Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 29

< December 28	December 30 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Huntsville Christian Church

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - is presumed. Article currently does not exist; however, this discussion was not closed with the proper formatting by an administrator. Luke! 11:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has not been established. choster 17:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator Naconkantari 02:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Shokry

Barely enough context to avoid db-context, barely enough notability mentioned to avoid db-bio. Prod was deleted by contributor who added a museum name as a reference. This article is unreferenced in any meaningful way, the name of the article does not directly match the subject within the article text, there is limited context as to why this is notable, there is no GHits for the name, and I can not find anything to give verifiability. ju66l3r 00:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Nomination rescinded - This article was started such that it barely avoided a number of speedy deletion criteria. The current article is substantially improved to the point of a decent stub and hopefully future work will expand it to better describe this Egyptian military leader. ju66l3r 22:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Keep per new information. Dooms Day349 01:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Al Fariq" in Arabic just means "the general"; a search on plain old "Mahmoud Shokry" reveals that he (or someone by the same name) has a street named after him in Cairo, which leads me to suspect this guy may be notable. Will do more research. (And if we keep this page, as per MOS, we should remove the title from his name and put it at plain old "Mahmoud Shokry"). cab 01:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Have cleaned up and added a better source (Egyptian newspaper article, available online). Still can't find much info, even on Google Books, Egyptian biographical dictionaries, etc. cab 03:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep being appointed cheif of staff of a notable country's army is certainly worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jujucabana (talk • contribs) 02:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

keep & expand WP guidlines call for multiple (2 or more) non trivial sources. (1) The "Egyptian Military Museum in Cairo" was implied by the nominator as a non-credible source; how can that be? At WP there is the assumption of Good Faith, and why wouldn't an exhibit exist featuring a display etc. on the nation's first Chief of Staff. (2) Under an alternative spelling several documents have been found which reference this man; one clearly demonstrates notability by discussing the changes in the Egyptian army and specifying him as Chief of Staff.
- Reliance on Google (etc.) for other than recent history is a dangerous practice, it is a tool for suggesting notability but not disproving notability.
- Being a horse suggests being a mammal, but not being a horse does not exclude being mammal. Getting high G-hits suggests being notable, but not getting G-hits does not exclude being notable. This is especially true for non-recent historical figures. WP is a new phenomonon and we should be bold in our thinking.

--Kevin Murray 03:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that a museum, in and of itself, is not a reliable source. What exactly is being sourced? The front desk? An expert on this area within the museum (if so, name the expert)? An exhibit (name the exhibit)? You can't just reference the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum for every U.S. flight-related article. That having been said, please do not ignore that my comment on GHits is not without context. I used all of the comments in my nomination as deciding criteria for submitting this AfD. At the time, there was no secondary source (the article recently added) and the museum was the only source given. Combined with the poor quality of the article (little context, little claimed notability), I decided that it would be best to err on the side of deletion than keeping it, knowing that it could be created in the future with a better start. As it stands now, the article is much better than it was when nominated. A little better would even warrant a dismissal of the AfD. ju66l3r 04:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really blame User:Ju66l3r for AfD'ing this one; when he did, it had little context, didn't provide the name of the subject in Arabic to allow for further checking, and was created by a new user also having the second name Shokry (TamerShokry); that's enough to set off anyone's WP:VANITY alarm. Anyway, I'm having a hell of a time trying to find any second source about him, so help is appreciated ... none of the hits in Arabic are about him, as far as I can tell, but other people with the same name. Nor does he appear in "Biographical Dictionary of Modern Egypt" and similar books; the only thing I have been able to find is a one sentence mention in Tripp's "Contemporary Egypt: Through Egyptian Eyes" on p51 as "Shukri Pasha". Anyway I suspect he's known under yet another name which none of us are aware of. cab 05:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Per Kevin P.B. Pilh e t / Talk 03:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, [personal attack removed] --Jesusthemessiah 06:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note Jesusthemessiah was blocked for his vulgarity in the above comment using the "F" word. --Kevin Murray 07:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if we can verify that he was chief of staff of the Egyptian army, but move to a better name per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic). --Metropolitan90 06:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is already verified by two sources (newspaper cited in the article, plus Tripp, p51 which I mentioned above; however I don't feel Tripp is worth citing in the article itself since it's just a 1 sentence mention, and the only additional information it would add is that he was still Chief of Staff a year later). cab 07:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless we can find more information than that he was chief of staff for a period of time. --Dhartung | Talk 06:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Way off base you can't make up rules on the fly! Where in the WP guidelines is there a time criterion for notability? He could be notable as the shortest serving but first serving chief of staff. --Kevin Murray 07:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- It's not about "time criterion", it's about expandability. Alternately, merge to List of chiefs of staff of the Egyptian army. See also: dicdef. --Dhartung | Talk 11:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dhartung, are there expandabilty guidelines? i.e., (1) can an article be too short when brevity is encyclopedic and (2) do we have a crystal ball telling us that someone from Cairo won't drop in next month with a wealth of info. So how do you measure expandability? --Kevin Murray 13:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, an article can be "too short". A guideline is just that. We are not bound by guidelines. WP:V alone does not mean we must keep everything that is verifiable. AFD exists in part to judge encyclopedic quality. There is obviously a dearth of English-language sources about this person, a situation I don't expect to magically change tomorrow. --Dhartung | Talk 22:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Dhartung, based on your comments and research which I have seen elsewhere, you are intellegent and dedicated, but you can't just cite your personal opinion that an article is too short or unlikely to improve -- how is that being objective? --Kevin Murray 23:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Just because we may not have heard about him in america, does not mean he exists! I assume good faith on the part of the creator, and recently, there has been several more references added! There are plenty of Americans on wikipedia, who have held less positions etc. I think that deletions of articles like this often show a systematic bias towards americans etc and many of us dont put a scond thought(I myself have been guilty of this) of slapping a {{prod}} on an article from a foreign person weve never heard of. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears true and referenced information. Springnuts 12:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep he's notable, but it would be better if an expert on the subject could expand upon the notability. Just H 21:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit-conflict Keep He seems notable. I added a source which confirmed that there is such a street. I also corrected some mistakes and added the transliterations and moved the page to Mahmoud Shokry. The only issue here is that I could not find any information on the man except that he is the father of Ibrahim Shokry (ابراهيم شكري) a former minister in the Egyptian government. Searching his name, gives me only results which mention the street. Online information on Middle Eastern history and early (or even modern, for that matter) facts and statistics is very deficient. Oh well, I tried. ← ANAS ^Talk? 21:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bucketsofg 01:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect and protect. MER-C 09:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yauhushua

Unverifiable original research. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yaohushua and Talk:Yaohushua. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 00:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the page Yaohushua was involved in an AfD some time ago, for which the result was to redirect that page to Sacred Name Movement. After Yaohushua was finally protected by an admin, the editor who repeatedly reverted that redirect opted to head to the nominated article and change it from a redirect to Yaohushua to contain the content that had originally been deleted from Yaohushua.

That content had been removed because it was unverifiable and most likely original research. No reputable sources have ever been cited in the existence of the Yaohushua article, and there are no findable references of note except those mentioned on the Sacred Name Movement page which lists "Yaohushua"/"Yauhushua" among several other names.

Normally, I would just change this page to redirect to Sacred Name Movement myself, but there is an editor who, based on past actions, will not allow such a change to remain. Therefore, I am nominating it here and voting to redirect it to Sacred Name Movement and protect. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 00:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and protect per nom. As you point out, we'll likely have to do this for all the various spellings of Yahweh/Jehovah that this sect appears to hold sacred.Shawn in Montreal 01:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect, per nom, and see to it that the user is closely watched and possibly blocked if such behavior continues. Dooms Day349 01:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Protect Recreation of deleted material. —ShadowHalo 01:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
deletewhy redirect it if an editor refuses to mention it on a page? --Juju 02:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Redirect or delete and protect not this guy again! What a pain. Salad Days 03:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Shadow P.B. Pilh e t / Talk 03:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Protect per above --Wildnox (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect per nom. --Metropolitan90 06:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken care of the redirect part and have filed a request for protection. Snowball closing. MER-C 09:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (SNOW). Metamagician3000 10:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bikini speedbandits

No assertion of notability, can't imagine any could be established. Prod removed with no explination. --InShaneee 01:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, looks like a hoax. Dooms Day349 01:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no notabiliy if not a hoax. TSO1D 01:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. —ShadowHalo 01:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 02:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above.UberCryxic 02:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
deletereads like an advertisement--Juju 02:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per nomination --Mhking 02:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not a hoax, see [1] _SUBWAYguy 03:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. P.B. Pilh e t / Talk 03:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it isn't a hoax, but the BBC newssite states that it "spoof news report" created by Danish road officials, which was posted on the web. Interesting concept - but I couldn't find the actual video at either Road safety [2] or transportation [3] web sites. SkierRMH 04:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article does not make sense to me. Tonytypoon 05:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 06:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dooms.Akanksha 06:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable spoof news report, as indicated above. At best, it's a passing Internet meme with no WP:RS indicating notability. --Kinu ^t/_c (éŕ) 06:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 09:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (Its a funny vid, though) Bastun 14:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-not notable~ TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@
Delete as lacking sources to establish notablity.-- danntm ^T _C 15:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This is weird. o_0 ~ Ed B oy^[c] 19:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because, although it's not a hoax, it's merely an unusual advertisement. I can imagine an argument for its notability (a government agency producing an ad featuring topless women to encourage motorists to follow speed limits is a sort of "first", or at least innovative). But I don't think that every unusual/interesting ad should qualify as notable, and I'm not convinced Bikini speedbandits is anything more than that. — DustinGC (talk | contribs) 20:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ← ANAS ^Talk? 21:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bucketsofg 01:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of the above --BenWhitey 03:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above —dima/s-ko/ 04:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Ryland

In my own opinion does not liveup to qualitifications required for a entry Joepenny 01:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to his user page, The user who created this AfD is currently blocked indefinitely with a note that they are a suspected sock of User:JB196, who is blocked indefinitely due to sock-puppetry and making abusive/libelous edits. Editors: please hold AfD to additional scrutiny.

Keep - games he's developed have received multiple reviews from independent game magazines, and since he is the source of the games he's functionally equivalent to their publisher. This is as good or better than the vast majority of other videogame developers already on Wikipedia; thus meets WP:CORP. Tarinth 01:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then the games would be notable but he would not be notable independently of them. There are no independent sources in the article, and if you can't find any independent sources that talk about him rather than interview him, include him, etc. in an article about the game.
  - This strikes me as splitting hairs. Wikipedia has hundreds (thousands?) of articles on videogame developers, and ordinarily the article on the developer is regarded as more worthwhile than the games themselves. In a case like this, where the developer and the publisher are effectively the same, I think it argues strongly for inclusion. Tarinth 02:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I doubt Wikipedia has that many articles on video game developers, but if their sources are as weak as for this one, then those articles do not belong on Wikipedia either. Saying that there exist other unencyclopedic articles does not mean that this unencyclopedic article should be kept. —Centrx→talk • 21:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable due to games created SirFozzie 01:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are no independent sources in this article. If he is only notable in direct relation to the game, and if you can't find any independent sources that talk about him rather than interview him, etc. about the game, then a separate article is not warranted; any verifiable information belongs in the respective articles about the games. —Centrx→talk • 02:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete why dont we wait until adam becomes as interesting as the game itself? right now it just looks like a myspace page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jujucabana (talk • contribs) 02:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Compare to the videogame developers listed in Category:Computer_and_video_game_companies ... Are you arguing in favor of removing all the companies in this category that are primarily known for the products they've developed? Tarinth 03:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN-bio that should be userfied. The Blue Lion 03:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've got the jargon of WP, but may be missing the spirit. Have you been here long enough to judge the work of others? --Kevin Murray 03:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SirFozzie P.B. Pilh e t / Talk 03:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Assuming good faith on the part of Tarinth and SirFozzie (above) we have a creator of multiple intellectual properties where there have been independent and credible reviews of his work. This would meet notability guidelines if he was an author or an artist, why not as a game creator? --Kevin Murray 04:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No it wouldn't. There need to be sources about him to warrant a separate article. —Centrx→talk • 08:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable MiracleMat 06:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kevin Murray. Notable game designer. VegaDark 10:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Many people have degrees and a job. Non-notable as per MiracleMat Springnuts 18:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He seems to be a notable developer, judging from Tarinth's comments. I think some of the criticism for the article stemmed from its nonconformity to Wikipedia's style standards (e.g. "it just looks like a myspace page"). I went through and changed every "Adam" to "Ryland" and tightened the prose, although I'm afraid I know nothing about the topic itself and couldn't improve anything else. — DustinGC (talk | contribs) 21:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Extreme Warfare. Nothing about Ryland personally on Google News or in a LexisNexis search, so none of the info here can really be verified. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. --Duke of Duchess Street 03:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject appears notable enough to have an article. Hello32020 00:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Extreme Warfare. He's lack any notability without creating that, so add a small part of this into the main article i'd say. --Wizardman 04:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Warfare

extension of <Adam Ryland>--does it warrant a entry? howdy i agree with the sirFozzie but to continue discussion are those third party sources noteworthy and reputable sources ?Joepenny 01:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to his user page, The user who created this AfD is currently blocked indefinitely with a note that they are a suspected sock of User:JB196, who is blocked indefinitely due to sock-puppetry and making abusive/libelous edits. Editors: please hold AfD to additional scrutiny. Tarinth 04:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It's legitimate game series and it's very well known among internet wrestling fans. The last entry in the freeware series is still played and modified to this day, despite being years old, and the upcoming update to the newer commercial series is highly anticipated although not as popular as the EWR release. There are multiple fan modding sites for these games, and there have been reviews by some gaming websites. How is this any less legitimate than an article on the resident evil series of games, or Legend of the Green Dragon? VampyreDark
Strong Keep Multiple Third Party reviews, long running game series, satisfies WP:V and WP:N SirFozzie 01:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the reviews, it looks like most of the Wikipedia articles is not sourced from them, but is either from the publisher or is original research. —Centrx→talk • 02:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete wow, i didnt think he could get any more worthless, but he just did. lol. the game is not widely known or distributed. although the game is cited, it seems like a waste of bandwith, come to speak of it has anyone started an article on the lemonade stand game on [bored.com] that would be a more worthwhile article then this...or the popping bubblewrap game.--Juju 02:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per SirFozzie P.B. Pilh e t / Talk 03:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep extent of distribution isn't a really limiting factor in determining notability, the game has received independent reviews. Juju's comments about also sound like an outrageous personal attack ("waste of bandwidth," "worthless"), possibly colored by a personal opinion of the products in question. Tarinth 04:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the same reason as the above Adam 'whoever' NN MiracleMat 06:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment Fancruft? Um.. please explain Wile E. Notabilitiy and Verifiability is satisfied, where are you getting fancruft from? 07:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep per SirFozzie. VegaDark 10:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per SirFozzie. Hero1701 15:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SirFozzie. --- RockMFR 20:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. IGN [4], Gamespot [5], and GameFAQs [6] all have independent reviews. It seems like a notable software series. — DustinGC (talk | contribs) 21:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SirFozzle --Sturm55 12:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Long running well known freeware game.
Strong Keep I don't think this is even a debate. Journalis 21:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Had this still been the free game it was a few years ago, I'd go with delete. But it's since been picked up by a publisher and is in the shops. Sure it may not be as well known as Uplink in the indy game scene, but the fact that it got picked up by a publisher makes it notable within the sphere of games like this. Also, Joepenny, I don;t know about you, but last time I checked, reviews on Gamespot, Cnet and IGN counted as multiple reliable sources. The Kinslayer 12:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was iffy at first until I saw this was picked up by a publisherand has reliable surces. 3 years ago would've been a strong delete, but it's grown enough. --Wizardman 04:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 16:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian extremism

Article is entirely unreferenced and POV. Per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindu_extremism , "The very definition of what is Extreme depends entirely on one's Point of View (POV). Thus, there's no way to have an article on Hindu or Christian Extremism without it being mostly, or entirely POV." ॐ Priyanath talk 01:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Request sources and relist later. But it does read as if it is original research. --TheFarix (Talk) 02:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This reads like an essay, and yes, it appears to be POV. Heimstern Läufer 02:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The principle certainly exists, but it's hard to really have anything concrete on it; those who declare it tend to have a POV issue, those who deny it likewise. There's very little middle ground with which to do any good research and find sources. --Dennisthe2 02:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Watch i agree with farix, request sources, and if none appear then recatalog for deletion.
Delete per nom.Baka man 03:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete full of POV P.B. Pilh e t / Talk 03:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources would need to be added, and the POV eliminated; which would IMHO, be extremely difficult to do. The problem is that this does exist, documenting and putting it into a non POV article is what is needed - not as this stands as of now. SkierRMH 04:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Extremely POV -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 06:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Priyanath.POV Garbage!Akanksha 06:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Super-Duper Delete. Completely POV Wikipedia is NOT a blog. Buh-bye. MiracleMat 06:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do think that this topic deserves an article of its own, however, what is there presently is basically original research, and is extremely POV. It needs a complete rewrite. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 06:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have an opinion that all Extremism sites should be removed whether they are about Hinduism, Islam, Christianity or any other, because those extremist elements are not derived from the ‘Truth’ of those religions but from those of who were ‘Fanatic’ of those religions or misused those religions.

