your opinion is not a valid reason at all. These sources have been added to the entry. Nick mallory 12:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This block (i.e. of Wikipedia specifically in its English and Chinese versions) has been big international news for years already. There has to be a way to avoid ridiculous AFDs like this one in the first place. Perhaps no AFD should be allowed if it isn't discussed first on the talk page? Dovi 13:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this needless content fork after merging any useful info with Internet censorship in mainland China. Not really notable enough to stand on its own, and the majority of the sourcing is to blogs and wikipedia's own village pump conversations. Tarc 14:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Inclusion of articles in Wikipedia should be judged by notablility, not WP:ASR or the like. Otherwise even articles like Wikipedia or Jimbo Wales could not exist. Notability of this article is achieved by having multiple reliable sources. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 14:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick question, then. Are there other web sites that might deserve a "Blocking of X in mainland China" article? And I haven't looked at any of those sources, but do any of them say that it is "the best and most egregious example of this censorship"? Because that sounds like a pro-Wikipedia POV to me. It just seems a bit too convenient that the one notable specific example of web-site-blocking is the one on the site that's doing the covering. Morgan Wick 16:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, by the same way, this AfD sounds like a pro-Chinese Government POV to me. The reason why there are no other "Blocking of X in mainland China" articles is just that no one cares to create them (yet). If they have established notability then sooner or later somebody will create them. Also AfD appears to be the wrong place for discussion of this article (notability is established), "Merge" might be a much better place.--:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 15:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm basing this in Wikipedia's own policies. Please assume good faith. Morgan Wick 04:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I now try to make myself clear. Your two reasons of this AfD appears to be WP:ASR and WP:POV. In WP:ASR it suggests that ASRs should be marked but not necessarily be deleted. Besides, Wikipedia can write about Wikipedia. Obvious ASRs can be cleaned up manually. WP:POV (and also WP:OR) problems can also be fixed by cleaning up (or just simply removing the problematic part). Not all parts are affected. I'm not saying that this AfD is not following a correct procedure but it appears to be a bit redundant.--:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 09:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        But this is a special case. The existence of this page at least gives off the appearance of being itself POV, at least without corresponding pages on other such web sites. Morgan Wick 17:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I agree with the nominator. We could make an article like this for multiple websites. Merge with Internet censorship in mainland China. SU Linguist 17:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Internet censorship in mainland China.SU Linguist 16:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Delete and merge" raises GFDL concerns. Morgan Wick 17:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then delete per SU Linguist and Tarc. "Merge" is a not infrequent outcome; I think that admins have some way of merging histories as well, so the GFDL concerns should be handle-able. Carlossuarez46 18:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A merge/history merge/delete would not be done in this case. --- RockMFR 01:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: While I agree that WP:ASR isn't a valid ground here - like it or not, Wikipedia looms largely in the news, and if you want an example as to why, Google "Chris Benoit" right now - there probably isn't enough material to sustain an independent article. Ravenswing 19:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable subject in and of itself, or move back to Wikipedia:Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China. Either way, people can merge content to Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China at any time. --- RockMFR 20:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "We could make articles like this for multiple websites," yes, and if they are equally notable and have sources, so we should. DGG 00:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are 30 plus websites listed at List of notable websites blocked in the People's Republic of China, lots of them with multiple sources. The reason that Wikipedia has a page like that is because it doesn't make sense to make an article for "Blocking of Amnesty International in Mainland China," and "Blocking of CBS in mainland China," etc., for every blocked website. SU Linguist 02:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge into other articles. I hate to say it, but it doesn't provide any useful content, not to mention it's something that almost can't avoid NPOV. All the energy that's focused into this article would be better spent on articles about the PRC itself, or about the great firewall, or the history of wikipedia. --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 08:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please either say merge or delete; they are very different actions. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 15:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China,wikipedia is influential,but the blocking of wikipedia is not specially to wikipedia.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 09:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nick Mallory. FireSpike 00:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable event. jni 06:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, sufficiently well written and useful. enochlau (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Chinese govt's attempt to block Wikipedia are the second most notable internet censorship activities after its dealings with Google. Fig 09:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The China vs. Google and China vs. Wikipedia issues are fulcrums of history worth documenting. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.222.24.172 (talk)
Comment We do not have an article on China's dealings with Google other than Internet censorship in mainland China. Either we create one or we delete this one. Incidentially, if we created a bunch of articles for each web site that's been blocked by China there wouldn't be much left for Internet censorship in mainland China. Morgan Wick 16:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But... WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. enochlau (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the generic Internet censorship article, since this is clearly a part of a bigger issue and not a particularly atypical example of it - it just happens to be something that we have first-hand experience of. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Great Firewall. More relevant there. Kwsn^(Ni!) 18:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia is clearly the website of which the censoring has been most controversial, and it got by far the most coverage in news reports etc, compared to other websites. Sala Skan 11:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis is certainly notable enough to deserve it's own article instead of just a section in the censorship in China article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjs56 (talk • contribs)
Keep. This issue is sufficiently notable to warrant its own article due to its widespread coverage, and it is too large to merge into another article. Grand master ka 09:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anas ^talk? 17:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shaikeomra

Autobiography / advert for a non-notable painter, sculptor and writer. -- RHaworth 06:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, Crestainaa appears to be a sock of Shaikeomra. The closer should look into that. MartinDK 07:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per spam, should have speedy'd--Jac16888 09:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as nom. Should have been speedy. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reads like an advert. Jacek Kendysz 10:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletions. —Jacek Kendysz 10:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletions. -- Jacek Kendysz 10:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN Johnbod 22:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Silly, crappy --Attilios 23:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no way. Modernist 11:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 Sala Skan 11:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anas ^talk? 23:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna-Barbera's Batman universe

Delete article that imposes a universe built around a single character within one company's cartoons. The article assumes continuity between different HB series without justification or external verification. This is OR and would set a precedent leading to a proliferation of overlapping "universe" articles. We then get Hanna-Barbera's Superman universe, Aquaman's, Wonder Woman's, etc. Doczilla 06:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the same reasons I gave on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Burton's Batman universe nomination below (i.e. that this article is nothing more than information copied and pasted verbatim from other Wikipedia articles). --Hnsampat 11:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article fits within the context of the Alternate versions of Batman article. Plus, Batman and Robin appeared on The New Scooby-Doo Movies prior to Super Friends. Olan Soule and Casey Kasem did their voices on Scooby Doo also (as was the case of The Adventures of Batman animated series by Filmation). So in a way, there was already a canon to be built upon. If you're going to talk about an article that imposes a universe built around a single character..., then also criticize articles being devoted to the "DC animated universe." TMC1982 11:26 p.m. 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete No secondary sources to establish real world context. Jay32183 20:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Peter 11:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Camp Waziyatah

Contested prod, declined speedy. This summer camp was the setting for the first season of an early reality television show. I'm bringing it here for more discussion. No opinion yet. Chaser - T 04:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not establish notability per WP:NOTE, and also fails WP:ATT - the only vaguely notable fact is already mentioned in Bug Juice. EyeSerene^TALK 12:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into Bug Juice. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 05:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect to Bug Juice. There's little notability, but this will discourage recreation of something for which most of the sources relate to Bug Juice.--Chaser - T 22:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 01:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Mary (person)

Duplicates (poorly) Mary I of England. I don't see anything worth even merging into that article. BPMullins | Talk 04:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep with the proviso that it could be cleaned up, some content removed, etc. -- I am curious, did you even read the article? Much of the information has nothing to do with Mary I of England and does need a Wikipedia article, if not at that name, somewhere else. You can't just delete the rest of that information. DreamGuy 04:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This doesn't (yet) meet WP:SK, but can be speedy kept if the nominator withdraws and all opinions are for keep.--Chaser - T 04:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't even realize there was an official speedy keep designation these days... but I did hope that based upon my post that the nominating editor would admit to an error and withdraw his nomination. DreamGuy 06:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - FWIW, this nomination probably can be closed now as moot in any case. The nominated page is now a redirect, which are dealt with elsewhere if they are controversial, and most of the original page now stands at Bloody Mary (folklore). I think the redirect ought to be to Bloody Mary (disambiguation), myself. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think moving an article during a vote alone ends a deletion vote, otherwise things would fall apart. There is no [[Bloody Mary (disambiguation)], just Bloody Mary, which serves as a disambiguation page. I would think any article that links to Bloody Mary (person) would be to the ghost, but it certainly can be checked out and all the links pointed to the correct location. DreamGuy 20:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Correct. A page move changes the title but doesn't cause closure of a current deletion discussion. Folks at the disambig wikiproject might be willing to help with those links.--Chaser - T 17:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The epithet "Bloody Mary" starts with Mary I of England, since the sobriquet was first applied to her. But the bulk of the article does not have anything to do with the queen; the chief focus of the rest of the article is on Bloody Mary, the figure of folklore that inspired the Candyman movies and many similar supernatural dares. The article also briefly discusses the Bloody Mary cocktail, and various other fictional characters that have been called Bloody Mary, including the one in South Pacific. I may have originated this article, and have had a hand in editing it. - Smerdis of Tlön 04:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite to focus only on the supernatural Bloody Mary, merge any other content back to the relevant articles (on the Queen, the musical, the cocktail etc.) and move to Bloody Mary (ghost) or similar. This article is trying too hard to be an in-detail version of the already existant disambiguation page and needs to focus on just one Mary. Confusing Manifestation 04:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep An article entirely independent of Mary I of England, no grounds for deletion. The article is instead about the folkloric character, definitely meets the criteria for a Wikipedia page, although I would recommend a name change to Bloody Mary (folklore) in order to avoid similar confusions. Calgary 04:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spin off the Bloody Mary (folklore) and Bloody Mary (South Pacific character) into separate articles, add them to the disambiguation page at Bloody Mary, and delete the rest of the article. The folklore subject seems to be the sole subject of numerous academic articles in folklore studies.[11]. The South Pacific character is if I remember correctly one of the major characters in the book (I don't know about the movie or musical) and there also seem to be a number of academic articles about her (given the age of the book, popular articles about the character probably don't exist online). We don't need the rest of the cultural trivia, though, since none of the rest of it appears to pass WP:FICT, and without these two notable characters the rest of the article is either duplication of Mary I of England or non-notable trivia. --Charlene 04:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a page for the South Pacific character under Bloody Mary (South Pacific) Calgary 05:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even look there. Thanks. --Charlene 05:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- "Delete and merge" and variations such as this aren't possible under the terms of our site license, the GFDL.--Chaser - T 04:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Important Note I've edited the article to remove any reference to Queen Mary I or other people named Bloody Mary. The article now exclusively discusses the folkloric character, with a link to the disambiguation page. Calgary 04:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Did you move the page to Bloody Mary (folklore)? I'll go to the university library tomorrow and see if they have the journals in which the character from South Pacific is mentioned. I have a feeling she's notable as well as a cultural archetype, since in the first five pages there were three journal articles about her - unusual for a 20th century fictional character. --Charlene 04:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Bloody Mary (folklore). I recommend deletion of Bloody Mary (person) as an unneeded/misleading redirect, unless that makes GFDL compliance impossible. --Dhartung | Talk 05:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. There has recently been a lot of activity at this page for whatever reason, so a lot has changed. But the topic is certainly notable and encyclopedic, even if it needs work. It might do to revert to the article's previous state, but it definately should be kept.--Cúchullain ^t/c 08:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a perfectly acceptable fork given that Mary I of England is already very long and the distinction between the two articles is quite clear. MartinDK 08:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Bloody Mary (folklore). Wouldn't it be better to change the redirect at Bloody Mary (person) so that it points to Mary I of England? Deor 15:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect most of the incoming links to it would be for the ghost and not the queen, as I think those would go to the queen page directly. But, as I said above, it'd just be better to find the links that go to it and change them to go to the more appropriate intended article in each case. I'd think just for now (person) itself should redirect to (folklore) for the sake of incoming search engine results. DreamGuy 20:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, as written now its a wonderful article about the folklore of Bloody Mary. Callelinea 16:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keep Very widespread folklore. I remember this as a kid, and being too scared to say her name in the mirror. :) --sumnjim ^{talk with me changes} 16:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, maybe add section about her grave(s)·
Strong keep. The legend is quite distinct from the queen. --72.84.34.222 07:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep this is good folklore history. TMC1221 22:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 08:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Altruismas