Jesus Christ never said anywhere to spread the God’s message in ruthless ways.

But the fanatic Emporors in the Old Europe, West Asia and rest of the world and their local rulers destroyed the most beautiful Pagan Temples in then Roman Empire everywhere in the Old Europe and West Asia. Islamic kings and Emperors were not second to others.

Even the Hindu society was and is divided by various caste systems. But if you carefully analyze there is mystery on many things of their originality. Whether they really represent the original Hinduism or the derivatives, which was blended with.

So it is not prudent to observe Extremism in Christianity, but wipe out those weeds of customs, which were introduced within the Christianity from the pre-historical times and the fanatics who misuse the Christianity.

Rajsingam 07:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Lost^(talk) 07:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Perhaps an article on Religious extremism (currently redirecting to Extremism) can be written that examines the general phenomenon based on academic studies rather than newspaper clippings. Only such a scholarly article dealing with the sociological, psychological, political, historical and religious aspects could be sufficiently encyclopedic. Abecedare 08:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 10:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced POV essay/rant. Agree with Abecedare that a general article on religious extremism is needed though. Dragomiloff 11:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Islamist terrorism Afd. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would say take out POV and keep just as we kept Islamist Terrorism... there are some notable groups among them no less dangerous than the islamists. Alf photoman 14:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NPOV TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 15:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The present article actually does not seem that POV, since it does not say that all or most Christians are extremists, and mainstream media in even predominantly Christian nations agree that there are extremists among Christians. History books are full of descriptions Christian extremism (religious persecution, religious wars, bombings of abortion clinics). Granted, extremism may seem very mainstream and in accordance with the requirements of the religion to the extremists themselves. The thing lacking in the article is SOURCES! All it cites is a website. It would not be much of an exercise to keep what is there and source it from mainstream media, or the present article could be deleted without prejudice so that a well sourced article could be created later. The POV viewpoint is to claim there is no Christian extremism in the world and never was. Edison 16:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison. All religions can have extremist interpretations and its important to document it. I agree that there needs to be more sources added but the article shouldn't be scrapped. --Howrealisreal 17:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ~ Ed B oy^[c] 19:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Edison; this is a valid and rather widely used concept and I'm sure there are plenty of sources out there, though they need to be cited properly. The article itself doesn't appear to be all that POV, though, as I've said, we need sources and in a 'controversial' article like this it's especially important to cite virtually everything in the article. --The Way 06:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a paragraph summary in Christian fundamentalism (or religious extremism if that article ever happens, I like the idea of that). I have no objection with "Christian extremism" being discussed on Wikipedia - I just don't think there's enough sourced material in this article to justify its independent status. Islamist terrorism, on the other hand, does have enough content and sources to stand alone. Similarly, if more sourced examples of Christian extremism can be found, I wouldn't mind it having its own article. Quack 688 11:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now - This seems a problem with WP:V and WP:NOTABLE and should go through the text before relisting. JASpencer 14:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite for NPOV and add sources. --Duke of Duchess Street 03:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's likely that Islamic extremism is going to be deleted which would make it difficult to justify keeping this as a separate article. A new Religious extremism article (rather than the redirect that now exists) would be better for NPOV so as not to single out one religion. --Duke of Duchess Street 03:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to either Christian identity or Christian_terrorism, Delete POV against Fundamentalists. Peaceful mainstream fundamentalists do not deserve to be lumped in with Abortion Clinic bombers, although the Fringe Fundamentalists who are actively working towards Armegeddon to hasten the return of Jesus really do deserve their own article, IMHO. - F.A.A.F.A. 07:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Any important discussion could take place in a general 'religious extremism article. We can't have 'X' and then 'X extremism' articles for everything out thereWestmoreville 08:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The term "extremism" is a weasel word largely discredited in contemporary scholarship. A general article on Religion and violence should replace the several highly POV pages in this dubious set.--Cberlet 21:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is far too POV. Hello32020 01:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly written and POV beyond all repair. Pavel Vozenilek 03:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Christian extremist terrorism - no need to have both articles, and the latter seems more encyclopedic as written. -- Kesh 04:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dennisthe2. --Wizardman 04:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tomb Raider 3 (film)

A lot of speculation nothing concrete this article violates Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Whisp e ring 02:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Nothing is guaranteed that the movie will come out. Mirroring nom, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 02:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Nothing has been said about this movie coming out. Mrmoocow 02:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so until the movie is announced officially there's no reason to have an article about it. TSO1D 02:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates WP:CRYSTAL --Mhking 03:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. P.B. Pilh e t / Talk 03:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Paramont website [7] has nothign about this movie as of now. SkierRMH 04:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Speculation is poor reason for nomination, as the article is not pure fancruft but based on several citations. However, I agree that the article is crystal balling, since the film is not guaranteed to be made with no director or screenwriter. Since there are genuine citations, merge to Tomb Raider series#Movies in case production does take off in the future and article can be re-formed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 06:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 10:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ~ Ed B oy^[c] 19:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 21:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too many unknowns in the article itself, per nom Wikipedia is not a crystal ball .--Dakota 23:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bucketsofg 01:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until a commitment to make the film becomes concrete. --Duke of Duchess Street 03:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Hello32020 01:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete A7 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chairboy (talk • contribs) 03:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ben tesner

Not notable, likely to be autobiographical Mrmoocow 02:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like some kid made a page for himself nothing notable.--Xiahou 02:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should I have put this up for speedy deletion instead? Mrmoocow 02:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so. It's potentially speediable as an A1, an A7, or possibly even a G2. I've put the A7 tag on it for now - Speedy Delete. Tevildo 02:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Hey, look! It's a PokeFreak! P TO 02:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — CharlotteWebb 11:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nowthatsfuckedup.com

Non-notable web site Mhking 02:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the website isn't extremely notable on its own right, it would appear to meet WP:WEB based on the two news articles that reference it. --Brad Beattie (talk) 03:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was notable at the time. Daniel Case 04:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but expand; There was quite a bit of controversy about this in FL, which reached internationally becuase of explicit pictures of military personnel; this site was apparently banned by branches of the US military, and then closed down by the FL sheriff's dept. That should probably be documented in the article. SkierRMH 04:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree the news articles on the topic make it pass WP:WEB TSO1D 04:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I added specific information on the court case. --Dhartung | Talk 07:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. ~ Ed B oy^[c] 19:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, it has sources to pass WP:WEB and it has an intriguing history.-- danntm ^T _C 19:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. ← ANAS ^Talk? 21:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep site continues to generate media coverage more than a year after closure. --Whiskey Pete 23:53, 29 December 2006
Keep per above. Bucketsofg 01:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep per above --BenWhitey 03:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The case was fairly notable, plenty of sources to document that.--Media anthro 12:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced seems to meet WP:WEB. Hello32020 01:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 04:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon C. Quarry

38 google results; seems barely notable and unlikely to be expanded. Deprod summary was unintelligible. Salad Days 03:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- pitifully non-notable. --Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 03:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. --Brad Beattie (talk) 03:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable per WP:BIO. TSO1D 04:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO - [8]

"Mid-West Regional Light Middleweight Title"

1985-06-07 vs Nick G Mavrou Draw

1985-05-25 vs Tim Thomas Win

1985-03-20 vs Pete Podgorski KO

It is unclear to what the other 5 official bouts listed here refer. Does the Mid-west regional qualify as a competing at the "highest level in mainly amateur sports"? SkierRMH 04:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 06:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the "highest level" would be an international competition (like the Olympics), not a regional one. Xtifr _tälk 09:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 10:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Non notable--SUIT 18:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NN.--Anthony.bradbury 22:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Bucketsofg 01:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO; not-notable. Hello32020 01:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Core desat 04:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BoardGameGeek

Web page doesn't meet WP:WEB. There is no assertion of notability and Wikipedia is not a directory. Brad Beattie (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. P.B. Pilh e t / Talk 03:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This website is well-known as the premiere site for hobby boardgames, which is why the {boardgamegeek} template was created to link to BoardGameGeek's entries for games and designers. Also, there are some good keep arguments made on the article's Talk page. --Groggy Dice T|C 06:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. {{boardgamegeek}} is the template Groggy Dice is referring to. It seems to be used on some 400 pages. --Brad Beattie (talk) 06:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless Notability can be shown -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 06:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Probably the largest website on board games, and a key resource for Wikipedians, thus the template. The assertion of notability is likely missing because it seemed too obvious to mention. :-) Stan 06:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep. The single most important hobby game user-review and discussion site on the internet. I personally view it several times a weak and have dozens of references from wikipedia articles to the site. This is a no-brainer. MiracleMat 07:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the aforementioned template. An article-worthy website. Regards, Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 07:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above points - cleanup needed, but the site is definitely of merit and worth an article (I've had game shop staff and customers refer me to it for advice and reviews) --Ckatz^chat _spy 10:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability can be shown, and it hasn;t happened yet. Existence of template being used to spam the site across tons of articles in no way in itself demonstrates notability, just that someone went through and places links everywhere. I think the template needs to be deleted more than the article itself, but the article, if it does stay, should not have all the thoroughly nonencyclopedic trivial and self-promotional details that were there. DreamGuy 10:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added several references, which I believe should help establish notability. BoardGameGeek is notable in the boardgaming community, regardless of the ability of editors here to demonstrate that. The presence of cruft is not in itself an argument against notability, but it does demonstrate that the article could use some work. That's a separate issue, I would think. Jwolfe 11:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that references have been added, although it needs more of course. The article needs cleanup but it passes notability, and now passes WP:V. -Markeer 13:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable website, pretty much the premier one for boardgames fans and players. Does need improvement, though. Bastun 14:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly notable with many mentions in online interviews and articles and 100,000+ members worldwide, BGG is the primary internet website and database for board and card games. It is virtually impossible to do a google search for a board game and not hit this website. BGG is part of WikiProject Board and table games and it is certainly no less notable and encyclopedic than many other Wikipedia entries for online databases, e.g. Grand_Comic_Book_Database. I don't understand the opposition here-- some kind of personal grievance against the site? My list of sources demonstrating notability is here. --Jcbutler 17:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lately there's been an unfortunate trend toward AfD-first-ask-questions-later on anything that's a Website. Tarinth 22:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jcbutler. ← ANAS ^Talk? 21:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep because the AfD was created on the basis of an absence of an assertion of notability, which is clearly specious. An inane AfD... If you don't feel the article adequately asserts notability, at least take a moment to see if there's anything to indicate notability independant of Wikipedia. AfD's waste a lot of time. Tarinth 22:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bucketsofg 01:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep notable website --BenWhitey 03:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep this looks like a case of a well meaning guideline being used to claim a clearly noteworthy website isn't noteworthy. Since we seem to be looking for print references, someone should cite the article in the November 2005 issue of KnuckleBones magazine about it [9]. I'll try to keep an eye out for others. Rdore 03:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep website meets WP:WEB. Hello32020 01:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep website meets WP:WEB and is not that different from the one on h2g2. Keeper of Maps 23:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the largest site dedicated to a hobby of substatial noteworthiness, there is nothing unacceptable about it garnering a wiki page. IrwinRShyster

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Will be recreated as a redirect to List of Hungarians. --Core desat 04:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hungarian artists

The "list" consists of only one artist -- the user who created the list. Originally was speedy delete due to copyvio material _SUBWAYguy 03:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable; perhaps could be included if there were an appropriate category somewhere. ~~ M e eples (talk)(email) 03:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Category:Hungarian artists? Quite a lot there, plenty to start a proper list from. -- Visviva 14:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. P.B. Pilh e t / Talk 03:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like the author may have been attempting to create an article for Gabriel Krekk; the problem with that is that he only gets about 180ghits [10]. If that's the case, then we have a huge WP:COI happening here, as the author is User:Gabriel Krekk! SkierRMH 04:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- WP:NOT#IINFO. Tonytypoon 05:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There are certainly Hungarian artists who could be added to a list, but using the existing categories is probably better. Brianyoumans 06:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and SkierRMH. --Metropolitan90 07:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an article but make it a redirect to List of Hungarians as that has an artists section already. The section is just not long enough to warrant being spun out into its own list.--T. Anthony 08:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 10:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ← ANAS ^Talk? 21:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bucketsofg 01:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While the present content of this "list" is irredeemable, a proper list of Hungarian artists would be a useful and encyclopedic addition. See Category:Lists of artists for others. -- Visviva 14:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless improved, delete and redirect per T. Anthony. -- Visviva 14:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hungarians. Hello32020 01:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as vandalism. ~ trialsanderrors 04:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sinister_monkey

Delete No content, just a redirect to George W. Bush.Daniel J. Leivick 03:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Page now is blank without redirect, but all it ever had was the redirect. ~~ M e eples (talk)(email) 04:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete or maybe redirect to Family Guy, since I thought this was about the "Evil Moneky" --Wildnox (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and tagged so. TSO1D 04:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dakota 04:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Bernhart Scott

Subject of article fails WP:BIO and WP:V -Nv8200p talk 03:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references P.B. Pilh e t / Talk 03:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, vanity page. Daniel J. Leivick 03:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vanity, especially considering this: "He drives a Lincoln Navigator and has a penchant for drinking Jim Beam on the rocks and hooking up with many females." Daniel Case 04:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria FROM WP:BIO

Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles. Third-party verification from a non-trivial publication outside of publications by sponsors of the sport or activity should be provided to demonstrate that the subject is widely recognized—meeting the first criterion—as performing in a fully professional league or at the highest level. --Kevin Murray 04:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If you look at the end of the year summary for the 2006 team, Scott isn't even mentioned. He is on the roster, but his 2005 numbers didn't look particularly amazing to me - 13 tackles, the same as another teammate at the same position, same year. Playing for Trinity College is not playing at the highest level of college sports - it's a small school. Brianyoumans 04:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:BIO not sure what Kevin Murray is trying to get at, but not knowing football, is Trinity college of sufficient stature? That aside, I don't see the 3rd party verification of notability. SkierRMH 04:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Trinity College (Connecticut) doesn't mention sports at all, beyond including a template for the New England Small College Athletic Conference, which is a Division III football conference. In short, Trinity College is not a prestigious sports school. Zetawoof^(ζ) 05:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments above. Zetawoof^(ζ) 05:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no WP:RS indicating subject meets WP:BIO for athletes. Considering that football is not a mainly amateur sport, the or other competitive activities... including college sports clause does not seem to apply. That notwithstanding, playing for a D3 school wouldn't even be at the highest level, and is not in itself an assertion of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c (éŕ) 06:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The assertion in the box that he is expected to be a second round draft pick is so absurd it makes me think this is largely a hoax. --Brianyoumans 07:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: You're probably right. At least he didn't say he's more 1337 than Troy Smith or Brady Quinn. Now that would be blatant self-aggrandization. --Kinu ^t/_c (éŕ) 07:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Brianyoumans and Zetawoof. If he isn't even listed in the season summary for his team, he's not notable, without even getting into the fact that it's a Division III college team. --Metropolitan90 07:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP guidelines "Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles". The article said that he was injured, so if he is first team but didn't play he could be notable. I think it fails by the school (club) having insufficient stature. Delete--Kevin Murray 12:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 10:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 14:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete. WikiMan53 T/C e@ 17:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's an attack, not vanity, and probably should have been speedied as such, as the last version by the original author included
He drives a Lincoln Navigator and has a penchant for drinking Jim Beam on the rocks and hooking up with Julia Hoyt. Scott frequently likes to blackout and get naked at inappropriate times. He is often said to have the biggest legs in the room. Rumors have also circulated around campus that he is a raging homosexual who enjoys particpating in bukkake events. It was reportedly during one of these escapades, that Scott picked up his infamous case of gonorrhoea.
[11] - Aagtbdfoua 17:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - although is there a Warcraft-themed Wiki somewhere that could take these? DS 14:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warcraft III:Chapter 1 (Rise of the Naga)

These articles are plot summaries for chapters in the computer game Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne. I'm listing them for deletion because I feel this level of detail oversteps the WP:NOT and WP:CVG guidelines regarding indiscriminate and crufty content. An overview of the plot in the main Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne article is sufficient to cover this material. --Muchness 03:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Articles for individual levels in a game? Talk about cruft. TJ Spyke 04:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All per nom -- Whpq 04:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft --Wildnox (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. I would have no problem with smerging a bit of this to the main article, but most of it is worthless. --- RockMFR 04:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 06:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subtrivial fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, clear cruft and not really necessary. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Wow, fancruft supreme! SkierRMH 08:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. Warcruft. MER-C 10:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Belongs on a fansite, not a WP article. Bastun 14:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All- Per above--SUIT 18:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete All per above ~ Ed B oy^[c] 19:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as too much gamecruft.-- danntm ^T _C 20:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nominator. I'd laugh if anyone voted keep. Greeves 21:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: Gamecruft, but credit to the person who has been trying to create every single chapter. Hard work elsewhere, please. x42bn6 Talk 02:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete all per norm and above. --BenWhitey 03:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 21:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all: Remove the quest info and leave the story info. I'd suggest merging it into either the main article or a separate article detailing the chapters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CyberSkull (talk • contribs) 03:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete all per nom; individual chapters in game are non-notable. --Scottie theNerd 13:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —freak(talk) 11:05, Dec. 29, 2006 (UTC)

Older Than We Are

Was on prod, prod was removed with no comment. Book is unpublished. No Ghits, no ISBN, author Zayne Beauclerk no Ghits. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books) on every criteria, also Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dakota 03:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: "It was is being written by Zayne Beauclerk. It is not yet published." And I doubt it ever will be, at that rate. Page is promotional. Daniel Case 04:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Unpublished original creation with no referenced assertion of notability; WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOT#OR. --Muchness 04:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable, no reliable sources, crystal ball. -- Whpq 04:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as repost (not a G4 - previous deletion was speedy). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Older than we are for previous AfD. Tevildo 04:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above, and apparent WP:COI problems ("I found names" or "I got"). Apparently this author User talk:Pine marten put up several articles about her own books and characters therein. SkierRMH 04:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I, personally, am rooting for the lumber company. Herostratus 05:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - as above. Tonytypoon 05:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:VERIFY. But the Redwood picture is beautiful. ^_^ JRHorse 05:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#OR -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 06:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationale at previous AfD (above), and kindly ask User:Pine marten (again) to read the five pillars and to refrain from creating articles which are WP:COI and WP:V issues. --Kinu ^t/_c (éŕ) 06:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V, WP:COI, and WP:BK. --Metropolitan90 07:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced crystal balling. —ShadowHalo 08:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 10:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Already in Wiktionary. --Core desat 04:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bulge (verb)

Wiktionary already has this, so no need to transwiki Daniel Case 04:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; WP:NOT#DICT. --Muchness 04:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef. -- Whpq 04:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Wildnox (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. TSO1D 04:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - dicdef already in Wiktionary. SkierRMH 05:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with nominators comments -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 06:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:WINAD, no transwiki needed. --Kinu ^t/_c (éŕ) 06:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - transwikiied dictdef. MER-C 10:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this now seems speediable per CSD-A5. Accurizer 15:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ~ Ed B oy^[c] 19:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —dima/s-ko/ 04:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOT#DICT Orderinchaos78 04:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY --Anthony cfc 19:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dakota 04:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Studio 158

Tagged for CSD with "POV, questionable notability, article even less encyclopedic than at last tagging for deletion", none of which are CSD, but all of which are good reasons that the article ought to be deleted. Was previously deprodded. Kchase T 04:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real notability. --Wildnox (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article makes no sense to me. Tonytypoon 05:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to fail WP:NOTE -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 06:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a business, fails WP:CORP, other than that it's simply non-notable. SkierRMH 08:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 10:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ~ Ed B oy^[c] 19:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really sourced, not really notable.-- danntm ^T _C 22:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 07:30Z

WTFPL

This is not a license, it is just a joke. A bad one. marcoss 04:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Consider speedy delete. Tonytypoon 04:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are over 23,000 ghits for "WTFPL license" [12], so there is some notability... quesiton is, as it's not a legitimate license, does it's "use" give it notability. If so, this needs re-writing to explain it more clearly. SkierRMH 05:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To my surprise I found this all over the net - 34,000 Google hits, with a high percentage seeming to reference this particular meaning. Article needs work though. Herostratus 05:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it:WTFPL has more information and links than the EN version. Might want to check it out... --- RockMFR 05:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The fact that there are so many hits from Google seems to suggest that it is at least partly notable - whether it is notable enough, however, is still questionable. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 06:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There seem to be at least 4 developers who have used this license. There is a license category for it on Freshmeat. It is a bad joke, but it is also a license (says the former Free Software Foundation employee.) --Brianyoumans 07:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep maybe WP:BJAODN? ~ Ed B oy^[c] 19:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have added sources, as well as a sourced quote from Bradley Kuhn the first FSF associate, and links to a repository of WTFPL software and art. It's not the MOST notable liscensing format out there, but recognition of validity from the Free Software Foundation and active use tell me it's notable. Wintermut3 19:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Wintermut3's research. -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Wintermut3 --BenWhitey 03:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Herostratus and Wintermut3. --Kevin Walter 05:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Herostratus and Wintermut3's research Koptor 23:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Core desat 04:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Velfarre

An article on a nightclub that was speedily deleted as spam and recreated. The new article asserts some notability but lacks the sources to back it up. (Old versions might have some more info if someone wants to dig through them.) For now this is a procedual nomination, although I might weigh in later. ~ trialsanderrors 04:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- WP:NOT#IINFO. Tonytypoon 04:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - opening hours may not be needed in a couple of days time but the incoming links Ayumi Hamasaki, Para Para, Ami Suzuki, Metropolis (Japanese magazine), Misono suggest this may be notable enough --Henrygb 08:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No fan of the place, but I've added 3 links to independent media articles, 2 English and 1 Japanese. Naturally they cover the shut-down, but I didn't even try hard and I think this demonstrates that this place is considered notable in Japan at least. Also it's hard to argue it's spam since the place closes in 2 days. Akihabara 09:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable enough. ← ANAS ^Talk? 21:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Akihabara 13:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing but trash came out of it, but the club is (was) still a very notable player in the J-pop/J-techno scene. TomorrowTime 13:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Somewhat notable in Japan. (/me scours CD collection for Earth Wind & Fire live in Velfarre, a Japan-only release) Neier 22:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Luciditeq 12:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has enough incoming links (or could in the future) to remain around. The quality does need to improve however. --Nictius 13:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps the best known night club in all of Japan. Also per User:Akihabara.—Tokek 13:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to the Box

Unreferenced neologism janejellyroll 04:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could be expanded by someone with good knowledge of the law. In other words, not me.--C J King 04:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it is a slang amongst lawyers, but is only that. It is listed in the ideomatic dictionary, but gets only 12 ghits. SkierRMH 05:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 do we have copyvio here? [13] SkierRMH 05:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's a Wikipedia mirror. MER-C 10:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Legal slang. Since there is Medical slang, fair to have an article in Legal slang as well. Suggest WP:REDIRECT to Legal slang. Tonytypoon 05:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it could form part of an article on legal slang, but right now it's just a dictdef. I'd say delete but userfy if anyone wants it. MER-C 10:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dic def.Obina 11:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this article lacks sources to pass WP:NEO.-- danntm ^T _C 22:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sounds like an interesting Neologism, but fails WP:NEO. I hope to see it in a movie or on TV soon, to substantiate validity. I like the phrase. TonyTheTiger 03:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a legal slang article would be interesting (hint, hint). Quadzilla99 06:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Changed my vote; not worthy of keeping.--C J King 18:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 04:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Mason

Way TMI about a nonnotable private citizen. Vanity, vanity, thy name is Aaron Mason. Article itself concedes that his claim to fame is his connection to the Asterisk Art Project, itself of dubious notability. Even if the Asterisk Art Project is notable, Mason deserves a line or two in that article, not a whole article to himself. And definitely not this article. Herostratus 05:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ecclesiastes Ch. 1. Grutness...wha? 05:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom _SUBWAYguy 05:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT#SOAP. If Aaron Mason created the Aaron Mason page, he could use his User page instead. JRHorse 05:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:AB. Tonytypoon 05:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; WP:AUTO. SkierRMH 09:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced autobiography of a non-notable person. MER-C 10:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. Danny Lilithborne 11:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity, clearly! ← ANAS ^Talk? 21:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Jackhorkheimer 23:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per author request. WP:CSD#G7 Femto 13:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vera Tuller

Wikipedia is not a memorial. Fails WP:BIO, WP:V, WP:RS. Author blanked the page when I prodded it. Another user converted it to a stub suggesting that the original author be given time to add notability. Author expanded the article considerably, but the subject still lacks notability. Resolute 05:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability. janejellyroll 05:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOTE -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 06:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 4 ghits, all obituary related. SkierRMH 09:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 10:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Adios. Khoi khoi 10:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately not appropriate for Wikipedia no independent sources and likely a conflict of interest between the creator and the subject. Daniel J. Leivick 01:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --BenWhitey 03:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DS 14:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Zirmer

Found this via AFD. At risk of breaking some genealogist's heart, this fellow seems non-notable. Only Google result is this page. Creator has a copy of this article on his/her user page so it will carry on... jengod 05:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced, unverifiable, no indication of notability. Looks like a memorial to a family member, maybe? Fan-1967 05:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can not find anything either that helps this pass WP:NOTE -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 06:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These memorials to family members are always well done. You can usually point to them as models of what a really good start to an article looks like. But the subject matter just isn't encyclopedaic. --Brianyoumans 07:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2 ghits, hmmm, non-notable. SkierRMH 09:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero non-wiki ghits. Fails WP:V. I'll get around to prodding the user page one day... MER-C 11:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hm, was a good article.. but not notable. ← ANAS ^Talk? 21:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - well-written, but the subject is unfortunately not notable enough for inclusion. Biruitorul 23:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree, this is a good article but fails on notability Sue H. Ping 00:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am the author of the article. I have no problem with its deletion, as I am now aware of it's non-notability. Please feel free to delete it. It was part of an art project on archives and historical records for a university course, in which I had to put information about Josef Zirmer (a family member) in the the public domain. I will keep the article on my user page, as it will be needed for my final assessment. Sorry if I have broken any rules, but it won't be happening again. Thanks for everyone's kind words about it being a good article - much appreciated. Out of interest, how does one find the number of hits for a page? Letsfckpeaches 13:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand. You're welcome for the compliments. :-) We find the number of hits for a page by searching the article title on Google. For example, I searched "Josef Zirmer" (with the quotes) on Google, and came up with two hits. Sue H. Ping 15:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was, well, I think it's a delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indianpad

Not in the top 100k sites on Alexa.. it seems to me the site is not popular; being a recently-created Digg clone is not an indication of being notable enough much to merit an article, IMO. --Mysidia (talk) 00:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with what was said above, plus it appears to be advertising as the user that created the page has only one edit... and it was the Indianpad page. Deskana 00:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, It seems enclopedic. Luka Jačov 01:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a teensy blog with bandwidth problems. Endomion 02:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. —Preost ^talk contribs 04:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - FrancisTyers 04:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is there no Alexa data at all, but there are only 7 Google results, 3 of which are part of the site itself. --Joel7687 08:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Quarl 10:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Zookman12 19:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination -- Ganeshk 22:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not notable enough VegaDark 00:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with many a Christmas wish. gren グレン 03:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - NeoJustin 05:26, December 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems it was deleted earlier & has been re-created. It is a blatant Spam with 13 links from 1 page. The whois shows it is registered under a fictitous non-existing address/telephone.