Hoax/Joke article. This has been posed as an actual holiday. there are no google hits, and the claims of the article are incredible. i went ahead and changed category assignment to fictional until it is resolved. i suspect the creator is the owner of the only website for event in question of which the article plagiarizes. also suspect sockpuppetry has been committed in removal of previous objections. apologies if i am mistaken. Some thing 03:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page should be delete because it is a possible hoax and if it is not a hoax it is not a notable enough of a holiday for inclusion into wikipedia.--†Sir James Paul† 03:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Could find no support for it. --Evb-wiki 03:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be made-up, either way, not notable. Interestingly enough, Altruismas was apparently just yesterday...Calgary 04:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Something made up during the last days of school. MartinDK 07:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete aside from this I can find no reference to it, therefore made up. What's more worrying is that the creator is using this page to support the holiday's existence [12]. Hut 8.5 13:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. theProject 16:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, made-up holiday. NawlinWiki 18:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a hoax. Acalamari 18:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems funny to me that this is being questioned as my family has been celebrating this holiday for over a decade. I was excited to see it finally posted about here and was just showing it to my new in-laws when I saw the hoax question. I can assure you that it is indeed real. Also, this deletion is being considered based on not having reliable sources on the internet... there are however printed sources referenced in the article and (although I haven't looked them up myself) they seem perfectly valid. I say most definitely keep this article. However, it ultimately makes no difference whether this article gets deleted or not, as I'm sure it will go on being celebrated (by myself and many others). It would just be a shame to see this holiday fall into more obscurity as a hoax as declared by the people on this website not doing the appropriate amount of research. -P.S. I edited this entry as I was not originally aware of the rules of notability, also I needed to adjust format and placement. However, the authenticity of this article and my vote remain unchanged. : )— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.19 (talk • contribs)

Nevertheless, for something that claims to have "enveloped most of the European Union" and to be "celebrated throughout the U.S." to have only one Google hit (excluding Wikipedia and mirrors) is extraordinary, especially as that one website uses the Wikipedia page to back up its claims. No, this is made up, pure and simple. Hut 8.5 20:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello, I am the one responsible for this entry and I believe I am responsible for wikipedia's appearance on the other site. (I have not yet been able to get a response from the author.) I wrote this article and submitted the link to altruismas.com because I thought those responsible might enjoy reading about it. (And I was, I'll admit, proud of this entry) Shortly thereafter, it appeared on their site. I have also alerted the moderator (hopefully) of altruismas.com as to what is happening here and have asked him (her/them) to remove the link from their site, or to at least point out that wikipedia is not promoting/backing up the holiday. Hopefully that clears up some of the confusion surrounding this. But, all of that is neither here nor there. I am here to defend the validity of Altruismas in hopes that it will remain on wikipedia. If it doesn't, at least I can say I tried. Firstly, addressing the comments immediately above in regards to having "enveloped most of the European Union" and being "celebrated throughout the U.S." These phrases were not meant to imply that all (or even a majority) of the E.U. and U.S. celebrate Altruismas. The intended connotation was that it is widely celebrated in terms of dispersement throughout these respective areas, albeit by small sects (for lack of a better word.) In other words, you may find people who celebrate it in every country (or state) but not by any means in large quantities. Poor word choice on my part, perhaps, and I shall adjust the phrasing shortly. Secondly, the cited (published and referenced I might add) books do indeed acknowledge Altruismas, its history, and its longstanding traditions. I know it is rare in this day and age to not have everything on the internet that you're interested in (this was actually an attempt to alleviate that condition with respect to Altruismas) be returned in a google search. But, it is actually an interesting ability of Altruismas to remain relatively unknown as the mass commercialization of this holiday would undermine what it stands for. I am a relatively new user of wikipedia and was definitely unaware of some of its finer points of etiquette. That being said, I realize now where my entry was borderline and that it could use some "fleshing out" as it were. However, despite its flaws, I think this article is well within its rights to remain a valid contribution to this project. If the powers that be deem it necessary to delete it, I will understand that to mean it was a failing on my part and an injustice to the holiday. I implore you to carefully consider the facts of this article and if nothing else, at least check the references. It does seem ridiculous to me to have to defend so strongly a fact that has been around as far as I can remember, but if all of this falls on deaf ears and this article disappears, rest assured Altruismas will as said above "go on being celebrated (by myself and many others)." Should it be deleted, I will also gather even more evidence to show you this isn't a hoax. (The sheer absurdity of it being touted as a hoax would make me laugh if I hadn't put so much effort into the parsimony and accuracy of this article.) I do not mean to seem bitter or spiteful. This is just an important topic to me. Also, if you're reading this discussion and happen to celebrate Altruismas, please say something. Thanks for your time and I apologize for the lengthy comment.Wmartin1900 21:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; I get the joke, and as far as hoaxes go this is very well written, but Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Add it to Uncyclopedia instead. It appears that a lot of work has gone into altruismas.com, I just wonder if it was worth the effort for something that's not that funny? Or maybe this is part of a genuine attempt at a larger hoax? Masaruemoto 01:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Let me preface by saying that I don't celebrate this holiday and didn't believe in it either. I decided to follow the advice of Wmartin1900 and look up the sources (I work in a library so this was relatively easy). Reference number one- MacDonald, M. The Folklore of World Holidays (1992) Altruismas is actually one of the first holidays mentioned as the book lists holidays by their chronological order. Page 44 contains the entry which, among other things, talks about Altruismas' struggle with other pagan summer celebrations. "The rise of the power of the Church during the Middle Ages made it a struggle for any pagan ritual to survive, and Slover (Shortly to become Altruismas) was no exception." The entry is no more than four paragraphs, so while it might not be substantial, it is there. Reference number two- Shurgin, A. The Folklore of World Holidays, 2nd Edition (1999) Once again, Altruismas is listed toward the beginning of the book due its early origins (Paleolithic, apparently - I thought this fact alone was a sure sign that this article was a hoax.) In the second edition the article on Altruismas is much more substantial. Though it still only uses one and a half pages (p. 53-54, 8 1/2" x 11") the entry this time includes the story that Altruismas is based on (absent in the previous edition) as well as the traditions of the "Altruismas Stone." "Probably the most notable of the traditions associated with this obscure festival is the creation or decoration of 'Altruismas Stones.' These are usually nothing more than a colorfully painted rock..." It is from this reference that I believe the author of this article has drawn most of his information. The information on Altruismas listed at wikipedia very nearly reflects the information from this book. So, as bizarre as it sounds, in the light of this evidence I am forced to conclude that Altruismas is real (even if incredible.) I will be posting this in the talk article as well. Hope this helped clear things up.68.93.138.238 13:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment frankly i'm amazed this article has not been deleted yet. where do i start. first off, this is not really a hoax, because the name "altruismas" could not be taken seriously by anyone. its a joke created to see how long the bureaucracy can allow such a falsehood to continue existence. whats problematic to me is that the joke isn't even that amusing. whats amusing is that someone has actually taken the time and effort to create this mythology using both a website, sockpuppetry, and possibly meatpuppetry (ie. wmartin1900, trever frost, IPs 130.76.... and 68.93....). i cant even say the lie was all that intelligent because the defenders in question have not even bothered to look at the sources they are claiming to cite. My interests as of late have included solstitial holidays, and i live next to a library, and i am actually quite familiar with The Folklore of World Holidays 1 & 2 (wonderful reference book, i might add). they are not in alphabetical order, nor in historical chronology as 68.93 mentions. they are in order of date, page 44 and 53 would be around chinese new year. (let alone neither has an altruismas or slover listed near the summer solstice, for those of you who want to continue humoring this). aside from deleting this article we may want to consider requesting blocks for all users mentioned if the charade continues to waist our time, as it is clearly nothing more than common vandalism.Some thing 20:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And finally someone actually does some research work other than googling. I hope all wikipedia entries aren't rejected with this little effort expended in the area of legitimate research. Also, This article was never meant to be funny, although it did end up being so. Finally, I have no idea why others chose to defend this article but I'm glad they did. Now, if only you guys can find the other fakes. Here's a hint, you'll actually have to get out of your chairs and into a library for these as well. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.93.138.238 (talk • contribs)
- Comment You seriously wanted me to believe this crap ? The 20th century and after. The return of Altruismas can most aptly be attributed to the Hippie Movement of the late 1960's and early 1970's. The personal freedom movement and the concept of "free love" were at their peak during this time and were the driving force behind the return of this all but unknown holiday. Hippie scholars were responsible for the in depth research required to uncover the long lost traditions of Altruismas. Their passion for this holiday arose from the fact that it embodied so many of the positive qualities of the human spirit that they stood for. It wasn't long before this passion ignited a fire that swept overseas and enveloped most of the European Union, being celebrated in various circles and small bands. In a sort of "boomerang effect" the celebration of Altruismas returned to the U.S. more popular than ever (which isn't saying much). Sections of Canada quickly took to the holiday as well. Today, Altruismas is celebrated in certain communities throughout the U.S. and is slowly gaining in popularity, though nowhere near that of its winter counterpart, Christmas. However, most experts agree that Altruismas will eventually reach a level of popularity on par with Christmas.. Also, I happen to have a master's degree so don't tell me to get out of my chair and visit a library. Finally, being Danish, I can tell you that midsummer has nothing to do with this. If you wanted to fool us you have to try a lot harder than this. I suggest you find yourself another hobby rather than disrupt Wikipedia. MartinDK 09:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thanks a lot! I'm a bit ill (that's why I waste my time here) and I really enjoyed this stupid joke.Dan Gluck 15:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ARGH! Yet ANOTHER hoax-Christmas replacement! That makes 4 or 5 with the already deleted following {{hoax}} tagging Newtonmas, Agnosticalia, Athiest Kids Get Ppesents Day (Not sure about the capitalization) and another one I've forgotten... 68.39.174.238 03:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. theProject 16:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Madrid

Non-notable MySpace "celebrity". More memecruft. Corvus cornix 03:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing more than another myspace 'singer' 'band' etc. etc. --♫Twinkler4♫ ^{(Talk to me!)} 03:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable bio has just enough assertion of notability to escape a speedy. Kevin 03:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shouldn't this be a CSD anyhow? -WarthogDemon 03:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It's got a claim to notability. -- Coren ^(talk) 03:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We sure can't speedy it, but we can Quickly Delete this non-notable "celebrity". --Haemo 06:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it squeaks by a speedy but you still must be ^ this notable to ride the Wikipedia. -- Coren ^(talk) 03:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could probably have been speedied since the claim is so flimsy. Pascal.Tesson 04:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable person, however many people know him on Myspace. Hut 8.5 13:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 08:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joachim Ortiz

This is clearly cut and dry. It's just an ad hominem bash of someone who's made an enemy or two. Shazbot85^Talk 03:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, that attack has been in the article for over a week! There is a bio in the history, but it was created by User:Joachimortiz himself, so clear WP:COI violation, and the person himself is not notable. Delete. Corvus cornix 03:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone cleaed up the ad hominem, however, the article still fails to meet any semblance of a notability standard and is devoid of sources. If you'll also check the history, the article was created by Joachim Ortiz himself, so the ad hominem about self-promotion might be on target. :) Shazbot85^Talk 03:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficiently notable. Fails WP:BIO.--Chaser - T 04:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity article. Lurker 11:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh, he's head of makeup? At the TV Guide Channel? Wow... non-notable even with such an impressive list of accomplishments. --Cyrus Andiron 14:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, Yes it might be written by the person, but if a little more is written into it and more sources added, it might be a nice little bio. Callelinea 16:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete fails WP:BIO with flying colours. Bigdaddy1981 16:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable makeup and hair guy. NawlinWiki 18:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as autobiography of non-notable person. CitiCat 23:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nom withdrew and nobody voted delete. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Howarth

~~NN cricket player who played only one match. I don't think this merits an encyclopedia article. Rackabello 03:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

- Withdraw - Please accept my apologies, I went by the general notability guidelines, not realizing that cricket has its own set of rules concerning notability. Apparently a similar notability rule is in place in baseball, a single Major League Baseball appearance establishes notability Rackabello 03:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem. Thanks for withdrawing and saving us some time. Nick mallory 03:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cricketer with first-class appearance, as per WP:CRIC guidelines. See "Notability criteria guideline for article inclusion", which reads "has appeared in at least one first-class or List A match as a player". Speedy keep. Bobo . 03:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The nominator may not think this merits an article but wikipeida policy and precedent means that anyone who's played even one first class or list A match is notable. Please check the established policy before making nominations of this sort. Nick mallory 03:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:BIO. --Charlene 03:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Anas ^talk? 23:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films receiving two or more acting BAFTA Film Awards

Classic listcruft. This is already taken care of by Category:BAFTA_Awards and others. eaolson 03:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also AfDing:

Condense down by award, either into a "List of films receiving multiple foo bars", or into a "List of films receiving foo bar", as a section on "Multiple foo bars. As an example, all films receiving multiple BAFTA awards are listed in the single article, OR all films receiving a BAFTA award are listed, with a subsection (or a sortable table) detailing how many awards each film received. -- saberwyn 04:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Saberwyn. Additional note, no need for separate articles on GGAs for films and people - List of multiple Golden Globe Award Winners would handle it. CitiCat 05:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete or merge all in BAFTA award recipient article. Any specific number violates policy against arbitrary inclusion criteria. Doczilla 06:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arbitrary indeed, and indiscriminate.A bit less so than List of films receiving the three main Golden Globe Awards per category. I've never used the word before, but I think there is no other word for it - "listcruft". Too many possible permutations for articles on the themes possible that I didn't want to even try, but obviously the creator of these articles did. I applaud you ;-) Ohconfucius 15:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Ohconfucius. Carlossuarez46 18:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Arbritrary inclusion criteria. Masaruemoto 02:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no assertion to notability. Chaser - T 04:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planix

Appears to be basically an advertisement. Non-notable product. CitiCat 03:24, 29 June 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, an obvious POV fork by a user currently blocked due to his inability to rein in his strong opinions. The path from here to an article compliant with fundamental policies is not clear, and it is close to impossible to sort any valid material from the mess of uncited opinion. Presence of this content degrades the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Army crimes in Georgia

Arbitrary POV essay, continuation of user's POV pushing; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red army crimes in Lithuania. `'Miikka 03:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not essay but sequence of historical facts!Ttturbo 07:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that such article is NPOW kind if there is no category like Millitary history of Soviet Union below the text. This, history consists of victories against nazzi, heroes, terrible loosings, economical changes etc. But if we stay this theme alone without crime analysis commited, then we occure in NPOW position supporting red side. I suppose, my position becouse of context category to be balanced enough to stay in the limits of neutral POWTtturbo 08:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly POV. eaolson 03:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is trying to push a point of view. It is not encyclopedic because of this.--†Sir James Paul† 04:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC) This article is trying to realise Jesus' don't KILL!Ttturbo 07:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Red Army atrocities (WWII)?Some thing 05:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Army crimes were comitted not only during WWII unfortunately.Ttturbo 07:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Everything in this article is already well covered in History of Georgia (country) and Georgia (country), making this a content fork to promote a position. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt the earth. See Sjakkale. No reason to merge this one. Can we also agree that threaded comment here is immediately moved to the talk page? Judging by the page quoted by Miikka, this page is going to be attacked soon. --Pan Gerwazy 07:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete POV forking of the worst kind. No way is this ever going to be NPOV. Judging from the nominators comments someone should have a serious word or two with the creator about the meaning of disruption and POV pushing in general. MartinDK 08:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Disagree with the nominator. Kingjeff 15:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm pretty much sure that it is already covered in Red Army article or other related article outside of this useless POV-filled article.--JForget 00:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but add more information and sources and modify the text. Wikipedia is some process of creation, but not the court! Please, discuss this article first and only after this make abstract vote debates. Supporting of any war crime or military crime hiders is colaboration with criminal murders - so it is the crime too, like situation about holocost denying!!!Ttturbo 07:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Chaotic colection of few events lacking context, attack page. Pavel Vozenilek 21:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article is hopelessly POV and not up to WP standards... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 01:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is poorly sourced and has POV issues. I wouldn't mind seeing a legitimate article on this topic, though, so no prejudice to recreation in another form. —Psychonaut 11:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, an obvious POV fork by a user currently blocked due to his inability to rein in his strong opinions. The path from here to an article compliant with fundamental policies is not clear, and it is close to impossible to sort any valid material from the mess of uncited opinion. Presence of this content degrades the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 17:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red army crimes in Estonia

Arbitrary POV essay, continuation of user's POV pushing; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red army crimes in Lithuania. `'Miikka 03:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, why you placed this article not in a historical but science chapter for deleting starting from my article about red bandits crimes in Lithuania placing in HISTORY chapter? Are you trying to hide systematic attack on category Red Army crimes?Ttturbo 07:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that such article is NPOW kind if there is no category like Millitary history of Soviet Union below the text. This, history consists of victories against nazzi, heroes, terrible loosings, economical changes etc. But if we stay this theme alone without crime analysis commited, then we occure in NPOW position supporting red side. I suppose, my position becouse of context category to be balanced enough to stay in the limits of neutral POWTtturbo 08:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly POV. eaolson 03:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is trying to push a point of view. It is not encyclopedic because of this.--†Sir James Paul† 04:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Red Army atrocities (WWII)?Some thing 05:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. History items like this should be in the article on the country, or the history of the country. Putting up a page like this is content forking, and the whole thing is written with a disturbing level of bias. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt the earth. See Sjakkale. No reason to merge this one. Can we also agree that threaded comment here is immediately moved to the talk page? Judging by the page quoted by Miikka, this page is going to be attacked soon. --Pan Gerwazy 07:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nomination and my comment on the above related AfD. MartinDK 08:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Disagree with the nominator. Kingjeff 15:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely covered in Red Army article. POV-filled.--JForget 01:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Very noteworthy topic, main Red Army crimes article will get too long if all sub-articles are merged. Trying to delete something from Wikipedia does not make them not happen. Article needs expanding, though. DLX 08:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but add more information and sources and modify the text. Wikipedia is some process of creation, but not the court! Please, discuss this article first and only after this make abstract vote debates. Supporting of any war crime or military crime hiders is colaboration with criminal murders - so it is the crime too, like situation about holocost denying!!!Ttturbo 07:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, into Soviet war crimes article including references. The Soviet war crimes article itself could then be expanded with other similar articles, so there would not be any need to merge it with Soviet war crimes (WWII) as it has been suggested. --Ukas 14:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand as a country specific sub article of Soviet war crimes. Red Army crimes in Estonia are well known and documented here [13] Martintg 19:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a subsection to where its appropriate and make this a redirect.It is valid content, but its too little to make an article on its own.--Alexia Death 19:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, another crappy article by the same author. Pavel Vozenilek 21:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, the same thoughts as Ukas'. --Erkkimon ^{(Smg 2 complain?!)} 00:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete, POV fork of already existing articles. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 01:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge where appropriate or possibly rename. The title is inappropriate. The topic is not war crimes by the Red Army and the Soviet Army (the Army was renamed later) but mainly the aggressive policy and acts of the Soviet Russia and the Soviet Union against Estonia, partly the Soviet Union's unjust treating of Estonians. Therefore I don't think Soviet war crimes is the appropriate article to merge into. Perhaps there is no need for the collection like this but it should be made sure that each individual item is present in Wikipedia. Andres 06:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is poorly sourced and has POV issues. I wouldn't mind seeing a legitimate article on this topic, though, so no prejudice to recreation in another form. —Psychonaut 11:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, A7. Chaser - T 05:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CBIZ

Business with no notability asserted. Previous prod was contested, hence this nomination. BPMullins | Talk 03:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7 - does not assert notability. --Charlene 03:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per A7.--†Sir James Paul† 04:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 16:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andean Wolf

Every googleable reference either loop back directly to Wikipedia, cryptowiki or Cryptozoology.com. I can find no reliable source pointing to even the existence of the hoax, and while there is a Dr. Susanne Hakenbeck at Cambridge, she is an archaeologist specializing in early medieval history. Hoaxitude? -- Coren ^(talk) 02:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as possible hoax, I see no reason to believe it... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a possible hoax and there is no reliable resources for it.--†Sir James Paul† 04:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hoax creatures are fully permissible under wikipedia policy as long as their nature is made clear and they are not passed off as a real creature. Just look at bigfoot, it's got 2 or 3 different wikipedia pages relating to it and it's not been proven to exist. - perfectblue 18:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A few sources on Google refer to the "Andean Wolf" as an alternate name for the Culpeo, or Patagonian Fox. Might be worth redirecting. Zetawoof_(ζ) 08:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found those by cross-googling. You're right, if deleted Andean Wolf would be a worthwhile redir. -- Coren ^(talk) 13:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would agree with the redirect. Q ^{T C} 00:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You are asking the wrong Google. The article is not a hoax and there are reliable sources. Try this instead. Whether it is a species of its own or not, this animal has been the subject of several scientific writings. Rl 20:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The AMNH article is a very brief discussion of the status in a review of the group, but there does seem to be a real controversey and discussion. It's not a hoax in any case--it is not fake, and the discussion is notimagined--its an unproven species. "I see no reason to believe it"is not an argument. We want and have sources, not belief of individual WPedians. DGG 01:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Debivort 05:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Google only records what is common on the web and is mostly about popular culture, it's not a good source for the less popular areas of zoology or the more boring areas of cryptology. - perfectblue 18:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Google's limitations do not obviate the need for reliable sources. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; copyright violation. Chaser - T 05:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carrickfergus Baptist Church

I tagged this for sources on 30 March but nothing has been added since then. No secondary sources, fails verifiability and notability guidelines. Bridgeplayer 02:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - even without counting apparent sock votes. --VS ^talk 08:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hometown High-Q