Whois Address is 11, Indian Street Whois Tele no is +1.1111111111 Fax: +1.1111111111 JimmyNet 06:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and redirect to Danger Man. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 07:31Z

Dangerman

A question of notability with this article. Article was created by anon user (only edits). No allmusic.com entry. Article makes touring claims difficult to verify. Nothing links to article. No references. MegX 06:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of reliable sources that the guy meets WP:MUSIC. MER-C 11:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per MER-C. 17 hits on Google for example. Springnuts 18:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete' - a Spanish Google search [14] brings up only 6 pages, none of which appear to confirm the tours in Spanish speaking contries. SkierRMH 23:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Danger Man. Likely search term. Tevildo 02:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 07:32Z

List of MLB seasons

This article contains a list of uncreated links and what links do exist, they point to "X in baseball". For example, 2005 MLB season redirects to 2005 in baseball. I have no problem with this list of MLB seasons but it is not being used and a list of years in baseball should be used instead to complete the already-exists "X in baseball." In addition if this succeeds, {{MLB seasons}} should be deleted as well. Cburnett 22:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant to the template. MER-C 11:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Redundancy is not a bad thing, but there's a third template, {{Year in baseball}}. Hmm, I think there's something going on here, but I'm not sure what. FrozenPurpleCube 17:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checked up a little, only one editor, I'll send him a note, see if there was something going on. FrozenPurpleCube 18:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have very little problem with the article but if most of the links don't exist and the rest are redirects then I'd call that a bad form of redundancy. If he wants to make something of it then I'll withdraw my deletion nomination but given the large time delay (List of MLB seasons was created 2 1/2 months ago...) the editor forgot, moved on, or no longer really cares. Cburnett 19:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article itself is not objectionable. It's a list of seasons in a major-league sport. It's a no-brainer that well-done it would be kept. The thing is, this isn't well-done, and it's more or less abandoned. If WikiProject Baseball was working on it, that'd be something, but as far as I can tell they're not. They have this Category:Years in baseball instead. FrozenPurpleCube 21:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely why I nominated it. :) Cburnett 21:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete without prejudice. There are many such lists, ie List of NHL seasons, List of NLL seasons, List of WHL seasons, so this list itself belongs, however it is an abandond repository of red links. If anyone wishes to start writing articles for each MLB season, then it can, and should, be recreated then. Resolute 20:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I started making the MLB season articles, but then people started to redirect it to the YEARS in Baseball articles, which I dont understand. If theres 2005 NFL season why cant their be 2005 MLB season?--Coasttocoast 22:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Coasttocoast's comments. I agree that they should not have been redirected. I would suggest cancelling those redirects and reverting back to the previous versions. Resolute 00:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WITHDRAW NOMINATION for now provided something happens. Coasttocoast, you're welcome to leave me a message if someone changes your work to redirects again. Cburnett 00:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Should be done other sports. Hockey uses categories for years of the sport and articles for league seasons: Category:2004 in ice hockey. Same for basketball Category:2000 in basketball. Basketball also seems to have an article for the sport year. There needs to be discussion about proper convention. TonyTheTiger 03:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have restored the four season articles back to their original status. The person who changed these to redirects really should have discussed it before making such a drastic change, especially given how obvious the differences between 2005 MLB season and 2005 in baseball are. Resolute 05:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: I'm the person that redirected those articles. First, why didn't someone simply ask me why I did that rather than announce here that I was wrong while my back was turned. Second, I hardly consider a single redirect edit a drastic change. The original author noticed the redirect and also did nothing to try to contact me. I included a perfectly nice edit summary with the redirect edit which, to me, invited an explanation as to why the articles were created. Third, the content split was not done well. It resulted in huge amounts of duplicated content between 2005 in baseball and 2005 MLB season. I could understand if the split was in progress but it had been in place for months and still contained a huge overlap, both in actual content and in concept. That's why I figured it was just a poor attempt at a split and had been abandoned by Coasttocoast who hadn't edited 2005 MLB season in over a month at that point. Another six weeks post-redirect with no complaints or communication solidified my hunch that the issue was dead. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think there was any intention of back stabbing here, just a lot of misunderstanding all the way around but I think it's worked out, yes? If coasttocoast will continue with this article then so be it. If not then it should be deleted without prejudice. Cburnett 16:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Apologies... I didn't quite mean my coments the way they evidently came out. Resolute 23:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - (I'll keep comments here - I found this page after I left a message at User talk:Resolute) I can't agree with a few things left on my talk page. As far as discussing before redirecting, when I see something broken that hasn't been touched in over a month, I generally figure that it's fallen off everyone's radar so I fix it first and wait for someone else to initiate discussion. (I'm still a little surprised that no one did that.) Next, I very much disagree that the 2005 articles are properly split. I estimate that 90% or more of 2005 in baseball#Events and 2005 in baseball#Deaths pertain to MLB as well as 100% of 2005 in baseball#Awards and honors. Last - and this is supported by the previous point - I'm not sure splitting the articles was even necessary to begin with. That's another reason I simply redirected - it was essentially a merge. Removing all of the MLB info from 2005 in baseball would leave very little - almost a stub. If you want to do a split, it might be better to break out the large sections: 2005 baseball calendar, 2005 deaths in baseball... Sorry, but I'm not on board with this discussion so far. But I'm listening! —Wknight94 (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - My biggest problem with the x in baseball series as it is presently constituted is that it assumes that baseball = MLB. Clearly that is not the case when there are dozens of minor leagues in North America, the Japanese leagues, etc. I would suggest that there is more than enough to separate each MLB season out of the x in baseball series, then expand the latter to include all other levels. 2005 in baseball does attempt to do this somewhat, but you are correct that it is imperfectly done. Regardless, I think it may be better to move this discussion to one of the related article's talk page, as this is the wrong forum, and this AfD will be closed at any time given the nomination was withdrawn. Resolute 00:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        That's fine. Unfortunately there's four articles in question plus this list article. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball perhaps? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, I'll just start a section at Talk:List of MLB seasons. That should be centralized enough. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 04:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shake Well Before Serving

Non-notable college student television program. Sorry guys. Maxamegalon2000 06:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NOTE -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 06:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Shake Well will begin to be shown on the Open Student Television Network starting this semester and, therefore, make it potentially notable Krocheck 20:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think for a college show it is very notable, in that it is one of the only college sketch shows to release that many episodes with an intent to relase a DVD to the public. It is award winning, and while it is only campus-broadcast currently, as of 2007 it will be broadcast all over the Greater Milwaukee Area on cable-access, and there are also talks in progress about having the show syndicated on a new campus TV channel at Rhodes College in Tennessee. I think that is a first, to have shows produced at one college broadcast at another, non-affiliated college. --RadStude 06:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please remember to note when "you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article". —ShadowHalo 08:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no WP:RS indicating notability beyond the campus. --Kinu ^t/_c (éŕ) 06:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kinu. Crufty. MER-C 11:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kinu. Danny Lilithborne 11:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can find no link to the "McNeill Creative reward. Only blog & youtube links otherwise [15], non-notable off campus. SkierRMH,23:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dakota 04:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaker Building

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. That's about all this article is. Crystallina 06:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. The article on audio speakers might want to mention that some people build their own, but we aren't a directory of speaker-building resources. --Brianyoumans 06:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - Instruction manuals. --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 06:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 11:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. However, on a personal note, I do find these kind of articles interesting. However, in this case, I don't think this one tells me anything useful or interesting Markb 11:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - as others, I was looking for something a bit more on 'How to build speakers' for this title! SkierRMH,23:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT.-- danntm ^T _C 00:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, definitely a how-to. Pascal.Tesson 18:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (already renamed). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 07:33Z

Isaace Pierre de Villiers

I can't find a single source on the internets for this, other than mirrors. Google search with quotes turns up abysmal numbers of results, none of which are not Wikipedia mirrors. This person might not even exist as far as I can tell. Lack of sources, 3 edits before mine and no discussion page suggests a lack of use for this article. Milto LOL pia 06:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Milto LOL pia 06:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, commander of SA forces at Tobruk seems pretty notable. Google Books has an extensive history of the SA Police that offered more detail. --Dhartung | Talk 07:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never heard of Google books. Is it an online resource like Wikibooks? If I saw some links, I might change my mind. Milto LOL pia 07:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - See Google Books. Similar to Amazon's A9 search inside. Amazing amounts of material some of it fairly obscure and not all of it fully visible without registration or purchase of material, but a great research tool. This is the bok: Black and Blue: Policing in South Africa. Note, a google search for "IP de Villiers" does turn up a few scattered results as well; I've added a couple to the article. --Dhartung | Talk 07:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note also article should be moved to Isaac Pierre de Villiers, the correct spelling per that book and his knighthood listing. --Dhartung | Talk 11:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, I thought about that but I got far fewer google results with that name, so I wasn't sure. Milto LOL pia 11:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Isaac Pierre de Villiers Alf photoman 14:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but correct "Isaace" to "Isaac". Apart from WW2 literature in South Africa, there are some internet sources which refer to him, e.g. http://www.lonesentry.com/bardia_intel/index.html

Dirk L

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 07:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 07:35Z

Peter fossey

Non-notable biography M e eples (talk)(email) 06:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 4th placed in Commonwealth Games decathlon: [16] MER-C 11:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 02:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per MER-C, but prune. Reads like vanity. If he actually finished 4th in the decathalon where the article gives him a bronze medal, then I question the accuracy and truthfulness of the entire page. Resolute 20:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the Official Commonwealth Games [17] results for the 1986 Decathlon read as follows:

Gold Francis "Daley" Morgan Thompson England 8663

Silver David Lee Steen Canada 8173

Bronze Simon Poelman New Zealand 8015

4 Bradley "Brad" Steven McStravick Scotland 7563

5 Stuart John Andrews Australia 7512

6 Gordon David Orlikow Canada 7424

7 Michael Cameron Smith Canada 7363

8 Simon Shirley Australia 7290

9 Gregory "Greg" Roy Richards England 7278

10 Albert Barry Miller Fiji 7158

11 Alfred "Alf" Muir Oddie Isle of Man 6058

- Eugene Albert Emery Gilkes England dnf

- Peter Fossey Australia dnf

Me thinkest that DNF does not equal Bronze. SkierRMH 00:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was alerted that Mer-C's link is actually for the Australian competition, not the Commonwealth games itself. Might still be borderline notable given that he did compete in the Commonwealth Games, but the glaring inaccuracies push it to the wrong side of that border. Resolute 00:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not satisfy WP:BIO or Wikipedia:Notability (academics), claim of medal not supported by [18] as noted in my prod nomination. Accurizer 02:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 04:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew winkler
edit

Andrew winkler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

this is a non-notable person, it was tagged for speedy deletion but asserts notability —WAvegetarian•(talk) 06:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per. nom. Few sources outside of his published material. ~~ M e eples (talk)(email) 07:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 11:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless something with a little more substance is added by the end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. TSO1D 16:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though I do know a wonderful person named Andrew Winkler. -- Kicking222 22:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete outisde of his own materials and website, not much out there; thus fails WP:BIO and WP:V with independent verifiable sources. SkierRMH 00:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 00:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Deleted by User:Mailer diablo as an uncontested PROD. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skitsoy
edit

Skitsoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Found this lying around. No opinion, just compelting the nomination. --Calton | Talk 06:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reason the page should be deleted: non noteband should not be on here at all Oo7565 06:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominatorOo7565 07:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, marginally famous in Belgium, toured with some fairly large acts. I wonder why you didn't let your prod expire, however. Salad Days 07:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as they have toured Europe and have won at least one (IMO minor) award. SkierRMH,00:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NawlinWiki 02:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC) (closing article improperly closed by non-admin).[reply]

Jaron mccrea
edit

Jaron mccrea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

"The first Ball State University student to win an Academy Award"! Except that it's the student version. Lots of puffery, little actual accomplishments. Was tagged with PROD, but removed with the Talk Page comment What do you mean this isnt notable? What have you done better turtle boy? Author a wiki about nimrods? Seriously. Just let it post. Calton | Talk 06:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. While I think it's impressive and all, I think one 10-15 minute film doesn't merit notability. If he wins a full Oscar, come back then. ~~ M e eples (talk)(email) 07:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO and WP:COI. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 07:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence from WP:RS that subject meets WP:BIO, suspected WP:COI based on article talk page. And what's a "turtle boy" anyhow? --Kinu ^t/_c (éŕ) 07:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe "turtle boy" is a witty allusion to my University of Maryland userbox. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 18:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, let us know when nominated for a real Oscar. --Dhartung | Talk 07:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable film student, who's won some student awards. Fan-1967 07:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Student and regional awards are insufficient claims to notability. There's a greater than zero chance the subject will accomplish enough to merit inclusion in the near future, just not enough now... Caknuck 07:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; fails BIO. SkierRMH 09:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 11:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vain vanity in vain. Danny Lilithborne 11:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO, WP:COI. Resolute 20:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete school academy award? ← ANAS ^Talk? 21:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - since the {{prod}} was not contested. Not sure why this was brought back here. Redirecting to Endurance (TV series) per AFD consensus. --Core desat 04:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Cook
edit

Erika Cook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Reason the page should be deleted reason non noteable person because she won endurance not enough to have a artical on her Oo7565 07:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominatorOo7565 07:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Endurance (TV series). ~~ M e eples (talk)(email) 07:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Endurance (TV series). Why was this brought to afd? Your prod was unchallenged. Salad Days 07:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Endurance (TV series) per editors above. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above, non-notable. SkierRMH 09:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. MER-C 11:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ocean Spray (cooperative). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 07:38Z

Cranapple juice
edit

Cranapple juice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

There are no listed sources that the claims in the article are true. Cmw4117 07:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hardly any information at all; no sources. Even if there were sources, not really notable. Perhaps it could get mention in a broader article.D ~~ M e eples (talk)(email) 07:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Would need a very strong ref to claim creatorship for something as obvious as "mixing two common fruit juices". I'm having trouble even verifying the existence of the indicated originator. DMacks

Comment I found a source for an originator, but I'm not sure it's true. At most I think this would be a merge to Ocean Spray.--T. Anthony 08:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - see below - fails WP:V, 1 relative ghit - and nothing on the Ocean Spray website. SkierRMH 09:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They hyphenate the word, check "Cran-apple juice."[19] Also see the Green Tea section of the article on the AriZona Beverage Company. That doesn't mean it's notable. I'm just saying I know it exists as I've seen it and I think I tried it once. (I didn't like it as I recall)--T. Anthony 20:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Ocean spray website [20] for this specific product is just a description, no history. A search for "Stanley I. Skelskie" there turns up nothings as well. That stated, as a product, I would change my vote:

Merge and redirect to Ocean Spray.SkierRMH 00:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 11:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the information about the creation to Ocean Spray. The coop did quite a lot to try and make cranberry juice a "common fruit juice.", and I think the drink's notability is really limited to the company's efforts. -- The Bethling ^(Talk) 22:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 07:39Z

Oanda Corporation
edit

Oanda Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Online currency exchange / trading website. Very little context and no sources in article (nice big logo in the infobox though), no sign of compliance with WP:CORP. Deizio talk 02:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin, this is not the article that was nominated. Keeper. Deizio talk 01:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep i would be willing to work on this if you deside to keep this i would try to make the artical better.Oo7565 20:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You would really have to edit the article first then vote keep if you can demonstrate how it meets Wikipedia standards. Your vote may not be considered by the closing admin as it does not address the concerns in the nomination. Deizio talk 21:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Unless some references to the companies importance are forthcoming. Does not seem to be a major company. No impact on stock indexes. Only one minor mention in a newspaper I can find and cannot find any reliable backup to claims on their website like ranked number one for currency exchange information. - Peripitus (Talk) 22:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now based on the expansion and some websearching. Appears to be up there in the currency trading world - Good work by User:Hit bull, win steak ! - Peripitus (Talk) 10:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google lists 4000 pages that link to www.oanda.com, it seems to be becoming established as something of an authority. Mark for cleanup. Citicat 03:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about demonstrate compliance with WP:CORP or WP:WEB? There are 436 unique sitelinks to oanda.com, and a rummage reveals link farms and bare links. Does this constitute "becoming established as something of an authority"? Deizio talk 03:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CORP states "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself. . . . This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles . . ." Google News archive search since 2004 lists over 200 articles,[21] (a few of which refer to Opie and Anthony). Some sites use oanda as a source for current rates[22], which is what makes it an authority. Citicat 05:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertisement. Anthony Appleyard 10:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Reads like advertisement, only keep if more information is added. Tarret 13:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ As it stands, it just an infobox & advertisment. SkierRMH,00:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there has been substantial work done on this to bring the multiple non-trivial published works into the article. SkierRMH 20:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong delete I was going to say keep until I looked at User talk:Nadyes. The fact that the creator of this article also made Template:Credit Card Cashback which was deleted makes me think that this is just spam and advertising. --BenWhitey 03:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Keep there has been a significant revision on the article, so that it does not seem like advertising at all. good job! --BenWhitey 20:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to have received substantial media coverage, including articles in the New York Times and The Globe and Mail. I'll see if I can expand it a bit. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've added what I can for now. There are articles in other publications (including a pretty big one in USA Today) that I can't lay my hands on right now, along with about six kajillion brief "it's cool, try it!" mentions in articles like this one, which don't really add anything citable but do probably indicate some degree of notability. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ advertisement/marketing. Has also been a large source of ongoing linkspam on Wikipedia, most of which has been removed except for ones in the namespace oanda.com. --Hu12 16:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the revised version that I just posted? I don't think it'd qualify as spam or advertising... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hit bull, win steak's revised version clearly shows that this statisfies WP:CORP point 1 ("The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself.") --Pak21 18:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Week keepArticle now satisfies WP:CORP and reads less like an advertisment. Tarret 19:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 05:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Power Rangers (ABC Kids)
edit

Power Rangers (ABC Kids) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

WP:NOT#IINFO: There is no reason to keep this list. It is simply indiscriminate information and unencyclopedic. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 07:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (since it's sorta me :D)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOT TV Guide. --Kinu ^t/_c (éŕ) 07:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have speedied it as nocontext - like Kinu said, Wiki t'aint TV guide. SkierRMH 09:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a list of episodes. If so, rewrite / rename to make this clear; merge if there is another Power Rangers episode list. Anthony Appleyard 10:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Pure TV guide material. MER-C 11:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All material is in Power Rangers and the individual series articles (e.g., Power Rangers: S.P.D. with much more detail QuiteUnusual 00:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. alphachimp. 07:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YesLogic
edit

YesLogic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:CORP. Furthermore, it's a potential vanity article created by a single purpose account who is also the CEO of this company. -- Longhair\^talk 07:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Longhair\^talk 07:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 07:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unremarkable corporation. No assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 07:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 05:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swisscom-Sendeturm St. Chrischona
edit

Swisscom-Sendeturm St. Chrischona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Another unremarkable mast. I found zero evidence of notability on Google. Contested prod. MER-C 07:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with some other article. Small Google count, but appears to be informative and written well. —Tokek 13:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This tower is more imporantant than most others in AfD. Has references. German Wikipedia has an depth and detailed article on this tower. [23] --Oakshade 22:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - I have included the data from the German article to this one, if someone would double-check the "smoothness" of my translation, that would be appreciated. SkierRMH 01:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to be exactly the type of radio tower article we should keep. There are a number of radio tower articles up for deletion. See, e.g. the five listed on 2 January at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transmitter Truc de Fortunio. As I said there, I find these radio tower articles infinitely more valuable than stubs about individual Eurovision song titles, but I would classify them similarly, namely of particular interest to a small group of widely geographically separated individuals. As such I would question any "of local interest only" tag. In many ways they might be compared to the articles about individual botanical and zoological species. Now rather than piecemeal pick at these radio tower articles, it might be appropriate to ask those interested to develop guidelines for inclusion of individual tower articles, as opposed to general articles like maybe, Radio Towers of France, or maybe by mountain range Radio Towers of the Pyrenees. The general articles could have tables that provide the information now provided by these stubs, and where a full article is appropriate, say like say with Swisscom-Sendeturm St. Chrischona, then those articles could provide a link from the table. --Bejnar 19:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. List the other articles in a separate AFD if desired. --Core desat 05:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qi Lolita
edit

Qi Lolita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Stub article refers to an obscure neologism (WP:NEO) or a hoax term that isn't actually used. In Japan, qipao is referred to as "China dress" (チャイナドレス, chaina doresu), so it is unlikely the term "Qi Lolita" comes from Japan. In any case, Japanese language search didn't reveal any info on it. Doing an English language Google search[24] (with "-wikipedia" added to avoid Wikipedia and mirrors) only reveals 30 hits, mostly list of definitions type pages that probably copy definitions off each other anyway. Not mentioned in the Japanese Wikipedia article for Lolita fashion[25]. Tokek 07:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a 'walled garden' of fetish articles related to this which also need AfDs. See the articles this links to. This concept may appeal to some fetishists, but there is no evidence of notability. The articles cite manufacturers of the clothing and websites or blogs, none of which establish notability. Delete for lack of multiple INDEPENDENT and RELIABLE sources. Edison 16:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & Edison...big problem with WP:V. SkierRMH 01:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 12:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I feel uncomfortable supporting deletion of an article from an area I am not familiar with, but I can say as a linguist that this and the related term "wa lolita" just wouldn't fly in the language of the young and fashionable. The two are, to put it bluntly, dasai. This makes me believe that the term is indeed a neologism. Somebody with a little insight should look into the entire lolita fashion series of articles, at first glance most of them seem to be suffering from similar POV issues. TomorrowTime 13:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable [26]--Eastkong 14:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wa Lolita, Punk Lolita, Sweet Lolita, Classical Lolita. All seem to have been created by User:Knowi7 probably associated with the "Gothic and Lolita LiveJournal community" which is linked in all of them. I say delete all because the term is neologistic and there is no evidence of widespread usage. Guy (Help!) 19:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, keep as microstub under the assumption that it will be expanded to a full encyclopedic article. Family business, Work at home parent, and SOHO are all not quite the same thing. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 07:42Z

Home business
edit

Home business (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I came to this page expecting to find a good encyclopedic article about home businesses, especially of the types I see offered online. What I found was a page entirely filled with original research, weird platitudes and, most importantly, nothing I can find that could be salvaged or cleaned up without entirely rewriting the article, in my humble opinion. I've never experienced such a difference in what I expected out of a Wikipedia page and what I got. Delete unless rewritten. Grand master ka 07:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it's been stubified... I still say delete, because it's just a ministub at the moment. Someone can recreate it when they have more to say, and I think it should have its own article. I don't know enough about the subject, and simply googling "home business" will get a bunch of crap that won't help me write a neutral encyclopedia article. I don't smoke. :-) Grand master ka 21:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete What the hell...? Looked through the history, but apparently it's always been this way. It's written like an ad, sort of, but even that doesn't seem to be the case. Just... weird. Don't see anything here worth keeping for a prospective rewrite, though. Shimeru 09:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - how-to essay. MER-C 11:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've stubbed this to a single sentence that was worth keeping - we need an article on this subject just not the essay that was there. just a very short stub of a good topic now - Peripitus (Talk) 12:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Family business. —Tokek 14:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as stub. Do not redirect - family business is a completely different concept. --- RockMFR 19:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The current revision would qualify for speedy A3. Certantly more can be said than a rephrasing of the title? Resolute 20:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as stub per Periptus. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 22:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as stub -- could become a good article. Tarinth 23:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEPI gotta say It, Most of these "atavistic" delete suggestions here, are obviously coming from a bunch of pompous thick-heads who do not understand the basic involvment of a working class article! And more importantly, what does the whole frame-work of the title suggest?? Now here is a good one!

"I came to this page expecting to find a good encyclopedic article about home businesses, especially of the types I see offered online." And I QUOTE "especially of the types I see offered online"
Now that is really Fk'n unreal! HOME BUSINESS ONLINE? What the hell did you smoke yesterday! Do a Google/Yahoo/MSN search on Home Business, Online whatever, show us what comes up and then write a better article!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.59.254.227 (talk • contribs)
Quote: "I don't know enough about the subject, and simply googling "home business" will get a bunch of crap that won't help me write a neutral encyclopedia article"
Well, Uhh, Thanx for proving my point! as-per Quote "especially of the types I see offered online"
Now WHICH Online Entity are we talking about here?
And also...What the heck does Bill Gates have to do with any of this? Other than the fact of being mentioned in said article which is now being considered for deletion!

Uh... yeah, Bill Gates was a home business working-class hero, rolling up his sleeves at his kitchen table.... Bwithh 16:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands it's just a dicdef, and a circular one at that. SkierRMH 01:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Work at home parent. This subject is already covered fine elsewhere. meshach 03:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I work from home (customer support) and am certainly not a parent. Also the Telecommuting article leaves out many work from home jobs and covers a narrower niche. It seems there is a potential for a really interesting article here. Quadzilla99 06:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

uh...redirect to SOHO? I agree that it seems like there could be an article there, but this could also be a major spam magnet, and there certainly isn't an article there at the moment, so if not redirected, count me as neutral. Xtifr _tälk 11:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, don't redirect This article needs work, but Home business definitely deserves its own article. Subheadings could include history, current trend, economic impact, ...etc. Rogermong2 18:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, don't redirect, and improve per Rogermong2. This is a noteworthy trend, it's just got a shit article. Jumbo Snails 02:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 05:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Darbyshire
edit

Tom Darbyshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Hoax, no Wigan player of this name. Google search says pretty much everything that needs to be said [27] One Night In Hackney 07:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax most certainly.--Dakota 08:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless shown to be real, which seems unlikely. Grutness...wha? 08:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 08:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 11:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Tokek 14:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - search for 'Derbyshire' fails too. (Although there appears to be a prolific editorial letter-writer by that name in Lancs.) -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO in both notablity and sport/level of competition & WP:V. SkierRMH 01:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to Barker's Beauties. Whisp e ring 23:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phire Dawson
edit

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

Procedural nomination. Bump from speedy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-24 08:40Z

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alike Boggan is relevant, though it didn't mention this person. Suggest redirect to Barker's Beauties. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-24 08:53Z

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Eluchil404 08:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only 69 Google hits ignoring duplicates & Wikipedia pages. Anthony Appleyard 10:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Barker's Beauties per Quarl. Valid search term but not important enough for a separate article. Nothing really to merge hence just suggesting the redirect. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Quarl; with under 70 ghits doesn't reach notability standards. SkierRMH 01:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 07:44Z

Prince XML
edit

Prince XML (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Furthermore, it's a potential vanity article created by a single purpose account who is also the CEO of the company behind the product. The only other Wikipedia articles that link to this article are those edited by the original author to promote his product or company [28] [29] [30]. -- Longhair\^talk 08:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect: the Acid2 article also links to Prince, and it is Prince passing the Acid2 test that is the primary notability criterion in the web standards community. (I have added an additional link on the Prince XML article to the announcement by the Web Standards Project). Michael Day 02:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Longhair\^talk 08:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 08:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as corporate vanity. So tagged. Note that the maker of this product was speedily deleted under CSD A7. MER-C 08:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment removed the speedy tag - not appropriate for things being considered via AfD. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and EditGravity^Talk 08:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote. Why should a product by an unremarkable corporation be kept? MER-C 09:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable software in the XML/CSS area, regardless of the corporation that created it. The article is about the software, not the corporation. Charivari 01:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Delete~~ as not meeting WP:SOFTWARE notability standard. If the article YesLogic had not been deleted, one would be able to argue that notability had been met by satisfaction of the criterion "the software is among the core products of a notable software developer or vendor." However, YesLogic has been deemed 'nonnotable'. Further, there is a single item of press coverage associated with the article rather than the "multiple" suggested by the notability standard. If a couple more independent press items could be produced in support of notability, I would reconsider changing to 'keep' - but that is not the current case. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC) The O'Reilly references do kick it over into notability in my opinion; the Acid2 test announcement is more of a certification of a property by an accepted body, which can be achieved by notable and non-notable software alike. It remains unfortunate that the originating comapany is not considered notable by Wikipedia standards, but that is not absolutely essential given other satisfied criteria. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link to an announcement by the Web Standards Project regarding Prince XML passing their Acid2 test and also citations for two books from O'Reilly that each devote a section to Prince XML. Is this a sufficient number of independent press items? Michael Day 02:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Borderline, but notable enough, I feel. The fact that the article was created by someone created to the company is regrettable, but why should that make the article deletable in and of itself? Lankiveil 06:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 16:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snaps (game)
edit

Snaps (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non notable game, most of the 872 Google hits have nothing to do with the game[31]: no sources outside of the homepage apparently. Furthermore, WP:NOT a how-to guide, and if you remove those parts, there is nothing left of the article. Previous AfD ended in keep, but mostly, it seems, because it was a bad nomination by an IP address. Fram 08:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've played this game many times and first learned about it from a book. The above suggested search was done with "snaps" "party game" which is a flawed method of determining whether an article should be deleted for pages related to the game may not use the word "party game" in an article relating to it. For example a page about its rules, or that it might just be described as a game. The webpage [32] is a good example where over 48 comments have been left about the game and where the game is described but the only place 'party game' appeared is the title of the company. [33] is another example. Also, the article size is comparable to Trouble (board game), Pictionary, and the majority of games listed on Party game. If you assume WP:NOT then the article is comparable to ~~Yahtzee~~ Hopscotch. Some encyclopedia articles will be small. I've made it a game stub which is probably the best solution over deletion. Mkdw ^talk 08:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Have you seriously looked at Yahtzee? The article is not comparable at all in scope, depth, ... The Yathzee article has many sections beyond the game guide. Even the "trouble" article is a lot better, and only Pictionary is similar. But that doesn't matter, we are discussing the merits of snaps, not comparing it to other, unrelated articles which may or may not be fit for deletion or improvement. As for my search method, it was the only way I coud be reasonably sure to find relevant links. Looking for "snaps" or snaps plus game achieves nothing since they are such common words. If the "snaps" article can be mad e to resemble the Yahtzee article (minus the gameguide, and plus references preferably), then I would be very happy to withdraw this nomination and keep the article. I have seen no indication of this though... Fram 08:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article Trouble (board game) has at best 1 more paragraph in length. It's also a 1 reference article. I misreferenced the wrong game, my apologizes, I meant to link Hopscotch. Also, there is no need for sarcasm or that tone, it was a simple mistake. Mkdw ^talk 09:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sarcastic, just bewildered. I notice you have added references to the article, but they are all user submitted ones, not WP:V sources, which was the same result I found with my Google search. The game exists, but doesn't seem notable, and nothing seems to be possible to say about it beyond its existence. Fram 09:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you learned about it from a book, then cite the book and you will address the verifiability concerns that other editors are raising. Currently you have cited three simple mirrors of this very article, an article on a self-submission web site that appears to involve no fact checking, and a web page that purports to be a copy of a Usenet posting. Uncle G 02:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to be a game of very limited impact. No News articles I can find and none of the references are of the type wikipedia requires. Fails to have verifyability from reliable sources and given the low google impact appears to be insufficiently important to have enough depth to write an article on. Peripitus (Talk) 12:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snaps is the name of the game. Key people in the world play snaps. *snap* *snap*. *snap* *snap*. People all over the world should learn how to play snaps. Snaps is not the name of the game. --Howrealisreal 17:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A bare vote without a rationale (What you have written is merely a way of encoding the word "keep".) is likely to be discounted in the face of assertions that the article is not verifiable. If you want to make an argument for keeping that holds water, then please cite sources. Sources are your only counterargument. Bare votes are not. Uncle G 02:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V and sounds like another made up game, like The circle hand game --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 21:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable game that, if real, likely is a relatively new and unknown one. Also, the sources provided aren't the most reliable and there have been a number of these non-notable (and, in my opinion though not as a reason for deletion, rather stupid) games up for AfD lately. --The Way 07:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Peripitus. --Wizardman 04:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Operation safe trucks
edit

Operation safe trucks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

somebody's grad school project - literally. Non notable. Prod removed. Brianyoumans 08:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Small correction: Speedy removed. --Brianyoumans 08:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was started at 01:48 on 26 December 2006 by User:Mdhat777. It seems to be a successor to Safetrucking.org which was deleted on 25 or 26 Dec 2006: see User talk:Mdhat777. Anthony Appleyard 09:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete small note, the author of an article can't remove a speedy deletion notice, although the db was questionable. Danny Lilithborne 11:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Suspected copyvio/original research. MER-C 11:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. —Tokek 14:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Author blanked page. Speedy Delete. Kesac 14:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 07:45Z

Barnsley League
edit

Barnsley League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

There are simply no verifiable sources to confirm that this league exists. It doesn't appear to have its own website, isn't listed on FA Full Time or Football Mitoo, the two main non-league portals, and a Google search turns up nothing relevant ChrisTheDude 08:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 08:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator ChrisTheDude 08:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 11:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The best I could find was a token mention on a fan run pyramid site, simply not notable. One Night In Hackney 12:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reference to it in recent non-league printed publications either. - fchd 12:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - couldn't find any "official" mention of the existence of this. SkierRMH 01:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if this article is to deleted why an other article about a regional league in Greece was kept (I nominated it for deletion). The result was keep. Just read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Achaia Football Clubs Association. An argument which helped it a lot to be keep is that articles about English regional league such as Burnsley exist. If you delete this article, you must delete articles about Achaia.