Non-notable local TV show. Entirely original research. Fails requirements for verifiability. Chardish 02:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Alright let's see here. Non-notable? Tell that to the 13,300 hits it got on the "Google Test". Local TV show? Sure it's "local" but it's locale happens to be in the 22nd largest media market in the United States. Unverifiable? I don't think so. Try the official site: [14]
- You might be interested in reading these short pieces on why the "Google Test" is a poor argument and why local fame is a poor argument - Chardish 03:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. There are actually only 82 unique Google hits, but it does have an IMDB page. eaolson 03:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge into KDKA-TV. Of local interest only. Corvus cornix 03:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Okay, IMDB is not an assertion of notability. Anyone can have an IMDB page, key grips have their own IMDB pages so that test is irrelevant. Having an IMDB page is equivalent to having a myspace page. Also, using google as a test isn't very reliable either. I would like to see multiple reliable, non-trivial sources that can confirm the notability of this subject. As it stands now, the article is not cited and thus notability is not asserted. The bottom line is that this is a game show between high school students that is broadcast in only one city. There are game shows like this where I live, and they don't merit their own article. --Cyrus Andiron 14:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nothing wrong with this article. Lack of sources if a very poor deletion rationale as its so easy to fix. —Xezbeth 19:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --so find some non-trivial sources. It is not the least obvious that a high school game on a a single TV station will be easy to source. there will be of course the trivial sources from all the neighborhood papers about their high school team appearing, but this is not notability. Of the 13,000 ghits, 11,000 are from kdka.com. DGG 00:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Look at talk page; this discussion already happened. It's a waste of time to bring the same issue up for consideration after less than a year. Also, the article is quite encyclopedic and the show is increasingly well-know. Cogitocogitare 07:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then there should be no problem finding sources that say that the show is increasingly well-known, right? - Chardish 12:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure: this link confirms Westfield Insurance spnosorship (http://www.westfieldgrp.com/jsp/about/sponsorships.jsp). These videos can confirm season championship winners (http://video.yahoo.com/video/search?p=hometown+high-q&ei=UTF-8&x=0&y=0) in addition to full video archive available on KDKA's High-Q website itself. This link can confirm programming information for the Pittsburgh media market (pdf.sharonherald.com/samples/20060609/pages/09_pm__s11.PDF). These links consist of local media or school-based publications reporting about the show (http://www.gatewaynewspapers.com/woodlandprogress/schooldistricts/42511/ , http://www.northallegheny.org/schools/nash/GOAL/WEBSITE/grapevine.asp , www.thehamptonnews.net/Issues/April%202007.pdf , www.slshs.org/Awards/index.html ). Given that all these links were available in the first couple pages of the 723 unique hits for the subject on Google, perhaps we should spend time adding these easily accessible sources to the article rather than reconsidering deletion. Cogitocogitare 09:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as I said, neighborhood articles about neighborhoodpeople, and non-encyclopedic lists. DGG 01:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Those sources do nothing to indicate notability. Chardish 03:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with Xezbeth: nothing wrong with this article. Weak rationale for deletion. mFillmore13 07:25, 39 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Nothing wrong with this article" is not an argument which helps anyone to decide why the article should be kept. Explain what makes this local TV show notable. Corvus cornix 03:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "The Google test, the above links, the sponsorship by a prominent insurance company, and the fact that it's on a very notable tv station (KDKA was the first commercial radio station in the United States) do suggest that this is notable. That said, I reject the notability criterion in any case; wiki is not paper. Moreover, I see no reason why this article should be renominated for deletion when Academic Challenge (Ohio) for example has never been targeted in spite of the fact that it's a less encyclopedic article in a relatively minor media market. mFilmore13 01:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Corvus cornix 20:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and agreed that it's just as bad. DGG 01:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that cultural bias is going on here, because people are making claims that the show's fame in one U.S. city gives the show notability. I need to make the point that notability is universal. For something to be notable, anyone should be able to arrive at the conclusion that it is notable - even someone in Germany or Japan or Morocco. Personally, I wouldn't consider a locally-produced TV game show for high school students in Stuttgart to be notable, so I don't see why we should apply a different standard to an American-produced show. - Chardish 12:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a sufficiently notable show on a definitely notable station. 130.132.143.49 03:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP's cant vote, usually they are a sock anyway.trey^{Sex Me} 16:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't discussion be closed given that we're now on the sixth day? MFillmore13 01:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've added a few sources to the article. The various newspaper archives have more sources that can be used. John Vandenberg 04:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom.trey^{Sex Me} 16:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; copyright violation. Chaser - T 05:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Schankowitz

Non-notable executive, article is possibly autobiographical as well. CitiCat 02:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 07:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Chris (rapper)

Non-notable rapper. Have been asking for sources for six days. Corvus cornix 02:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with A Bay Bay, about his debut single. it has a couple of sources. --Evb-wiki 02:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand using sources from A Bay Bay. That is a bona fide charting single, which makes him notable under WP:MUSIC. Chubbles 05:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chubbles. This would help expansion.--Chaser - T 05:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chubbles. Maxa megalon 2000 05:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:MUSIC per has a charted hit --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, artist has charted on four major US charts -- good enough to pass WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep artist is charting in Seattle of all places (KUBE playlist), so he appears to be closer to mainstream than I would have expected
Keep - artist was recently voted for "greatest gainer" on the Billboard Hot 100 chart [15]. Has a Billboard page, as well [16]. Zchris87v 06:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Didn't we go over this in the Plies debate? "A Bay Bay" has actually charted higher than "Shawty"...Tom Danson 01:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As mentioned, his song A Bay Bay has received airplay. However, the article might need fixing in the beginning paragraph. --esanchez, Sign your name here! 03:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 08:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Anderson Premier Military Band (APMB)

There's a lot of sound and fury here, but what this boils down to is a high school band that fails WP:MUSIC. Having an Idol contestant perform at your venue isn't really a claim of notability; it's quite common for performers to do concerts in their hometowns. Crystallina 02:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete school band that doesn't seem to have won any awards, played anywhere important or published any of their performances. CIreland 14:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Notability not established, seriously fails WP:SOAP, fails WP:ATT... EyeSerene^TALK 19:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, don't redirect- I mean really, who would type "Tim Burton's Batman universe"? Sr 13 08:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Burton's Batman universe

Delete article that is redundant to content of the articles on the two movies covered, does not make a lot of sense given that those two movies are in the same continuity as the next two movies, and constitutes subjective (POV) interpretation to say anything otherwise. It at least borders on OR. Doczilla 02:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is nothing more than information copied-and-pasted word-for-word from other Wikipedia articles. This is, basically, a composite Wikipedia article. We don't need one of these. --Hnsampat 02:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we were to keep this article we'd be setting a precedent by allowing an entire article on a particluar canon of a superhero, and with someone like Batman, who's had so many incarnations, just think of what gates we could be opening Calgary 04:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The two films that followed the Tim Burton Batman films are technically, of very "loose" continuity (a la the James Bond films). Plus, I didn't have a lot of time to edit the article one-by-one. So, I purely took what was available right in front of me. TMC1982 11:17 p.m. 29 June 2007
There's a complete article/category for the DC animated universe, which is of seperate canon to the regular comic book continuity (or any other adapation of Batman for that matter). So why not also go after that particular article while you're at it. TMC1982 11:17 p.m. 29 June 2007

Because it is about a complete universe. It does not involve your inferences/original research regarding continuity. It is not built around a single character even though there are many characters in the same universe. (Your Hanna-Barbera's Batman universe article is especially confusing in that regard. The DCAU article is not called "Timm's Batman universe", after all.) Doczilla 09:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The universe itself started with Batman: The Animated Series. A majority of the programs have involved Batman in some shape or form (Batman Beyond, The New Batman Adventures, The Adventures of Batman & Robin, etc.) And comparing the DCAU article with this is sort of apples and oranges (animated television series vs. live-action motion pictures). TMC1982 9:38 p.m. 30 June 2007

Delete Each of these films has its own article already. This just seems to be completely uneeded. Stephen Day 21:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the article is basically original research about the in-universe details of the films -- not appropriate for the real-world context sought on Wikipedia. Better suited for a Batman Wiki. A better article (still in rough shape) for film details (production and so forth) would be Batman film series. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps just redirect there? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 04:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mortal Kombat (series). --VS ^talk 08:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot of Mortal Kombat

Pure plot summary/In-universe background, unsuitable per WP:NOT. --Eyrian 02:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that this article was already nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mortal Kombat storyline and was kept. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Mortal Kombat (series), per WP:FICT. Merge only after heavy trimming and untrivialization though of course. Kariteh 08:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Mortal Kombat (series). This violates WP:NOT, but should be merged due to WP:FICT. It's disappointing to see the previous nomination resulted in keep, when it obviously shouldn't have. --Teggles 10:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, plot articles are a no-no per WP:NOT. A heavily trimmed version would be acceptable as a merge per above. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like in the last AfD, I vote Delete. The plot is already explained in the articles for each individual game, and there's no need to merge this already large article into the rather large main MK page. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 17:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, the reasonable solution would be to redirect the article. I fail to see what benefit there would be in deleting it completely. Kariteh 17:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - How so? Personally I don't see the point in keeping the edit history. If this gets kept and redirected, then all it takes is one user who doesn't agree with the decision to restore it back to a full article. Since this article already fails WP:NOT, it really doesn't belong here. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Risks of being restored or reverted aren't really relevant at all in deletion discussion. Besides, a deleted article could also be restored anyway. Which means in all cases that if (and only if) there is too much revert-warring, the redirected or deleted article would be protected by an admin and that would be it. Kariteh 22:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd been planning on renominating this in a few weeks if substantial work was not done per the outcome of the previous AFD. Seeing as how someone beat me to it and seeing as how there's been no substantive work done since the last nomination and the likelihood anyone will be doing any substantive work on it is low, delete it. This should never have survived the previous AFD since the arguments in favor of keeping it are incredibly poor and should have been discounted. Otto4711 22:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a section in the Mortal Kombat article. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per every one above, useally it is not in an individual article.--JForget 01:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was since Noroton merged all the information, which was very little, delete. Wizardman 13:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daiches Elementary School

Elementary schools are not inherently notable. I'm nominating all the elementary schools in that school district Corpx 02:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into district, if nothing else. I agree that schools aren't inherently notable, but mass AfD's are no fun. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Holy Crap on a Cracker This is the Strongest Delete Ever - Elementary schools have the same claim to notability as the mom and pop general store down the street. The fact that something exists doesn't make it notable. Unless we want to create List of blades of grass on my front lawn? - ElbridgeGerry t c block 02:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm with ElbridgeGerry on this - there are thousands of primary schools in the world - few are notable, these are not. Bigdaddy1981 02:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the respective school district articles, unless multiple instances of non-trivial coverage, or documentation of multiple notable alumni, can be found in reliable sources. cab 02:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm personally skeptical about using 2+ Wiki-article-worthy people as a requirement for a school article. Most famous people tend to associate themselves with their university/college year far more than with their kindergarten class. Weak redirect/merge to distrct education article OR locality article. Not-a-keep. -- saberwyn 04:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to their respective school district articles. None of these elementary schools have third parties talking about them. Far from being inherently notable, it seems to me that schools are as inherently non-notable as any other small business - they don't pass WP:N simply because they're schools and because kids think they're important. (Edited for clarity.) --Charlene 04:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Notability aside, these have virtually no information and are not even real articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect. Contentless articles that would probably qualify for CSD A1 were it not for the pretty formatting. —Xezbeth 19:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Laredo Independent School District, as it doesn't had really any additionnal info for most.--JForget 01:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. — But|seriously|folks 05:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect as above. No notability asserted for schools that are, in-and-of themselves, unnotable. Eusebeus 10:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to the school district article. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to the school district article or Delete. This is what happens when you link elementary schools in the district articles and add templates like {{LISD}} with the links. If result is to delete or merge, the links in the district article and template need to be removed. Vegaswikian 23:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to the school district article - we have precedent for this and it allows the schools to be found and also expanded if any become notable enough for their own article. TerriersFan 18:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect as per TerriersFan (I can't say it better than he did). Noroton 20:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT I just merged every single piece of information from ALL these elementary school articles that did not already exist in the school district article. Would you believe that the new information amounted to: 1. The name of the principal of one of the schools. 2. A sentence or two on who one of the schools was named after. That's it. That's all of it. Otherwise these were entirely cookie-cutter articles with only the name of the school different. Noroton 21:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 01:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry P. Becton Regional High School