KRBN 13:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The key point being debated in this particular AfD, however, is not whether the Barnsley League is notable enough for an article but rather the fact that nobody can prove it actually exists. If its existence can't be proved then it has to be deleted as per WP:V, irrespective of what other leagues might or might not have articles..... ChrisTheDude 12:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the league exists see here for example. TerriersFan 21:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - but (see the article's talk page) that is the only reference we can find anywhere to this league. Do you have a list of clubs or anything? - fchd 22:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete (already transwikied). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 07:46Z

List of idioms in the Finnish language
edit

List of idioms in the Finnish language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic list of dictionary definitions per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of idioms in the English language (A). Transwikied contested prod. MER-C 09:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Even worse than the English lists since this one seems to be nothing more than a translation. This is the English Wiki, not Finnish 101. MartinDK 09:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki. It is too interesting merely to delete. Anthony Appleyard 09:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's already transwikied. MER-C 09:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed[34]. Delete —Tokek 15:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - already transwikied - and it is interesting! SkierRMH 01:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not encyclopedia material as per policy and precedent. Punkmorten 17:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (Talk) 17:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_Enhanced_CDs
edit

List_of_Enhanced_CDs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article is a duplicate of Category:Enhanced CDs. The article is incomplete as compared to the category. It seems this article was created from a previous list on Enhanced CD and the person didn't see that a category already existed for it. Douglasr007 09:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant list. MER-C 12:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. feydey 15:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 22:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - category covers this much better; ergo redundant. SkierRMH 01:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete redundant. —dima/s-ko/ 04:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just clicked on 8 from the list and not a single one was in the category. So how is it information redundant? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC) OK, I just clicked on another 8 and only one: Britney (album) was in the category. Did anyone actually compare the category to the list before voting? I always like to assume good faith, but it looks like people are voting without actually doing any research. A category and a list are only redundant if they contain the exact same information. If you delete one or the other without making a comparison, you are losing information. Thats why lists and categories are 100% compatible. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was afraid that some of the albums listed weren't in the category - we could add the category to the albums presented in the list before deleting it. A category is much better for this task than a list. The list is redundant since the category fulfills the task of the list and it really isn't needed. Even though the content in the list is different to the category, the content can still be added to the category regardless. Douglasr007 09:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not all information within the list is redundant. The list includes the CDs' year of release, which would allow a reader to determine trends in the use of enhanced CDs at a glance. Also, the list includes some red links, and the information that those discs were released in enhanced form would be lost if the list were deleted. Lists with red links are intrinsically good anyway, in that they suggest directions for further expansion of Wikipedia. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't need two of the same thing.--C J King 23:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as duplicate. --Wizardman 04:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close as simple housekeeping. I've tidied up the bogus copy and paste "rename" by Apapageorgiou (talk · contribs) of xyr erroneously placed workspace page. Uncle G 17:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apapageorgiou/Information-Based Complexity
edit

Apapageorgiou/Information-Based Complexity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This page must be a mistake. It is a copy of Information-Based Complexity and looks like a user page, but there is no such user. Seems like it should be a speedy, but not sure which it fits so bringing here.Obina 10:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userify to User:Apapageorgiou/Information-Based Complexity, looks like Apapageorgiou (talk · contribs) intended to create it as a userspace draft. Demiurge 13:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 05:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transition Video Magazine
edit

Transition Video Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article on a video magazine was already deleted via prod but restored after a request at WP:DRV. The content of the article only barely establishes a claim to notability (the magazine covered some notable bands), but offers no evidence that it itself was the subject of independent coverage (zero newshits on Newsbank). Only two issues as of March 2006. Not a procedural nomination, I believe it should be deleted unless notability is established via sources. ~ trialsanderrors 10:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 12:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only 2 issues, couldn't find independent news coverage either. IMdb listings for both originators are only for this series. Just non-notable yet. SkierRMH 01:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failure to establish notability. —ShadowHalo 04:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete Notability through 1,450 different results on google. It's listed on various news sites such as punknews.org, razorcake.org, interpunk.com, imdb.com. It's listed for sale on target.com, bestbuy.com, mvd.com, and many other places. The latest dvd contains very notable independent bands. Simply because Transition is active in the independent music and arts scene is not a sufficient enough reason to mark it as "unnotable." —brynot 23:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. El_C 13:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imemorybook
edit

Imemorybook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The Imemorybook was created as spam - see the business owners blog Albatross2147 10:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. So tagged. MER-C 10:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 05:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watch tuning
edit

Watch tuning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article consists of a simple dictionary definition, plus one seemingly unrelated external link fchd 10:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improve If someone gets more info or some photos about this stuff (even some reports or whatsoever) I think it might be interesting to someone (Internet is full of geeks) LeChimp 15:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modding watches for "improved performance"? I suspect a hoax. Delete. Demiurge 13:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no substantial amount of content exists or is likely to exist to deserve an article on its own. —Tokek 13:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nocontext, WP:V, and being more-or-less a dicdef. Now off to wind my watch. SkierRMH 01:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; already covered in watch. Yuser31415 22:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 16:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carraigin Castle
edit

Carraigin Castle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable holiday home, Orphan - tagged since July. 248 ghits Shas 12:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable as far as I can see. The Google hits are all rental ads or long lists of castles, and even the website's history section doesn't assert any particular notability. Note also that the current building appears to be a 1970s reconstruction/restoration of the original castle. Demiurge 13:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Unremarkable. MER-C 13:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete outside of being a good looking vacation site, doesn't appear to have notability. No apparent historical importance to the building itself. SkierRMH 01:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A 700 year old historical landmark [35] should not be deleted. It should be expanded. --Oakshade 07:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like a cool place to visit, but fails WP:N. --Wizardman 04:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 16:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Sumaya Bint Al-Hassan
edit

Princess Sumaya Bint Al-Hassan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Nominated for deletion as the two alleged grounds of notability appear to be purely nominal posts. If, however, membership of a royal family amounts to notability then it would be appropriate to keep or merge. Springnuts 12:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Precedent does indeed hold that royalty are always notable. --Hyperbole 18:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Always? All 6000 members of the Saudi royal family for example? - Springnuts 19:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well... yeah. That's the precedent. A couple months ago there were a series of AfDs on royal children five years old and younger - who obviously had no claim to notability outside of royalty - and all those AfDs went solidly "keep" on the grounds that "royalty are notable." --Hyperbole 19:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Remember for most of the 6,000 Saudi royal family, there would be no more than a name. A few might have a sentence or two of information, but only a few hundred have significant biographies worthy of their own entries. The rest can be given their two sentences in a list of Saudi royal family members. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, members of royal families are notable per se without regard to any personal achievements or lack of same. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Smerdis! I love the reference!!! Springnuts 23:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per precedent; although I do have problems with the breadth of the precedent. SkierRMH 01:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per precedent. TonyTheTiger 03:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This precedent, if it exists (which I am not convinced of), is not a good one. There are, as someone already mentioned, more than 6000 members of the Saudi royal family and other royal families are also of large size. Many members of these families are not notable in the least and will never be so and it would be ridiculous to have articles on all of them. Also, I seem to remember successful AfDs done on historical members of royal families who weren't notable. I highly doubt that this precedent would stand if a guideline were to be developed or if an editor tried to incorporate it into the current biographical notability guidelines. Also, the link provided by Smerdis above which seems to be offered as proof of precedent is a link to the highly notable Prince Charles of Wales which has absolutely no implications for this particular case. Even if it is established that this totally unsourced princess is notable for her achievements, the article should not be kept solely because she is a member of royalty. --The Way 07:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's no such thing as a precedent (to quote Badlydrawnjeff in a context that he might hate), and any rule or precedent that "all X must be kept" that doesn't trace back to "all X will, indisputably, appear in at least some reliable sources" is wrong and should be ignored. I have a friend who probably has as good a claim as anyone to the (empty) throne of Armenia, but I don't think he's notable enough for a Wikipedia article (except, perhaps, as a model train enthusiast). Nevertheless, I'm not sure about this one. It's a badly written article, badly in need of sources, but there might be notability there. Or not. I can't decide, so I'll stay neutral. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xtifr (talk • contribs) 11:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Wow, fast bot beat to adding a sig! :) Xtifr _tälk 11:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even taking the precedent out, there's plenty of information in the article. --Wizardman 04:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no free passes for royalty; the subject does not meet WP:BIO. This is an unreferenced puff piece which reads exactly like a press release, which isn't surprising as it is a ~~paraphrase of~~ copyvio taken from the single cited source, which is indeed the work of a PR flack. If kept, the article should be sanitised, by reverting to this version or earlier. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kurdish mountains
edit

List of Kurdish mountains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

We do not sort mountains based on ethnicity. It would be ridiculous to have a 'list of white mountains' and etc.

Also see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurdish principalities and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurdish city states

--Cat out 12:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdistan does not seem to have clearly defined borders (according to us, estimates of the region's area range from 190,000 sq km to 390,000 sq km), which would cause major problems for this list. Delete unless uncontroversial and unambiguous membership criteria are defined. Demiurge 13:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete criteria vague, classification by countries a better alternative. —Tokek 14:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Demiurge, "unless uncontroversial and unambiguous membership criteria are defined".--Yannismarou 15:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tokek. --feydey 15:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "list of mountains in Kurdistan" if Kurdistan has variable definitions then include all of them with explanations. See also Category:Lists of mountains for reasoning behind move. FrozenPurpleCube 00:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kurdistan is defined by whoever is defining the borders. Unlike countries there are no official established or proposed borders. There are sources that suggest Half of Northern middle east is a part of Kurdistan including half of Turkey, half of Iraq, half of Iran, good portion of Syria, good portion of Azerbaijan and good portion of Armenia^[36] other sources give Kurdistan a much much smaller area ^[37]. This one was drawn by a former US gov employee ^[38]. There is a wide variety of maps on google image search, ^[39] which also divides most of middle east as random countries. --Cat out 09:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see your problem as insurmountable. Include all of the definitions that are at least somewhat reputable, with explanation. It's not that hard to do in a well-constructed article. FrozenPurpleCube 17:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until there are specific inclusion criteria applied. SkierRMH 01:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous comments.--Aldux 16:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (Changed to Delete) ~~- as long as the mountains are notable and have articles, they can be included in this list.~~ Although I would suggest a category for this and all related lists of mountains. Yuser31415 01:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but for different reasons than the other AfD articles on Kurdish topics. Mountain ranges should be categorized/listed according by actual geographic dimensions. For example, List of Anatolian Mountain Ranges would be acceptable, but not this. Too much unnecessary overlap would occur otherwise. Keeping this would allow for things like a List of Turkish Mountains and List of Ottoman Mountains which would be rather similar in content. Mountains aren't classified by ethnicity, ethnic groups also move which would change the parameters of the regions in question. The only exception I see would be lists of mountains in modern existing countries. --The Way 02:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish city states
edit

Kurdish city states (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

We do not sort cities based on ethnicity. It would be ridiculous to have a 'list of white cities' and etc. Such lists should have solidly established borders for inclusion criteria. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kurdish mountains --Cat out 14:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ What makes you think we don't sort cities based on ethnicity? See for example Category:Ancient Greek cities . Frankly, I'll need a more substantial argument than that. Not to mention List of Latin place names in Iberia and other members of that category. FrozenPurpleCube 00:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kurdistan is defined by whoever is defining the borders. Unlike countries there are no official established or proposed borders. There are sources that suggest Half of Northern middle east is a part of Kurdistan including half of Turkey, half of Iraq, half of Iran, good portion of Syria, good portion of Azerbaijan and good portion of Armenia^[40] other sources give Kurdistan a much much smaller area ^[41]. This one was drawn by a former US gov employee ^[42]. There is a wide variety of maps on google image search, ^[43] which also divides most of middle east as random countries. --Cat out 09:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you feel the need to repeat the same argument three times, it's not exactly convincing. If there is some disagreement as to whether a particular city was Kurdish, then including that disagreement is a simple matter. In any case, this objection has nothing to do with the reasons for the original nomination, which was based on the existence of the page, which is clearly not a problem. FrozenPurpleCube 17:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After some thought though, I believe a Redirect to History of the Kurdish people might be more appropriate here. FrozenPurpleCube 18:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wouldn't be opposed with a redirect. The thing I'm not conviced of here is the actual existence of true City-States in the political sense. Please note that there is a conceptual difference between a city and a city-state and as it stands most cities in the article appear to have been part of larger empires which would mean they were not city-states. That, combined with a total lack of sources which could verify the existence of actual Kurdish City-States makes me lean towards deletion. Now, if sources are provided that actually illustrate that Kurdish City-States did, in fact, exist then this is a perfectly valid article topic, though it should be more than a list and it really should be renamed to draw attention to the fact that such city-states are not contemporary but rather historical. --The Way 21:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well. whether or not there were independent Kurdish cities is a question that I don't know the answer to, I can believe that such did happen, so even absent some sources, I'm comfortable with a redirect. I don't see the need to rename the article absent some existing city-states that might cause confusion, especially if the page is being redirected. FrozenPurpleCube 00:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's not an important question if this is to be a redirect. However, it is important if the article is to be deleted or kept. Unless this question can be satisfactorily answered in the positive the article should not be kept as is. --The Way 01:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we're communicating effectively here. Redirecting the article after a deletion would only remove a few edits from the history, which I don't consider consequential enough to matter. It'd be one thing if the content were libelous, but I don't think that's an issue here. So, there isn't an issue to keeping and replacing with a redirect. Leaving the history won't bother me. FrozenPurpleCube 02:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As poorly defined list. This list may be valid if it's referring to historical city-states. However, the article seems to at least imply that these are current city-states as the title is in the present tense and there is virtually no actually prose in the article. Given that there are no Kurdish city-states in existence today (I'm unsure of whether there have been in the past as I'm not all that familiar with Kurdish history, though I have a feeling that there weren't ever any truly Kurdish only city-states although I very well may be wrong) this should go or at least the title should be reworded and a brief introduction should better define what is being listed. I do, however, agree with Manticore that the argument that such cities shouldn't be sorted by ethnicity is false, as Ancient Greek City-States would be perfectly valid. --The Way 07:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not certain if these are claimed to be "historic". Not certain if they are 'kurdish'. They should not be linking to modern day pages anyways. --Cat out 09:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if they aren't historic then this definitely needs to go because there are no modern Kurdish city-states, as you seem to imply as well. This 'article' is way too ambiguous for my tastes, though I recognize it may be valid. --The Way 09:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through the blue links in the article, which is just a list, and am now completely convinced of the need to delete; these weren't necessarily Kurdish, they were Assyrian cities, and they were explicitly city-states either. --The Way 09:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this is that Assyrian and Kurdistan are more or less in the same area, just at different times. Thus that a city was originally Assyrian, and the Wikipedia article covers only that period, does not mean that the city was never Kurdish. It would help to have sources, mind you, and that is a problem with this list. Too bad the nominator didn't try that argument. FrozenPurpleCube 17:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it would be better then if it were titled Historical Assyrian City-States as I don't believe Assyrians are identical to Kurds. --The Way 21:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would only be applicable if the intent were to make a list of Historical Assyrian City-states, and that would I assume, be taken care of in articles about Assyria. As I said though, the thing is, many of these names might be in common, since the regions are in the same geographical area, just not at the same time. That's why I don't take saying "These are Assyrian cities" as proof that they weren't also Kurdish cities at some other time. Proving they were never Kurdish would require different sources. FrozenPurpleCube 00:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem that I see here is that the burden of proof is on the articles creator and those seeking to keep it to provide sources that show that these were Kurdish city-states. Without sources we have no clue whether these Assyrian cities were every Kurdish city-states. Hell, we don't even have anything that actually proves that there ever have been city states that were strictly Kurdish! Without any sources and with what appears to be misleading/inaccurate information we shouldn't keep this. Also, just because the nominator didn't use the lack of sources as a reason for their nomination of this article doesn't mean that it can't be deleted for that reason. Again, finally, although I'm not particularly well acquainted with this region's history I do have a general knowledge of it and am personally unaware of there ever being anything that could properly be categorized as a Kurdish City-State. --The Way 01:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do agree that a lack of sources here is a problem, but merely showing a city was Assyrian doesn't disprove that a city was also independent and Kurdish at some point in time. Still, given the lack of sources, I'd suggest a redirect to the already sourced page I mentioned above. FrozenPurpleCube 01:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the current list as inaccurate. I have no problem with criteria based on ethnicity, but the particular list is poorly concieved and executed. Per The Way I saw that some of the supposed "Kurdish" city states are not Kurdish! If the list is cleaned, and re-organized, I would reconsider my vote.--Yannismarou 14:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Way.--Aldux 15:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per The Way. I was going to say Categorize but that may be difficult. --Wizardman 04:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone wants to make anything useful out of this content, such as a category, here is the content of the article in its entirety: Baban, Ardalan, Bahdinan, Chol, Hakkari, Bohtan, Milan, Bitlis, Akhlat, Bayazid, Chamishkezek, Baraz. Sandstein 15:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish principalities
edit

Kurdish principalities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

We do not sort principalities based on ethnicity. It would be ridiculous to have a 'list of white principalities' and etc. Such lists should have solidly established borders for inclusion criteria. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kurdish mountains --Cat out 14:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Could you cite the policy you're saying that we do not do this thing? Furthermore, white is not a comparable statement to Kurdish. A much closer comparison would be the members of Category:Historical regions. I could also include Italian city states and even List of regions of the United States. Sorry, but I just don't see what your problem really is. FrozenPurpleCube 01:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kurdistan is defined by whoever is defining the borders. Unlike countries there are no official established or proposed borders. There are sources that suggest Half of Northern middle east is a part of Kurdistan including half of Turkey, half of Iraq, half of Iran, good portion of Syria, good portion of Azerbaijan and good portion of Armenia^[44] other sources give Kurdistan a much much smaller area ^[45]. This one was drawn by a former US gov employee ^[46]. There is a wide variety of maps on google image search, ^[47] which also divides most of middle east as random countries. --Cat out 09:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, there's a variety of definitions of Kurdistan. Does that mean we should delete all articles on Kurds? No, it means the article should cover all the disagreements. The fact is, the Kurdish people do exist, and they had had prior minor governments. In any case, difficulty in writing an article doesn't mean deletion. Where is your citation to policy regarding the existence of this article at all? FrozenPurpleCube 17:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After some thought though, I believe a Redirect to [[History of the Kurdish people might be more appropriate here, same as the others I brought it up on. FrozenPurpleCube 18:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename it as Historical Kurdish Principalities if the decision is to keep it. Current title, coupled with a total lack of any introduction that specifies criteria for inclusion, implies that these principalities currently exist when they are historical entities. --The Way 07:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not certain if these are claimed to be "historic". Not certain if they are 'kurdish'. They should not be linking to modern day pages anyways. --Cat out 09:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After checking all the blue links on this article, which is just a list, I am really convinced it needs to go. These 'principalities' weren't all principalities nor were they all Kurdish, some were simply cities. One link goes to a disambiguation page concerning two topics that are related to Mayans which obviously had nothing to do with the Kurdish people and one of the links is to Milan which is Italian. No sources, a very dubious list and no definition or criteria for inclusion. --The Way 09:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I do not think Milan is a Kurdish principality. --Cat out 10:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the Italian city of Milan is indeed not the Kurdish group, that only means somebody was clumsy about constructing the page. There is, however, some indication of a Kurdish group known as the Milan as seen here. [48]. I found that with a quick look. So I assume the original author of this page, not being an experienced Wikipedian, made a mistake. FrozenPurpleCube 17:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is now, it's difficult not to judge it unsourced and confusing crap.--Aldux 16:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional rename and keep per The Way, if somebody decides to make this mess a proper article - otherwise delete. I think that criteria based on ethnicity are acceptable, but the article as it is now looks messy, and needs cleaning+an encyclopedic "touch".--Yannismarou 20:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification Just to clarify my position, I'm not totally opposed to the concept behind this article. If there were indeed actual Kurdish principalities then an article on that is fine. However, such an article needs to state that it is historical rather than contemporary so, if kept, it must be renamed to illustrate this. Clearly, there are no contemporary principalities of any sort. Secondly, the article needs sources which it currently lacks and must be cleaned, the information in the article as it stands is misleading and incorrect. There has to be at the very least an introductory paragraph discussing what precisely constitutes a 'Kurdish Principality.' As it stands now this is just a list which isn't really acceptable, at least with the current title. I'm still not convinced that there were true Kurdish principalities, just as I'm as of yet unconvinced of the existence of true Kurdish City-States which is another AfD most of us are involved in. If this article is kept it needs to have sources that do show there were actual principalities of ethnic Kurds. --The Way 21:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second that.--Yannismarou 21:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd like someone to make a proper article or category on it at a later date, but this article's got nothing going on. --Wizardman 04:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abington stanley
edit

Abington stanley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

As per precedent, no Sunday league teams have been found notable enough for an article of their own. This one appears to be no exception. fchd 12:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Borderline speedy. MER-C 13:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced, and fails precedent relating to sports.-- danntm ^T _C 01:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even as a non-sports fan, I can figure out that "Mens Sunday league" players aren't quite meeting the WP:BIO/sports criteria! SkierRMH 01:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. El_C 13:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nations
edit

Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Orphaned and very small and unnotable web game CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 12:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unremarkable webcontent. So tagged. MER-C 13:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Serrao Gutierrez
edit

Steven Serrao Gutierrez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Vanity, NN - fails WP:BIO. Assertions to notability are unsound, and article contains no references (the external links section does not support the article). Was speedied as A7 in June. Ghits unconvincing. The JPS ^{talk to me} 13:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A pirate radio DJ could be notable given enough verifiable sources, but these are lacking from the article. Even assuming the "Steven" mentioned here is the same person, participating in a youth project for a local district council doesn't establish notability. From the license on Image:Steven Serrao Gutierrez DJ 01.JPG, I suspect WP:COI may be relevant. Demiurge 13:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 6 non-wiki ghits - 5 youtube, 1 myspace. Fails WP:V and WP:MUSIC. MER-C 13:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it wasn't as well-writen and long as it was it probably would've been speedy deleted on creation. --Wizardman 04:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 11:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of newspapers in Israel
edit

This is a great list with few red-links, but should be reordered as a category in accords with Wikipedia is not a directory. frummer 11:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reorder as a category. frummer 11:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep fine list. Don't see an issue. - crz crztalk 13:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's not uncommon to have a "list of" article in conjunction with a category on Wikipedia (unless things changed). —Tokek 14:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good list. We have a whole category filled with these lists - I'm sure there has been precedent set to keep them. --- RockMFR 19:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - useful, does not violate Wikipedia is not a directory. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, falls into line with the other newspaper lists. SkierRMH 01:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep useful list that would be less useful/informative as categories because of the different types of newspapers. TonyTheTiger 03:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge into Israel/turn into a category. Just H 03:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Doesn't violate any relevant policies. Yuser31415 04:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Useful and per RockMFR. —dima/s-ko/ 04:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is it informative? Yes, because it provides information that a category can not. Is it navigational? No, the category is much better at that. Is it for development purposes? Yes, because it contains red links. In other words it satifies two of three WP:LIST criteria and deserves to exist. Punkmorten 17:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 'Lists' are accepted aticles. This actually list provides for sub-cats (frequency and locality) where as real cats would not be productive or legitimate. --Shuki 19:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' but it does need some work, I will try to do that tomorrow. --Chussid 02:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, "Wikipedia offers three ways to create groupings of articles: categories, lists, and article series boxes. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages, and each is appropriate in different circumstances. These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are most effective when used in synergy, each one complementing the other." This list provides information that a category would not be able to provide. Alansohn 06:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as lists and categories serve different functions, and the newspapers are notable. IZAK 17:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (no consensus) and CLEANUP. This page completely lacks citations and references. (And no, Stein's website is not a reference.) In fact, most of the Google hits cited by M Alan Kazlev seem to be for sites selling Stein's books (e.g., Amazon, eBay, etc.) rather than for real book reviews. I am not commenting on whether Stein is notable or not; however, the article must be adequately referenced and cited, and the citations given must prove Stein's notability. Larry V (talk | contribs) 03:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Stein
edit

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

Please forgive the fact that someone how I managed to double the paragraphs which should only be 2 not 4!!!

Strong Keep - prolific and popular feminist pagan/wiccan author. Just consider how many books she has written! I find it astonishing that this page has been even nominated for deletion, unless it be some sort of pov bias against subjects outside mainstream materialism. And even if that were a good reason (which it isjn't), there are heaps of articles on wikipedia, e.g. creation science, which are far more "lunatic fringe". Or if it is the fact that the page is stubby and incomplete has nothing to do with the notability or lack thereof of the subject. Typing in "diane stein" review gives 40,800 hits on Google. Take your choice of independent reviews from there! M Alan Kazlev 11:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Merger changed to Strong Delete- After reconsidering and seeing recent replies, I think this page is a delete, it wouldn't serve any purpose to merge this page, so its a delete. I believe we have three YEAS for delete and 2 Nos for delete. Consensus seems to be in and someone can please delete this page, however thats done.

ForrestLane42 16:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42[reply]

Strong keep per Alan. --Mallarme 19:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless appropriate sources are provided that establish notability. As of right now, the article is merely a list of the names of her books with a one-sentence intro, thats it. No outside sources other than her own website are provided so notability has not been established. Given the amount of books she has written (if the article is correct) she probably is notable so I am willing to change my opinion to keep if proper sources are given. --The Way 07:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references provided means no notability established. Those wanting to keep the article are responsible for providing the references, not those advocating for its deletion. Hatch68 21:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep searching through the google hits yields a number of legitimate looking (non-blog or forum) book reviews- e.g.[49][50] . It's difficult to judge whether these are truly non-trivial, but I default to keep.--Kubigula (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Echidne of the Snakes
edit

Echidne of the Snakes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) —(View AfD)</include only>

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}}.

A blog. I see no evidence this passes WP:WEB, and no evidence it has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Meaders 18:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of wider coverage apart from a blogger award which itself is of dubious notability. Demiurge 13:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It doesn't even claim much significance (the blog's apparently only fairly popular). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - don't find any significant coverage outside of blogaspheres. SkierRMH 01:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 15:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FA Cup 2006-07 Qualifying Rounds
edit

FA Cup 2006-07 Qualifying Rounds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Way more detail than necessary or appropriate for Wikipedia; this is not a news archive, nor an indiscriminate collection of information. An associated precedent for removing month by month results has been set by two recent AfD's - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NBA Results November 2006 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NHL Results October 2006.
See also:

FA Premier League results August 2006

FA Premier League results September 2006

FA Premier League results October 2006

FA Premier League results November 2006

FA Premier League results December 2006, Deletion discussion

Humbly,
David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge useful information into FA Cup 2006-07 Will ^{(Because you're filthy, ooh, and I'm gorgeous)} 17:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With other editors, I contributed to the creation of this article to avoid the main page being too large. It was decided on the talk page that including the Qualifying Rounds in full for the first time provided a full and complete record of the FA Cup for this season. Unlike the month by month results which I think should be deleted the Qualifying Round article is a one-off article providing official record of the results for one season's competition. It shows that up to now Wiki's FA Cup pages have effectively ignored months of competition.

I agree that the month-by-month articles should be deleted, but I urge you to consider how Wiki is being used here. Rather than only holding the results from the First Round Proper - as BBC Sport does - Wiki is allowing fans, other editors, non-fans, to view full and complete results from the very start of the competition. Think about how, from here, the stub articles of smaller teams could be grown and improved. doktorb _words^deeds 07:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These rounds are just as much a part of the competition as round one onwards, therefore there is no reason to delete them if the article on the rest of the competition is being kept. As stated above, this was broken out from the main article specifically because it was getting too large. Comparison with month-by-month results from the league is inappropriate ChrisTheDude 07:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The qualifying rounds are most definitely part of the competition, as they are in the current UEFA Cup. Merging it back into the main FA Cup article would make it too big for my liking, so it makes sense to have the qualifying rounds as a seperate article. One Night In Hackney 08:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and precident. Game by game results in the NBA and NHL are also part of their competitions, however that level of detail is uncessary. Doubly so given these articles are completely lacking in context. My preference, as it was for the NHL, is to list game results in articles for each team's season. Resolute 20:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Results in the FA Cup don't compare to league competitions like NBA or NHL. It's a national competition that includes teams from all levels. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Coincidentally I was looking at this page yesterday, and found it very informative. Comparison with the NHL/NBA/Premier league don't hold, as neither of them is a major knockout tournament in the same way that the FA Cup is (if you lose an NHL match, you get to play again). As stated above, this stops main article bloat, as well. Grutness...wha? 00:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly merge all FA results pages to one; but, I can see a rationale for this page being kept separate from the later stages. Neier 12:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per other comments, the qualifying rounds are as much a part of the competition as the later rounds, and including everything in a single article would make it too long. Splitting the qualifying results off into a seperate article was a sensible thing to do. Gasheadsteve 18:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 21:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For the reasons of what Gasheadsteve said 13:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - a unique record that is entirely encyclopaedic. TerriersFan 21:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep - the results in the FA Cup are euqivalent to having the league table of a league competition. --Robdurbar 17:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. El_C 13:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fafblog
edit

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

A blog. I see no evidence this passes WP:WEB, and no evidence it has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Meaders 18:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unremarkable webcontent. So tagged. MER-C 13:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 until reliable sources found. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 02:25Z

Keni Naulumatua II
edit

Keni Naulumatua II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I can find no credible references to this individual outside of wikipedia. No websites, books, or newspapers that I know of mention him, and no Fijian individual I have consulted - apart from the primary author of the article - has ever heard of him. I suspect this article may constitute original research. David Cannon 00:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - can we merge this debate with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keni Naulumatua --Xorkl000 04:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I see no reason why not. If the others agree, let's do that. David Cannon 05:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MAIKELIS COMMENT

This individual exists birth records and Fijian afairs boards records and Native land trust board records will show this, David let me ask have ever even been to Fiji who have you asked and what authority do they speak on behalf, I question your sources David My sources are the Turaga Na Rasau himself which is the identy in question and he was put there by the Tikina of Lomaloma its elders and members of the cheifly clan Valelevu, which was endorsed and documented by the Lau provincial Council which was endorsed by the Fijian Affairs board which is also recognised and endorsed by the Great Council of Chiefs and also recognised by the Native Lands Trust Board.

The question is what are your source to comment so authoratatively on Fijian traditional titles and title holders and Fijian History, when you have no endorsement from any of these recognised Fijian institutions.