Does not meet WP:N criteria for notability. There are no major media mentions or notable alumni. Tatonka79 02:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 03:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Spamming multiple AfDs with a criticism of policy is not a good argument. What exists that causes this article to meet relevant policies and guidelines? Resolute 04:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Spamming is a strong term, but if there is anyone who is taking multiple individual actions as a proxy for promoting a new policy, I'd say it's Tatonka. Tatonka has recently nominated List of high schools in Oregon, Clackamas High School, Lake Oswego High School, and numerous others. In the three I linked, the nominations have been almost universally considered ill-conceived, based on a misunderstanding of policy, and on very little examination of the articles in question. I agree that Callelinea's argument is a weak one, but so is the original nomination. -Pete 05:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The school has won multiple sports championships, documented with multiple reliable and verifiable sources, and has been involved in a well-publicized effort to have a handicapped athlete compete against able-bodied runners. The school is the lone school of a regional school district; in these cases, the article refers to the school AND the district using the name of the school, but it is a district article and there is clear consensus that school districts are notable. I am very concerned, again, that a new user has started off on a spree of deletion nominations without any evidence that the user understands relevant Wikipedia policy. Alansohn 20:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Butseriouslyfolks 08:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all high schools are notable. Noroton 00:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd some of you think I'm spamming with these Afd's - a lot of pots here calling the kettle black - several of you users seem to be trolling school Afd debates to defend any school. Also, it's not "relevant Wikipedia policy" that any high school is notable; there have been several criteria that have been shot down, and no clear list is followed now. Maybe I should start me a new school to guarantee myself a Wikipedia page. Tatonka79 00:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Not so odd, if you think about it. When an editor takes a scattershot approach that threatens deletion of numerous articles that are worth keeping, it is to be expected that those of us who value Wikipedia content would take a look at what else you've nominated for deletion. Speaking for myself, so far I have yet to see a single AfD of yours that makes any sense to me. -Pete 08:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Noroton.--JForget 01:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Noroton. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per User:Noroton. Probable WP:POINT nomination. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in this particular instance, a clear keep, though I certainly disagree that all High Schools have material enough to show notability at WP. DGG 01:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dwight Morrow High School. --VS ^talk 08:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Academies@Englewood

Does not meet WP:N criteria for notability. There are no major media mentions or notable alumni. Tatonka79 02:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination is not accurate. A news column has been present since last November. -Pete 05:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The school has been at the center of a voluntary desegregation effort to attract white students from a largely white district to a school system that had a near complete minority population. The school has received substantial news coverage from the time it was created in 2002 and has continued to receive such coverage, with ample reliable and verifiable sources provided to demonstrate notability. Alansohn 06:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Butseriouslyfolks 08:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since all high schools are notable and even if they weren't, this already meets WP:ORG and WP:N. Noroton 00:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WRONG. NOWHERE on Wikipedia does it say that schools are inherently notable. That is your personal opinion, and one most disagree with.the preceding statement was brought to you by ... TJ Spyke 02:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Shouting is considered rude. 2. I didn't say it wasn't my personal opinion, and I linked to my own mini-essay on the subject, so no disagreement there. But I also said this article meets Wikipedia standards for notability for organizations. If you're going to criticize, at least get my position right. And if you're going to say something that you want to try to persuade others with, make your case. Noroton 20:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re 2 - You did not state that it *was* your personal opinion, which was part of the problem - it confused me initially until I clicked the link. An often time-poor closing admin reads the comments and they need to be as clear as possible. Orderinchaos 05:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with Dwight Morrow High School (since this is part of the school, or at least is located within it) and is not notable by itself. TJ Spyke 02:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per TJ Spyke - clearly not notable by itself, and the only relevant independent sources address the issues it creates for DMHS. (For the record, I dislike blanket statements about notability - most high schools are notable, but some fail the test. most primary schools are not notable, but some clearly pass it. etc.) Orderinchaos 05:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. School fails to assert notability that would provide grounds for its inclusion. Eusebeus 22:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of the desegregation controversy. I thing merge with the Dwight Morrow article might be a possibility, because the two are closely linked. That'll be an editing decision. DGG 01:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qst 15:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep or merge to DMHS We have a major, notable controversy associated with the school that has had a lot of press coverage. however, Orderinchaos is correct that there has been little coverage focusing on Englewood. JoshuaZ 16:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - borders on no consensus, but that wouldn't affect the outcome. Cheers, Wily D 14:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buena Regional High School

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Buena Regional High School

Does not meet WP:N criteria for notability. There are no major media mentions or notable alumni. Tatonka79 02:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive.The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important.Callelinea 03:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...it would seem you haven't heard of "quality, not quantity". Either way, implying a guideline is wrong (in this case WP:N) and "should" be something else is not an argument against deletion. --Teggles 10:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Butseriouslyfolks 08:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, as the article fails to even assert notability. --Butseriouslyfolks 08:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, asserts notablity as public school serving a thousand pupils. Is presumably notable in the local area. LiamUK 09:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not notability. Notability is decided by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. --Teggles 10:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Butseriouslyfolks, article does not assert subject's notability. --ForbiddenWord 14:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since all high schools are notable. Noroton 00:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great assertion to make. Can you point to where in the article there is even the slightest demonstration of notability as laid out in WP:N? --ForbiddenWord 15:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my argument and we're not required to vote by WP:N, although if a particular article meets WP:N I'll use that as an argument for those who want to follow it. My argument is laid out in the link I provided. I suppose I should make it clear it's my opinion and nothing official. Noroton 21:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing notable is asserted--but schools can not be speedied for that. There is no sourcing except for directory information. there is no information besides half a dozen AP courses and the name of the principal/vice-p., and the geographic area covered. I agree with that it is possible nonetheless that this school is notable, but not on the information presented. DGG 00:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Liam UK and Noroton, there are thousands of those.JForget 01:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the article that asserts that this subject is notable. Nothing gets a free ride on notability- if it doesn't meet WP:N, it doesn't meet WP:N. Can you show me where in the article there's any basis for your claim? --ForbiddenWord 15:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have different interpretations of notability. Some of us think that all high schools are notable, seeing as thousands of children spend years there. It has a cite in a reliable, govermental source, so I guess it comes down to if you think a high school is notable. LiamUK 16:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it comes down to whether policy, which is the consensus of the Wikipedia community and the final arbiter in this case of what is or is not notable, sets standards that any subject meets. I respect your opinion if you believe that high schools are notable, but the simple fact is that it is not a matter of opinion- consensus has established a standard, laid out at the policy/guideline page, and we have a duty to follow that policy, or change that policy if we disagree with it. --ForbiddenWord 12:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Noroton. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment !votes based all all schools being notable or not do not help the decision process. What's needed are arguments about whether this particular school is notable. Those who think them all notable should show how it is specifically justified by this instance. DGG 01:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article does provide sources, and would benefit greatly from additional expansion. Alansohn 19:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BsF, DGG, etc... above. Eusebeus 07:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 11:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic County Institute of Technology

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Atlantic County Institute of Technology

Does not meet WP:N criteria for notability. Tatonka79 01:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important.Callelinea 03:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N criteria. --Charlene 05:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is considered helpful to explain why an article violates a given policy. This goes for the nom too. Morgan Wick 07:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 1.7 million google hits (or 1580 when putting the school's name in quotes) suggest that there might be a case to be made for notability. Google news archives also have some hits. The article in its present form fails to claim notability, but it's likely that could be remedied. -Pete 05:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This school has received secondary press coverage, this in the past month for example. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the lone school of a regional school district. As a school district, we have consensus that such articles are notable. As noted, additional coverage does exists and should be added to the article to further demonstrate notability. Alansohn 06:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given that it didn't take very much Google searching to realize that this isn't some arbitrary one in a million kind of school. The nom is understandable, however, given the lack of sources to establish notability. MartinDK 08:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Butseriouslyfolks 08:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, as the article fails to even assert notability, and WP:V, as none of the asserted facts are cited to reliable sources. --Butseriouslyfolks 08:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Butseriously: the standard is not whether the article currently has reliable sources cited, but whether such sources exist. Take a look at [17], [18],
Keep since all high schools are notable. Noroton 00:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Noroton. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 20:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edna Tse

Completing a malformed nom here; ~~I abstain.~~ Subject has been tagged with "may not satisfy notablity", and I somewhat agree. There are a few sources, but five of them are from RTHK only. Doesn't seem to be that notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Pound Hammer, thanks for correctly formatting my malformed nom properly. You're a true gnome in that regard.Gnome84 11:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn (where are the stories about her?). JJL 02:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a byline is not evidence of notability. 469 GHits on Chinese name [19]; adding some constraints to the search to try to exclude blogs and forums leaves 24 GHits [20]. cab 02:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. cab 02:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable television person. Bigdaddy1981 02:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 03:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Does this article have "sources and a minimal standard of notability"? Preferrably sources independant of the person and the organisation they work/worked for? Can the information from these sources be used to prove the notability of the person, not just the existence of the sources themselves? For various legal and technical reasons, there is a minimum bar of inclusion, indicated by Wikipedia's rules, policies, and guidelines. Meet them, and its 'no worries'. -- saberwyn 04:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, if you have a disagreement with Wikipedia's guidelines on biographies of living people, you should bring it up on the village pump or something, not mass-post nearly the same basic text to twenty-five different AfD discussions [21] without any reference to actual Wikipedia policies. cab 04:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment These are somewhat pointy votes related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isabel S. Martinez. --Dhartung | Talk 05:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no independent sources attesting to the subject's notability. --Dhartung | Talk 05:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the article's writer can demonstrate any substantive media mention about the subject, which I doubt. After having looked online for it myself, I nominated this one for deletion. Reading the news to an audience is different from being the subject of the news (which good journalists try to avoid).

Related Page for Deletion There's a related stub - Yonden Lhatoo - that I am nominating for deletion as well (although I don't think the nomination is formatted properly). It suffers from the same lack of notability in the subject matter - a local news reader with no other achievements or media references.

Still More Related Pages for Deletion Grown like weeds: Whoever cleans this up, will probably want to get ride of (CSD? or AfD?) the following pages as well: Nick Waters, Anne-Marie Sim, ATV News. All four of these pages (including Edna Tse) were created or edited by user 219.76.185.6 on April 27th. And all four of these individuals work at, or worked at, ATV News as news readers. ATV is the distant underdog in a two-station TV market that serves perhaps 100,000 native-English speakers in Hong Kong. There is nothing notable about the station or its employees as far as I can determine. Gnome84 11:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't know about Nick Waters or Anne-Marie Sim, but ATV is notable for being one of only two freely broadcasted TV stations in Hong Kong. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HongQiGong, I agree with you about ATV. The entry for ATV itself (as distinguished from the stub for ATV News) is detailed, and ATV - as one of two free-to-air stations in Hong Kong - is notable. ATV News, however, is just a stub. Unless the author cleans it up to demonstrate notability for the news division, I suggest deleting that stub as well as the individual news readers' stubs appended to it. Gnome84 00:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Nick Waters was speedied as WP:CSD#A7 by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) after I put it up for {{prod}} earlier. This one and Yonden Lhatoo might be speediable as well. cab 02:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NawlinWiki 20:35, 10 July 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 as it stands. Sr 13 08:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D. C. Watson

Lack of multiple nontrivial published sources about this person. His affiliation with DhimmiWatch is not any more an indicium of notability as my affiliation with Wikipedia. -- Y not? 00:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

Delete, non-notable quasi-blogger. --Dhartung | Talk 05:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands now I would delete the article. He's written a book and a few pieces, but the article doesn't show its significance or notability. Sounds like an advertisement or a book jacket cover. Needs major cleanup if kept. Barkeep 00:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (withdrawn by nominator). —Wknight94 (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Porteau

Non Notable wrestler. Darrenhusted 00:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Darrenhusted 00:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete this fellow can't be too notable if the article's author can't keep the spelling of his surname consistant throughout. Rewrite appears to establish notability. Keep Bigdaddy1981

KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 04:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so you don't like our notability criteria, no need to prove a point by trying to impose your criteria on debates where we use the actual criteria. This user has been spamming several debates with this BTW. Morgan Wick 07:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ * ~~Delete~~ KEEP For one thing, Pourteau/Porteau is used somewhat interchangably by those not familiar with the wrestler. That said, he had a run in the bigs and is an active indy name, so I say he's plenty notable for wikipedia. DanZero 04:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In retrospect, Porteau isn't really *that* notable and the pro wrestling project here would be better served having detailed pages on worthy wrestlers Reckless Youth comes to mind, here - and not almost-were wrestlers.--DanZero 16:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, the revised article is *definitely* worthy of inclusion.--DanZero 03:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete despite possible delusions of grandeur, appears to be nothing more than enhancement talent. CitiCat 05:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Weak keep did appear on WWF Raw[22] (even winning a match), appears enough to keep. CitiCat 05:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass notability SirFozzie 16:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In 1996-1997, he was a pushed superstar in WWF, known as "The Pug" and had his own theme song. Very notable wrestler, has been a big part of the biggest organizations. Dannycali 03:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Active with WWF, WCW, NWO. Limited roles, but counted together, probably counts as enough. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 05:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment well for a 20 year veteran the only support on this page is his official page. Darrenhusted 11:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've re-written the article and added sources. Porteau is notable and, although he did not achieve much success, was a part of many of the top promotions. Including the WWF, WCW, GWF, USWA and WWC. A-Dust 23:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI've done a few minor tweaks to your otherwise fine edits A-Dust - mainly in regards to certain built in templates for height, weight, age, country/state flags. I also corrected your citation style to be in line with the generally accepted way of doing it (so that it repeats the same reference instead of 6 individual lines) - If you're interested in any of the edits or not sure what I did feel free to ask me on my user page and I'll be happy to help you out with your Wikipedia editing. MPJ-DK 14:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment provided other editors are happy with the re-write (if you want to contact them A-Dust) then I'll withdraw the nom becuase the article is drastically improved. Darrenhusted 08:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is much better, I withdraw my nomination. If anyone wants to close this as a keep then I have no objections. Darrenhusted 15:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 07:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chasyn Rance

Non Notable wrestler. Darrenhusted 00:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Darrenhusted 00:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important.Callelinea 04:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so you don't like our notability criteria, no need to prove a point by trying to impose your criteria on debates where we use the actual criteria. This user has been spamming several debates with this BTW. Morgan Wick 07:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not hit the notability bar here. SirFozzie 16:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really notable as a mid-range Florida indy wrestler/former TNA jobber, and it seems like Mister Saint Laurent is essentially the only editor of that article *and* tried to remove it from the list of AfD's. If that's all that needed to happen, I'd have done it a while ago, heh. --DanZero 20:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable and poorly sourced. Nikki311 05:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Kurykh 02:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Taylor (wrestler)

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

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

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

Non Notable wrestler Darrenhusted 00:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Darrenhusted 00:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 04:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so you don't like our notability criteria, no need to prove a point by trying to impose your criteria on debates where we use the actual criteria. This user has been spamming several debates with this BTW. Morgan Wick 07:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Agree with Callelinea on issue of rampant deletionism, including somewhat notable indy wrestlers. DanZero 04:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP There is absolutely no reason why this should be deleted. There is enough information in this article to tell that Chuck Taylor does exist. His MySpace page, OWW profile, among other things are there. And like Callelinea said, it's better to have a lot of information that you know is true than just half of what is possible. And indeed, DanZero, there are VERY notable indy wrestling names in this article. Every indy fan is familiar with Chris Hero, Ian Rotten, Low Ki, Davey Richards, and even more in this article. Actually, all are notable, including Chuck Taylor, who has been getting tons of praise from the internet wrestling community. Theperfectone 03:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC) Although not an SPA, this editor has made few edits outside of the article which is up for deletion.[reply]
- Please see WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING, WP:NOTINHERITED (name dropping does not make the subject notable), and WP:ILIKEIT. Morgan Wick 16:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment having lots of links to bigger wrestlers in the article does not make this article worth keeping, and the praise of the IWC is not proof of notability. Darrenhusted 12:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* KEEP Obviously we wouldn't waste time creating this page even though i wouuldn't put it past people who actually do that. We provided proof and what not to prove the guy is real. He isn't that important of a Wrestler to have a Wiki page so soon but he does exist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.41.39 (talk • contribs) — 70.173.41.39 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because something is "true" does not make it encyclopedic. Morgan Wick 16:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly the 4 keeps above this have not made decisions based upon policy but upon the belief that all people need bio pages. This Wrestler has done nothing notable in or outside of the sport. -- Jimmi Hugh 12:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable wrestler article gives no indication with multiple independent reliable sources to prove otherwise. Whispe ring 12:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are multiple independent wrestling sources on the page. Theperfectone 15:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it appears that he has wrestled and won titles for 2 different professional wrestling leagues. Passes WP:BIO --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment CHIKARA boasts "On Sunday, February 18th, 2007 CHIKARA drew their biggest crowd ever of 275 at the New Alhambra/ECW Arena in Philadelphia, PA to see the "King of Trios" finals.", and IWA's champions (apart from Chuck) are redlinks. I don't think their championships are notable. Darrenhusted 16:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't think" is not a valid criteria for determining anything. As he has/does wrestle for a professional league, he's notable. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bar of notability is slightly higher than "has wrestled". IWA and CHIKARA are small indy promos, they are not ROH or even DSW or OVW. If their largest crowd is 275 then the league is not notable. Darrenhusted 16:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO clearly states that if they have played in a professional league, they are NOTABLE. It does not say anything about the number in attendance to the sport for it to be notable. This guy easily passes whether you like it or not. The policy is pretty clear. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Best reply yet. There's really nothing else to be said. He passes, guys. There's no need to change the policy. It says nothing about attendance. They're independent professional promotions. There's nothing else anyone can say to counter that. The man has been trained. He's professional. He wrestles for independent promotions. He's notable. Theperfectone 15:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word "professional" in professional wrestling is there to distinguish it from amateur wrestling, it does not make those who have wrestled in indy promos "professionals". For PW the bar for notability is set higher than wrestling in bingo halls. Darrenhusted 16:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How exactly is IWA MS not notable? You guys are making no sense. Chuck Taylor has been trained professionally. If someone does wrestle in an indy promotion, how are they not professional? They are. They've been trained. Professional and non-professional separates whether you've been trained or not. Chuck Taylor has been trained. So he's notable. The company runs small buildings. But they have also been around since 1996. And if you want to go deep in this, the promoter of ROH, Gape Sapolsky, mentioned Chuck Taylor on the ROH website, saying he would look into his work when ROH got the IWA MS DVDs in stock. So yes, ROH DOES notice Chuck Taylor. And yes, he's notable. I don't understand your thoughts when you say he isn't notable. He's been in the ring with very notable wrestlers. Of course, the average indy promotion isn't going to draw 500 people. If you think that, you're crazy. I would never expect it. I don't see why you guys would either. According to Wikipedia, IWA Mid-South is a notable promotion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Wrestling_Association_Mid-South

Adding that, go to their website, www.iwamidsouthwrestling.com

Look at the whole site. Chuck Taylor is all over it. He's one of their main draws, obviously. IWA Mid-South isn't expecting 500 people for a show. So I don't know why you guys would. You should look into your criteria a little more before going on a subject like independent professional wrestling. Theperfectone 14:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC) This editor has edited almost exclusively on Independent Wrestling Association Mid-South and Chuck Taylor, and this AfD.[reply]

Sorry, notability is not inherited. Notable promotion ≠ notable wrestler, at least when that promotion is such a lo-o-o-o-ong way from the big time. Darren, I think you missed a larger point below. "If they have their own site (and feature Chuck heavily) then why do we need this page?" By that logic, why do we need any part of Wikipedia? Morgan Wick 07:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If they have their own site (and feature Chuck heavily) then why do we need this page? Obviously you are passionate about saving this page, you have edited it a lot, but this article does not meet standards of notability, some two-bit small-time indy wrestler selling DVDs of himself to other promoters is not a notable occurance, getting called up to the main roster in WWE or TNA is. Darrenhusted 20:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have a simple answer to that. Not all the information can be found on http://www.iwamidsouthwrestling.com. He does work for other indy promotions, not just IWA MS. I'm just proving that he's a huge draw to IWA MS with that statement and that he is a notable professional wrestler. Anyone who is professional is notable. Theperfectone 15:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Then the IWA website needs to be updated. Non Notable wrestler draws 275 people to Non Notable indy fed does not establish notability. Darrenhusted 20:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CHIKARA is not a non notable federation. They are growing in popularity, run multiple cards per month at times, hold established tournaments that feature indy wrestlers from different federations all over the world (including ROH), and in July, they will officially be multi state when they run a show outside of Pennsylvania. Chuck Taylor has won two consecutive tournaments for the company, and is not a non notable wrestler. — 76.98.15.169 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment They can't put CHIKARA and his other career's info on an IWA MS site. That wouldn't make any sense at all. Theperfectone 15:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment quit filibustering. Darrenhusted 21:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What? What I said is obviously right. Why would you put another promotion's information on your site (if you owned IWA Mid-South)? That would be like TNA putting Kurt Angle's WWE achievements on their site. Theperfectone 23:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'm sorry, I should have said quit filibustering, of your last 50 edits "theperfectone" nearly all have been removing PRODs then commenting in AfDs, if you want the article saved then go edit. Darrenhusted 22:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know what filibustering is. I didn't say "what" to that. You seemed to just totally drop your earlier statement after you saw what I typed. Why are you trying to ignore the point I made? Theperfectone 06:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment yes I am ignoring you, becuase you are just filibustering. Darrenhusted 23:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In a debate, if you catch someone saying something wrong that is not an opinion, you're obviously going to prove a point. Why not say something about it? You don't want the other side to win in a debate. Theperfectone 06:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One last time, and s l o w l y for you. You...are...filibustering. Edit the article, stop pumping up this debate. The problem is that you feel you own this article and don't want it deleted, but spamming AfDs and filibustering does not help the article. Darrenhusted 23:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hey. As long as you are making no sense, I'm throwing in my comments. Spamming isn't what I'm doing. I'm actually making sense about the indy scene, unlike you. While it doesn't help the article itself (even though I've been working on it a lot tonight, but that's another story. That would be helping it. But, anyway...), it does help the decision to keep the article. So far, I have made numerous points. IWA Mid-South and Chikara are in no way small indies. They're actually two of the bigger indies. Why keep discussing something you know nothing about (the indy scene)? Theperfectone 23:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that you seem to be arguing that people who wrestled in the original ECW aren't notable... Morgan Wick 17:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was the implication. Darrenhusted 17:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sumnjim, the term "professional" in professional wrestling is used loosely. I can get a few friends together and create a professional wrestling league. The guy has won titles in two leagues which draw less than 500 people, which honestly I think some backyard federations get. Wildthing61476 17:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Backyard wrestling promotions would be lucky to get 50 in attendance. Theperfectone 15:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ...and that is why they are not notable. Darrenhusted 21:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Backyard wrestling and independent wrestling promotions are two different things. They're in no way related. You can't get together with a few friends and create a professional wrestling promotion. It would be backyard wrestling due to you not having a legit license from training.Theperfectone 16:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I retract my statement above. Having a page of him is pretty pointless as he has not done nothing to be noteworthy or should I say anything extraordinary. A wiki page isn't needed if he has a page at OnlineWorldofWrestling. When he has a few more years under his belts, achieve things that matter then he could have a page. Like Bryan Danielson.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.41.39 (talk • contribs) — 70.173.41.39 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP

I'm gonna make this short and sweet, the man's a professional wrestler. He may not work for some of the big leagues but he's still a notable name with many, many fans of pro wrestling (not the casual Monday Night Raw fan perse, but rather the fan who has their heart and soul into the profession). Besides if we can have a Wikipedia on actors, musicians, films, or TV shows that aren't well known then why can't a pro wrestler who isn't very well known (by the casual fan, again) have his own profile here dedicated to him showing off his acheivements and life story? [[User DSG|DSG] 15:36 29 June 2007 — 69.116.134.166 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment I do not know wrestling; but I do know poor arguments when I see them. The general N guidelines for athletes apply only when there are not sport-specific guidelines; the word "professional" does not make for actual professional anything; to call backyard [whatever] a separate sport is like calling high school [whatever] as separate sport; MySpace pages don't even prove bare existence. the general principle holds that our coverage of the notable is diminished in importance when we cover the non-notable. Our pages on the truly important people in a sport--or anything else-- lose their value if we accept the unimportant. Having a page on everyone is an important goal, but for a directory, not for an encyclopedia. DGG 00:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Backyard wrestlers are not notable. I'll admit. I used to do it, until I smarted up and got professional training. Backyard wrestlers are not notable. Independent professional wrestlers are. You can't compare backyard wrestling to independent professional wrestling. You can however, compare independent professional wrestling to mainstream professional wrestling. Theperfectone 22:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a point I think we missed. "I used to do it, until I smarted up and got professional training." Really? You actually are a professional wrestler? Do you work in some promotion? This is not a sign of me coming around to your side, because now a seed has been planted in the back of my mind that you might actually be Chuck Taylor, and even if you only work for Chikara or IWA MS that would bring up conflict of interest concerns. I'm just saying, in case these suppositions might be true, which they might not. Morgan Wick 07:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP ~~Agree with Callelinea on issue of rampant deletionism, including somewhat notable indy wrestlers. DanZero 04:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)~~Duplicate of vote above; added by IP below

Look, this page isn't hurting anyone. Just keep it up, and move on with your lives. k thanks bye. — 69.0.45.104 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Who cares whether or not it harms anybody? Policy is what matters. Morgan Wick 19:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And according to the policy, he passes. He's been trained. It says nothing about attendance. Whether you guys like it or not, he passes. There's no reason to change everything up. I'm not trying to be rude or anything. I'm just telling the straight-up truth. Theperfectone 06:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
KEEP The argument using attendance to prove worth is a poor one because CHIKARA and IWA-MS sell DVDs and have fans all over the world. Taylor is a rising star on the independent wrestling scene, and is becoming, or rather is, a fixture in several promotions. Bios of wrestlers should not be limited to people in ROH, TNA, or WWE. There is no reason to delete this.— 76.98.15.169 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Let me quote this for a moment. * Athletes:

- Competitors who have played in a fully professional league.

Guys, it's pretty clear. He passes. What else needs to be said? Theperfectone 06:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's not notable, pro-wrestlers do not compete in a professional league, they take part in pre-arranged bouts! The bar is set higher, and Chuck does not clear it. Darrenhusted 00:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Professional wrestling is a professional league, hense the word, "professional". That's kind of obvious, man. Theperfectone 07:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No more, take this to a talk page. Darrenhusted 00:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the professional wrestling project (WP:PW) has recently agreed to start getting rid of non-notable indy wrestler articles. These people have not yet done anything of worth, including Chuck Taylor. He's only performed at non-notable indy promotions and won non-notable small-time championships. Maybe if he gets called up to WWE or TNA, then he can have an article. As of right now, he's just one of a billion indy wrestlers...should they all have a Wikipedia article? No. Policy is policy. If they haven't done anything worthy of noting, then they shouldn't have a page. Also, professional wrestling is different from other sports in the terms "professional" and "amateur" are used to differentiate between types of wrestling...not level. I'd say Chuck Taylor is the equivalent of a farm-league baseball player right now...he's in the small-time. I'll say it again: he's undeserving of an article. Nikki311 03:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an important comparison. Even if the different meaning of professional goes over Theperfectone's head, keep in mind that minor league baseball players are pros. But we don't include every minor league baseball player in Wikipedia. We don't even include all the guys in AAA, I don't think. See WP:BASEBALL. Morgan Wick 04:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On the other hand, if IWA MS and Chikara weren't notable, they wouldn't have articles. Again, notability is not inherited. Being in a notable promotion does not imply being notable yourself. Morgan Wick 07:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IWA Mid-South and Chikara are big-time indies. Small-time indies include JCW, AZW, CCW, etc. When you talk about the indy scene, he's notable enough. He's a huge name in the indy scene, has won two major Chikara tournaments and the IWA Mid-South World Heavyweight Championship. Can some of you please look outside of mainstream wrestling before judging who and who doesn't deserve a profile? To back my statement up, there are very notable indy names who have profiles that have never been in WWE or TNA. Theperfectone 23:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Morgan Wick 04:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment People who use the notability scale for athletes as the *ONLY* standard seem to forget that "Athletes" implies competitive sports, wrestling isn't competitive as such but "booked", "Scriped", "Kayfabed" and IMO their notability guideline is somewhere between Athlete and Actor, yet not clearly either one. Also to say that "He's trained then he's a pro" and that that is the difference from Amateur wrestling is laughable, I mean did Kurt Angle not train before winning an Olympic gold medal?? Unlike most sports where there is an amateur and a pro level of the SAME sport the word "pro" here is used to distinguish it from regular wrestling which it has very little in common with and being a "Pro wrestler" is not automatically a sign of notability. Heck you can work for Miamisburg Pro Wrestling and hold the "Park Avenue" title and wrestle regularly in the High School gym in front of 20 people and 2 cats and call yourself a "Pro wrestler" - are they AUTOMATICALLY notable? Not by a mile. . (just my 2 cents) MPJ-DK 17:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kayfabe? Kayfabe has nothing to do with pre-determining a match. Kayfabe is simply "staying in character". Chuck Taylor has won big-time indy titles. Once you understand that, please continue the discussion. Theperfectone 15:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to re-read Kayfabe and professional wrestling. I suspect you actually DO know the distinction between amateur and professional wrestling, and are hoping to confuse us, or at least the closing admin, into thinking otherwise. Morgan Wick 00:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- kayfabe n. the showbiz and stagecraft of professional wrestling, including the ring personas of professional wrestlers, especially when maintained in public; insider knowledge of professional wrestling. As I said, that goes right back to what I said earlier, "staying in character". I know my wrestling stuff, maybe a little too much. I'm very familiar with the insider terms.

Theperfectone 01:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watch what happens when I change the emphasis: kayfabe n. the showbiz and stagecraft of professional wrestling, including the ring personas of professional wrestlers, especially when maintained in public; insider knowledge of professional wrestling. As I say, it includes more than "staying in character", it includes the worked nature of professional wrestling. (Yes, yes, this definition doesn't say that. Again, go read our article on kayfabe.) Morgan Wick 07:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We Get It! You like this wrestler, you even removed the AfD tag to try and save this article [23], and you placed a "hang on" tag to it when it was proposed for speedy delete [24], and you removed the PROD tag [25], but none of that does anything other than show that you really, really like this article/wrestler. But that will not save this article from deletion. Darrenhusted 21:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closing Admin, the only people that have voted to keep the article are Theperfectone (who is the main editor of the article and has made no attempt to improve it), accounts that have made few to no edits outside the AfD, two users who seem to think that every wrestler (despite not being remotely notable) should have an article, and users who don't seem to understand the distinction between a "professional wrestler" and a "professional athlete". Moreover, there has been little to no improvement to the article since the beginning of the AfD, even though cleaning up and sourcing articles has saved other articles from AfDs before (I should know b/c I've helped to save a couple). Nikki311 00:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's funny. I see multiple "KEEP"s. Everytime I do, Darren deletes it all. He's proved he knows nothing about Chuck Taylor. He should just stay off the page. He deleted my sources because he knows I had enough sources. Not to mention, he wouldn't fix it. He just deleted it. I had around fifteen sources. If that's not enough, you're being biased. And Darren, Chuck Taylor actually used the list of themes I put on there. So don't delete them again. You told me to add to the page. Yet you keep deleting almost everything I add (that I have a source to, too). He's simply being biased because he doesn't want Chuck Taylor to have a page because he's a mark. Plain and simple. No other way to put it. None of you people even pay attention to my points. Figures. I've had a ton of them, yet they're thrown right out the window. Forget it. Wikipedia is just full of marks anyway. It's hard to get anything through your heads. I actually thought you would be intelligent on wrestling (including the indies, which the intelligence obviously isn't there), reasonable enough to listen to me and actually LISTEN to me, not ignore me. I have had valid points, whether you like it or not. I'm sure I could find a smarter bunch of intelligent fans than this. And once you delete it (for no reason), just live with the fact that I was right and you were wrong. Think about it. It can help in future wrestling debates. Goodnight. Theperfectone 00:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember WP:AGF and WP:NPA.
I do think Darren went over the line here by bolting badly-formatted references instead of fixing them, but one of them was MySpace (see WP:RS and one was a free web host. He also crossed the line here. Darren, I think you aren't being civil or showing good faith by removing badly-formatted reference lists instead of improving them. However, that does not appear to have directly been to sabotage the article and I think it's incidental to whether or not to keep the article. See WP:CITE.
Please provide a source for the list of themes, or if you prefer, multiple sources.
What does being a mark have to do with us not wanting this article on Wikipedia? You're simply making baseless personal attacks for the sake of making personal attacks.
We've responded to several of your points several times, but you haven't really listened to our responses. Morgan Wick 07:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To address the editing, I tidied up the article drastically, and listing 30-something entrance songs does not make this article any better, and cut out the references because they looked a mess, I didn't feel the need to re-format them because I don't want to waste my time, and they didn't really make any difference to the content. The closing admin can see the edit history, and can make their own judgements. Darrenhusted 08:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I think this is really absurd what you guys are doing. It's BS you guys can have pages about sexual eroticy, but you can't keep a page for a pro wrestler? And you call us bad? Wow. Anyway, you guys really should get yourselves in gear. I mean, do you want to be known as the cool site, with info about indy guys? Or the site who took a page about sexual fetishes, over a simple pro wrestler's page? Think about that one, and get back to us. TylerS 02:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC) — 69.0.45.104 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment A little point to those that say "Well he's in Chikara or IWA so that's enough" are missing the boat on the argument. Chikara and IWA as PROMOTIONS are notable enough to get an entry on Wikipedia - but they're not at the point where you can say that "working for IWA" is automatically a cause for inclusion - Working for the WWE (not just developmental), TNA, WCW or RoH (in the US) in a non-jobber role is where you can say they become notable JUST for doing that, if they don't work for the "big" leagues then they have to do something individually to make them notable and it needs to be Verfiable from a Reliable source. Am I the only one that thinks that a "notability scale" for Pro Wrestlers would be good? MPJ-DK 07:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Fair enough...maybe just working for them is not enough. But being the world champion of one company for nearly a year and winning tournaments in the other makes Taylor more than notable. And Darren, I have no idea who theperfectone is. No one asked me to come here. I clicked on Chuck Taylor myself and decided with my own free will to participate in this discussion. I think it is rude to assume that people who disagree with you have been brought here by someone else, and I don't think the fact that I make very little edits should mean that I don't get to voice my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.15.169 (talk • contribs)
  - I agree completely (WP:AGF) and I think Darren may have been speaking figuratively. But you should realize that typically, closing admins do not weight the opinions of IP's and new users very heavily, simply because they tend not to have a good understanding of Wikipedia policy. Morgan Wick 16:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I will fully admit I don't have a good unterstanding of Wiki policy, but I am a big fan of independent wrestling, and I have a very good understanding of who and who isn't notable. ROH may be the top indy, but it is ridiculous to limit independent wrestler bios to people in that company or above. Taylor competes in main events against wrestlers from even TNA (he's wrestled Low Ki/Senshi in IWA) and his notability should not be in question given the fact that he has been the World Champion of IWA for over 8 months and is one of the top stars of CHIKARA. Since he's so young, there's no doubt that bigger things are yet to come. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.15.169 (talk • contribs) — 76.98.75.169 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      - Per WP:CRYSTAL, the fact that "bigger things are yet to come" can't be used to weigh whether to keep the article. Morgan Wick 01:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Fair enough again, but all that he's already accomplished makes him notable.
- I think WP:PW should have had posted notability guidelines yesterday. It would have been a good way to avoid contentious deletions like this. Morgan Wick 07:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this is a contentious delete, I just think that one editor and his anon IP friends are filibustering it. Taking out SPAs and interested parties this has 5 deletes from editors of some repute, and one keep. That Theperfectone is trying so desperately to enter 36 entrance songs, shows that there is not much else that can be said about this wrestler. Now this page is off my watch list someone let me know when this is finally over. Darrenhusted 08:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think I have a right to add 36 entrance themes. You can't tell me I can't. It's adding his entrance themes. So it's helping in a way. It might not help a whole lot. But it is helping add information. Theperfectone 00:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're saying that's NOT "Contentious"?? it fits my definition of the word ;) MPJ-DK 11:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this is a review of the "sources" you are trying to add to the article:

http://www.iwamidsouthwrestling.com (Promotion web site, tells us nothing in and of itself)
3. http://www.chikarapro.com (Promotion web site, tells us nothing in and of itself)
4. http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/promotions/index.html (Taylor's name appears nowhere on the page)
5. http://www.answers.com/topic/brandon-prophet (Wikipedia mirror, can't be RS for obvious reasons, and doesn't mention Taylor)
6. http://www.pwtorch.com/artman/publish/article_20632.shtml (sounds decent, but just a set of match reports for a hodge-podge of different promotions - has he had an article ABOUT HIM?)
7. http://wrestling.insidepulse.com/articles/68365/2007/06/23/young-lions-cup-v-night-one--reading-pa.html (sounds decent, and more focused, but on Chikara, though does praise him; but I've heard bad things about Inside Pulse)
8. http://www.pwtorch.com/artman/publish/article_20594.shtml (same as last PWTorch one)
9. http://www.smartmarkvideo.com/main/index.php?app=ccp0&ns=prodshow&ref=97573 (basically says he was on a DVD, and comes off as WP:SPAM)
10. http://iwamidsouth.proboards19.com/index.cgi?board=IWA&action=display&thread=1142730710 (message board, not RS)
11. http://wigglysworld.com/chikara/Site/chikara.html (I don't even know what this is)
12. http://www.pwtorch.com/artman/publish/article_20586.shtml (it looks like he appears in one match... and same as Inside Pulse without the bad rep)
13. http://board.deathvalleydriver.com/index.php?showtopic=38045 (message board)
14. http://www.podfeed.net/podcast/Chikara+Podcast-A-Go-Go/5615 (Now I think I know how #11 applies; but I doubt it's RS)
15. http://www.mopsquad.com/artman2/publish/Indie_Upcoming_Events_443/CZW_s_Cage_of_Death_VIII.html (link doesn't work)
There are a few sources that might qualify on that list, but remember that WP:N and WP:BIO say he has to have significant coverage in reliable sources. Trivial coverage does not establish notability. If you are trying to estabilish notability using sources, you might not get as much slack as you want with that list. You might get some, but... Morgan Wick 08:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment That IWA Mid-South message board link is a post straight from Ian Rotten promoting and hyping up the upcoming show. It's definitely notable enough. They handle all of their card updates on the message board. Theme list, straight from Chuck Taylor himself... http:// blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=31548154&blogID=181896098&Mytoken=2668AB76-7D47-4603-8AB617E25DCE107328413307

Yeah, I know it's MySpace. But he typed it himself. I know it isn't criteria according to Wikipedia. I'm not trying to prove anything for Wikipedia's criteria. I'm just proving that he did use those themes to you guys. Theperfectone 11:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we have 35k of discussion, someone needs to close this. Darrenhusted 13:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, more importantly, the five-day period is up. Morgan Wick 18:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just for future reference, I suggest someone who is an indy fan judge these indy wrestlers from now on. I think it would cause a lot less problems and things would run a lot smoother if the people in the pro wrestling project knew more about indy wrestling. Because in the indy world, Chuck Taylor is a huge name. But a fan who watches only mainstream wrestling wouldn't know that. What do you guys think? Theperfectone 17:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I think that ANYONE is allowed to vote on a AFD, can't limit it to a very narrow group. I also think that you can be an Indy fan and still vote delete here - it's not like it's a "big bad WWE fans Vs us poor little indy fans" here. Just for future reference if the article had passed WP:V and WP:R there wouldn't be any problems at all and if those that argue for keep had read both policies and found reliable sources for the article then we wouldn't be 36K into a deletion conversation because then it wouldn't even be put up for AFD. MPJ-DK 03:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think you misunderstood me. I meant when people report the article in the first place and label them a non-notable wrestler. If we had some very educated fans on indy wrestling in the Wiki Professional Wrestling Project, that wouldn't happen. They would know who deserves an article and who doesn't. Instead, it would be fans that only watch mainstream wrestling and they don't have any education on indy wrestling. So they would think Chuck Taylor is a no-name. I seriously doubt there will be indy fans out there to say Chuck Taylor doesn't deserve an article. The major indy promotions are ROH, IWA Mid-South, PWG, Chikara, CZW, and maybe a couple more. Anyone who has won titles or tournaments in those, most likely deserves an article on Wikipedia. Now, if you try to make an article on an indy wrestler who wrestles for a small indy promotion that no big indy fan has heard of and has even won the World Title, then that's the time when they're non-notable and should be deleted from Wikipedia. But for someone like Chuck Taylor, he deserves an article because he won major titles in big indy promotions that most people have heard of, that being IWA Mid-South and Chikara. The other two promotions are what I would call non-notable, even though I've heard of them. Most wouldn't know them. But he has won the IWA World Heavyweight Title in IWA MS and two major Chikara tournaments in Chikara. That would no doubt make him notable. Theperfectone 1:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- World? How are any of those titles "world" titles? IWA World Heavyweight Title? Really? Darrenhusted 14:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The title has been defended outside of the continent. If a title has been defended outside of the continent in which the promotion was started in, it is considered a "World Heavyweight Title". And this article does have a source. I've seen some WWE wrestlers who had never had a source before and the article was just tagged. Theperfectone 3:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment and I think you're missing my mai... no my only point is that if an article fullfil WP:V and WP:RS then it doesn't matter what people think, it's a keeper. It's pretty simple really and it doesn't require anyone to have specialist knowledge to see if an article deserves a wikipedia article. MPJ-DK 06:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Taylor is the current reigning IWA-MS Heavyweight Champion. This is a belt that has been held by people like AJ Styles, Arik Cannon and Jimmy Jacobs. Those three are big time, well known independent professional wrestlers. Chuck Taylor is in the same class as those three. He is also the current reigning CHIKARA Young Lions Cup Champion. This is a championship that has been held by guys like Jigsaw, Shane Storm and Larry Sweeney. Those are three of CHIKARA's biggest stars. To say the least, I believe Chuck Taylor is a very notable independent wrestler. 24.128.99.180 15:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC) — 24.128.99.180 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- Somehow I doubt those people are going to cite being IWA-MS Heavyweight Champion at the top of their resumes. Morgan Wick 17:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP His notablity has been proven. He is a reigning champion has won seceral tournys in various promotions, more than anyone on this page has accomplished. People KNOW who he is regardless of the audience numbers because Chikara Pro sells DVDs all over the world. Hulk Hogan, no but notable, yes.--EdWood 17:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

His notability has not been proven, and all the SPAs and fan accounts adding to this AfD by simply saying "he is notable" are proving nothing, are you looking at the article? Chaos Pro Wrestling, Hex Gage, Toby Klein, Team FIST, Niles Young all redlinks, Player Uno was sucessfully Afd-ed yesterday, Richochet, Max Boyer and Beef Wellington don't have articles, what does this tell you? Find some non-trivial, non-Spam links for Chuck. Darrenhusted 18:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article cites no reliable sources which support notability. --Haemo 00:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 07:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Thompson (sound artist)

The subject of the article does not meet the criteria for notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 00:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable musician. Bigdaddy1981 02:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTE. From article history this has been raised before; creator is possible WP:SPA EyeSerene^TALK 18:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Neil Pryde. Wizardman 23:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RS Racing

Fails WP:ATT. There is no reliable third party coverage of the product to support its notability. Nv8200p talk 00:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Neil Pryde which already has similar single sentence entries for particular sails e.g. Neil Pryde#RS1 and Neil Pryde#RS3. CIreland 14:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above comment. If additional info (eg technical specs, design history etc) is ever added this may be worth a separate article, but not as it currently stands. EyeSerene^TALK 18:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge notability not established as stand alone article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 20:08, 29 June 2007

Merge, an orphan article except for Neil Pryde. John Vandenberg 20:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anas ^talk? 17:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henrich Krupp

No assertion of notability in the article. Fails WP:ATT. No reliable third party media coverage. Nv8200p talk 01:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I considered merging to Krupp, the article about the famous family of German industrialists, but I can't find evidence of a Henrich among them. So, per above.--Ispy1981 01:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability. JJL 02:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I can find no evidence of a Heinrich Krupp associated with that great family, much less one who ended up in Louisville of all places - possible hoax(?). Bigdaddy1981 02:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Seems like a big old hoax to me...FireSpike 04:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability; possible hoax. Acalamari 18:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only evidence I find for this man (spelled "Heinrich") is a query on RootsWeb by his GGG Grandson (who is, not coincidentally, MTuck3 - the author of this article). No evidence of notability. -- DS1953 ^talk 18:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 01:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Reed (Jazz Musician)

The subject of the article does not meet the criteria for notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 02:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 04:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe yes, maybe no, but this kind of comment does not belong in the AFD. Try the WP:Village Pump CitiCat 05:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Keep searching for '"eric reed" jazz' on Google pulls up 52,000 hits. One of the top hits was a New York Times review of a performance. He has a long entry on allaboutjazz.com and allmusic.com. He had three albums chart on Billboard's Top Jazz Albums chart. Quite notable. Chubbles 05:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chubbles and WP:MUSIC, but rename to Eric Reed (musician) per naming conventions. He has reached the top 10 on Billboard's jazz album chart and should be deemed notable at least by chart performance. --Metropolitan90 06:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending copyedit to better comply with WP:ATT (using the sources above given by Chubbles would be an excellent start). EyeSerene^TALK 18:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have worked with important musicians in that domain. JForget 01:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above comments. Also, rename per Metropolitan90.--JayJasper 14:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 07:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magwayen Creative Scholars' Guild

A University theatre group. No assertion of notability in this article, no external sources. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete student group at a single school. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. According to the article, a prominent screen writer, a leading university in the country and claims of "citations from award-giving bodies" might be enough for notability. Premature to delete -- Steve Hart 17:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sancho 05:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ATT, WP:NOTE etc. The notability of the subject is not established by the article, and the screenwriter/award notability is not established either. In as far as there are indirect sources (via "External links"), they are self-referential, and the prose violates WP:SOAP (admittedly not an AfD criteria). EyeSerene^TALK 18:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The university itself seems notable, but individual student organizations would need documentation of their wide recognition, which has not been provided in this case. EdJohnston 19:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, this is major news and will become the subject of multiple non-trivial news sources. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 10:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Haymarket bomb plot

Under WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a newspaper or current events website. The opening says it all "On 29 June 2007, an unexploded car bomb was discovered near the Tiger Tiger nightclub", this doesn't describe a plot, it describes an event. Propose deletion or merging. Hera1187 10:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep IMO, if they've had to call COBRA in, it's notable - and the AFD is premature given it's only just happened - give it time. Will ^(talk) 10:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is because only limited details are available about the plot at the moment as the bomb was planted less than 12 hours ago. In time as more details come out about the plot the page can be developed. I agree at the moment it describes an event but i think you are jumping the gun a bit here, wait a few days and more facts will be available to make a more complete article.--Yini3 10:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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