You also won't find in any books the title Taukei Nalotu of Solevu village held by Ratu Seva or the Turaga Na Ravouvou of Kadavu Island which is held by Ratu Kini, you probably won't have any references to the Malo of Kaba of Bau Tikina, nor references to the SauTuraga of Macuata to mention but a few, yet all these titles exist as do the individuals who hold them and have a very real history of which it has been documented by Fijian authorites, records which are not public domain but true record nevertheless and only accessable by the respective head clans and their senior kinsmen

WRONG, tukutuku raraba ni yavusa etc. are public documents that are accessible at NLC and FAB, how else would rent money and title disputes be settled in court. Sounds like Mikey is making excuses again for his unsourced pipedreams --Xorkl000 12:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

definately WRONG AGAIN Xork1000 and very misguided obviously you have never accessed any of these records in your life or you would know, only some records are public and even then you cannot access it willy nilly unless for legitimate purposes like if you are of that Matagali or Yavusa or Vanua and that those records are relevent to you and to convert that for public viewing on the internet is a whole other process get your facts straight. - FROM MAIKELI

wrong place for this discussion - especially when the consensus has already been reached about these AFDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keni Naulumatua. My apologies to everyone for adding to it. Happy to continue this at some other talk page. --Xorkl000 01:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The above argument for keeping fails. We shouldn't have to go to Fiji to verify the notability of the article's subject. We can't just take your word for it, unless sources are provided which both verify the existence of this person and demonstrate how this person is notable then we have to delete it. You're statement that "you probably won't have any references to..." is an argument for deletion. It's not enough for the subject of an article to actually exist, the subject must of documentation proving their existence and importance and that documentation must be openly available to the public. Also, from what little information is provided in the article I doubt that this person is, even if sources are provided, notable enough for inclusion in the Wikipedia. Why is this person of particular importance? The article is a stub of only a couple sentences... --The Way 07:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The person is of importance as he is the current Turaga Na Rasau, the Wikipedia Community is given me 2 months to properly format all artlcies in relation to the Turaga Na Rasau and the Tikina of Lomaloma and also provide verifiable references to show the legitamcy of the title and the title holders and variuos information on Lomaloma Tikina and it Villages, thank you for your imput and I will take in board during this process. MAIKELI

Comment Maikeli, I appreciate your desire to develop articles related to Fiji which is something we need. That being said, our policies still hold and the Wikipedia Community has no means of giving anyone 2 months to properly format something. Unless proper sources are provided in the next day or two it is highly likely that this article will be deleted, however this should be done without prejudice to the article being recreated later when sources are found. I'd like to suggest that you copy and paste the article into your user space or save it to your computer so you can repost it once you have found proper sources. Also, please sign your articles by using for consecutive tildas (A tilde is this sign ~ ). Don't let this discourage you, we just need sources in order to keep articles. --The Way 21:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS

thanks for the advice..you mean I only have two days??? the others said they'll give two months?? am I confused can someone verify my timeframe on all the related articles to Lomaloma Tikina...PLEASE..anyway I have taken everyones advice on board, thank all for your help and input. MAIKELI MB 22:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment

A large majority of the Fiji Articles have no source material at all and the ones that do have maybe 1 or 2 sources some of which don't load when clicked and some are not relible sources, does this mean if my article is deleted that there will be a deletion process for all of these? to be fair and if mine is kept will the same scrutiny be given to all these artlces and the "Ai Cavuti" artle used as a source is off a guys Blog spot, is that all you need? I will post all my sources and I tell I have alot more than all these articles combined, once you see me post them you'll realise, also the above comment applies to articles on Tonga but that is as far as I have looked as I need to spend my time verifying my article to you all. MALO MAIKELI MB 22:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maikeli, two days is a general estimate. These AfD (Articles for Deletion) discussions can stay open for up to five days, after which an administrator will either delete or keep the article. As the article stands now I'd assume it will be deleted since it fails to meet notability and verifiability (WP:V) policies which must be met in order for an article to be kept. I suggest you take a look through Wikipedia policies. Particulary important for you would be Wikipedia:Reliable sources, WP:CITE and WP:V. The link on reliable sources will tell you what kinds of sources are needed, WP:CITE will tell you how to cite those sources properly and WP:V is a core policy related to these two guidelines. If other articles on Fiji contain no sources then they are probably good candidates for deletion as well and it indicates that editors simply haven't gotten around to nominating them for deletion yet. If you do have sources on them, however, it would be great if you'd read WP:CITE and use it to learn how to cite those articles in order to ensure they aren't deleted sometime in the future. Remember, if the article is deleted you should feel free to recreate it once you've found some sources. In general, its a really bad idea to create an article if you don't have any sources yet. Only create articles if you can cite them when they are created. Finally, you'll probably also want to read WP:Bio as its closely related to what you are working on. Again, don't be discouraged! We need people like you to work on articles like this, but you'll need to take time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies. --The Way 00:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, good comments. I wonder though that the consensus here is diverging from that which is developing for Keni Naulumatua, Turaga na Rasau and Mere Tuisalalo. I'm not sure that they should be kept for two months or not, however I think a common way forward for all of these articles should be found as the issues are all the same. --Xorkl000 01:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and advice

Happy and Prosperous New Year to you ..The Way..thanks for your advice and help..and your absolutly right and I will make sure I am more thorough in future but this was great learning experience for me and for that I am grateful..I feel I can never learn enough..also the way if I have souces like legitimatly published books that are not on the net as well as legal documents and Newspapaer articles are these acceptable and how would I have to quote them, and then load all the other government archived documents later (from Fijian affairs board and Native lands commission)?? please advise MB 21:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 07:48Z

List of cellists
edit

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

Delete Creating a list of notable cellists, without creating criteria for inclusion on this list creates a never ending list like we have developing here. If we keep this article, then we should also create pages of lists for all other types of professions, which would get out of hand. I suspect that this page has become a vanity page for some of those listed on it and therefore think it does not belong in the encyclopedia. Socreins 05:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who are: Linday Mac, Fritz Magg, Gerhard Mantel, Michael Wiseman, Bryan Charles Wilson, Sandy Walsh-Wilson? Again, I believe people are just adding their names to this list; this is the danger of an un-ending un-structured list. Socreins 13:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's useful for those who like the sound of the cello by having the potential to provide more information on each artist than Category:Cellists. In addition see Category:Lists of musicians by instrument as most anything said of this list applies to many of those. Still I think this needs work. List of violinists is divided by era and to some extent genre. This needs retooled if it's going to be truly useful.--T. Anthony 20:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Anthony --BenWhitey 03:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lists periodically have to be pruned of vanity/non-notable additions, to which they are particularly vulnerable, but they are a valuable information source on Wikipedia. Unlike categories they can contain redlinks showing us what articles need to be written still (e.g. Joan Jeanrenaud leaps right out of there). Lists also can be annotated, for example with the performer's dates and nationality. Antandrus (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Anthony. —dima/s-ko/ 04:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Limit it to adding "cellists" with articles, if you have problems about whom to include. -- User:Docu

Delete. An unstructured list does not belong in the encyclopedia. Developing a page which has artists of style, genre, age, etc would be valuable. A list of those that have played the cello is not. It appears that many of the keep arguments are by Cellists who are in favour of supporting of this self-promoting vanity listings. Ivyrodnyc 17:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it prudent to inhibit as subjective a field as the arts with imposed guidelines as to importance of the artists? To whom does the onus fall of making this choice?Miklosdogg 17:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Incidentally, in response to "socreins" rhetorical statement: Fritz Magg was a noted cellist, editor, and pedagogue. Gerhard Mantel is a well-known author of cello technique. Even a cursory search of the internet reveals this. Miklosdogg 17:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, in reponse to "Ivyrodnyc": the idea that the posting of a cellist's name in the august annals of Wikipedia is going to elicit a second thought by any other serious, professional cellist is ridiculous. It's such a small musical sphere, everyone knows almost everyone else out there. I assure you, this is not where they turn for industry news. Miklosdogg 18:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primo slides
edit

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

This article is tagged for many issues, and assigned to cleanup. I thought it should be checked for AfD before a lot of time is spent on cleanup --Kevin Murray 22:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google doesn't throw up many relevant results, and if it was a popular skateboarding trick it would be mentioned a lot more on the internet and there would be more than one skateboarder contributing to this article. KZF 17:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; doesn't seem to be a very notable, and, as KZF said, Google fails to return any relevant results. Kalani ^[talk] 23:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOT a skateboarding instruction manual. I know, I know, I couldn't believe it either. Deizio talk 01:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, probable neologism, non-sourced. SkierRMH 01:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of characters in Devil May Cry, which is left as an exercise to the reader. Sandstein 15:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Devil May Cry
edit

Women in Devil May Cry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

My position is that the information on these characters would be better housed within the pages for the games they have appeared in, giving their plot importance and gameplay statistics (if any). The characters Lucia and Lady have only appeared in one game each (DMC2 and DMC3 respectively), while Trish appeared as an alternate costume in DMC2 (with no impact on the plot) and taking the place of Silvia for the unlockable Dante mode in the PS2 release of "Viewtiful Joe." I feel their notability beyond these individual games is negligible, and that the article fails to make a case for breaking them out of those game pages. By comparison, I do not see a "Women in Mario Games" page, nor a "Women in Final Fantasy Games" page, and those are much older game series with bigger rosters of characters with deeper backstories. --Boradis 00:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purge and Merge or Rename and Expand This article either needs to be broadened into a Characters of Devil May Cry-type article instead of just focusing on the ladies or it needs to be deleted so that the content can be merged into articles on each game. Lankybugger 14:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Alright, after perusing the articles some more I noticed that there's actually individual articles for most of the Devil May Cry characters though there aren't any links to them in the Devil May Cry template, strangely enough. Since none of the ladies appear in more than one game, I suggest merging the ladies to their respective games and leaving it at that. The portion of Women in Devil May Cry on Lady, for example, reads like a plot summary of the game. Lankybugger 15:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I would say merge to a List of Characters in Devil May Cry or a similarily titled page rather than putting the stuff on each game's page. FrozenPurpleCube 15:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dante, Virgil and Sparda all have their own articles. Aside from them, most of the characters in the Devil May Cry series tend to be confined to one game (although this may change for Devil May Cry 4). Lankybugger 17:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't mean that there's no value in having one page for all the characters in the series. FrozenPurpleCube 17:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the same time, that most of the characters warrant an article speaks to the range. Currently the Women in Devil May Cry article is just a plot summary of each game, centered around the women in question instead of Dante. For the most part the women in these games are inextricably linked to the plot of the games (Trish was designed to appeal to Dante, Lucia was the catalyst for the events of Devil May Cry 2, Lady's father Arkham/Jester is a large portion of Devil May Cry 3) and any information regarding them is probably going to be duplicated in the articles in question regardless. Likewise the minor characters in Devil May Cry games tend to be, well, minor. They generally don't warrant much, if any consideration outside of the Plot Summary. This may be something to take to the Devil May Cry pages, however. Lankybugger 18:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 21:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Merging to a character list would probably be appropriate, but the prose in this article is not worth salvaging. Wickethewok 19:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a List of characters in Devil May Cry series as FrozenPurpleCube suggested. A general character list is always good as long as it doesn't get too big. And addressing the "worth of the prose", I think any prose is better than nothing since it can be both improved gradually and rewritten from scratch anytime. Meanwhile, one can still extract useful information from it. --Koveras ^☭ 22:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any salvageable bits, delete the rest. --Alan Au 19:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Mister Manticore. --Wizardman 04:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 11:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

T & T Supermarket
edit

An editor has expressed concerns about the notability of this chains. A number of smaller chains of similar supermarkets have been deleted as WP:CSD#A7 and another one is currently tagged prod. This one however may be notable. Tizio 13:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, I turned up some not-quite-trivial newspaper/magazine mentions: [51] [52] [53] [54]. Demiurge 13:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is the major Chinese supermarket chain operating in Canada right now, and has independently published articles as per Demiurge. -- Whpq 14:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is the largest Chinese supermarket chain in Canada. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 14:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CORP, and per above reasons. Notable chain in Canada. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 22:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CORP and similar articles about "largest" corps like this in various countries. SkierRMH,01:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Carson 07:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as above. Luke! 17:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 07:49Z

Jim Al-Khalili
edit

Jim Al-Khalili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This page seems to be an autobiography, or a biography of someone with little notability. I propse it to be deleted unless wiki guidelines are followed and the article is improved with references added, etc. Nicholas 14:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep appears to be notable. [55][56][57]—Tokek 14:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleteRugbyball 17:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs cleanup but subject meets WP:N as per references cited by Tokek. Ccscott 18:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I also removed a db-bio tag from the page before it was nominated. While the article does appear to have been started autobiographically, its subject seems to satisfy WP:BIO handily. I'm somewhat surprised the article didn't exist before now. Al-Khalili is notable as an author, with reviews of his books in Nature and The Economist, among other publications, and some 30 customer reviews on Amazon.com. He's also a notable physicist with a reasonable number of papers and citations on ArXiv and Spires, and an impressive CV. I'll leave a note about WP:AUTO for Phs1ja (talk · contribs), and gradually help get references sorted out. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 00:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- asserts sufficient notability in article. Mike Peel 19:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the popular books make him more notable than your average academic and the BBC series is an extra plus. HEL 20:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert F. Treat
edit

Robert F. Treat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Autobiographical article from a tattoo artist. Apparently userfied once already, hopefully deletion & protection will get the message across. Deizio talk 14:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It fails to substantiate the significance of the subject. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as long as he gets a tattoo of Wikipedia on his arse. Otherwise delete. Rugbyball 17:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The text from 1.5M+ articles would require some pretty tiny lettering. Caknuck 21:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internationaly recognised Tattoo artist? By Who? I'd guess that some awards or news coverage could be produced to substantiate this. If not, I guess this is just the puff piece it looks like and can safely be deleted. --Spartaz 19:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google search for "Red Beard Ink" turned up little more than the shop's Web site, the WP article, numerous directory/phone book listings and the BBB report on them. Nothing was found that would verify international recognition of any sort. Caknuck 21:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Unsourced autobiography of a non-notable person. MER-C 01:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources, fails WP:V for his claims of notability. SkierRMH 01:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nowhere to merge to, it appears. Sandstein 15:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of the Pudding
edit

Proof of the Pudding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not-notable collegiate a cappella group; fails to meet standards at WP:MUSIC. Dylan 23:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, or incorporate into "Vocal music at Yale" (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Baker's Dozen). -- Infrogmation 00:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vocal music at Yale. No assertion of notability, fails WP:MUSIC. —ShadowHalo 05:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Vocal music at Yale since a redirect would effectively delete all content. Edison 01:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Yale School of Music, which needs some expansion (n.b. Vocal music at Yale doesn't exist!) SkierRMH 03:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But the Yale School of Music is a graduate school, while this group is an undergraduate singing group. Its content doesn't belong at Yale School of Music. Dylan 08:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 14:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Vocal music at Yale has since been deleted. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-29 14:42Z

Delete per recent deletions inc. Vocal music at Yale. Deizio talk 14:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 05:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese rock
edit

Japanese rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The article itself says that Japanese rock is simply rock from Japan, having no distinctive qualities that would mark it out as a genuine genre. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom unless the article gets something which distinguishes Japanese rock from other rock. At present this article is of no use to the reader. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is "stubbiness" really a valid reason to delete an article? Japanese rock has a history. It is distinct from rock music from other countries. It has its own stars and celebrities, many of whom probably have articles here. Is there another article that encompasses all of those things? The topic is notable, and deserves an article, but it just hasn't been written properly yet. 206.213.251.31 15:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, stubbiness isn't good reason for deletion — nor is it the reason that I give. The article states that Japanese rock isn't distinct from rock in other countries. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the person who wrote the stub is wrong also shouldn't be a reason to remove an article, it's a reason to re-write it. 206.213.251.31 15:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. JRock is a notable genre, and I'm shocked we don't have a longer article about it. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs

Delete. per nom. Xzeroine 18.19, 29 December 2006 — Xzeroine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. Did everyone miss this edit that blanked almost the whole article as uncited? It also appears the old text was a copyvio. The article on German Wikipedia is a lot more convincing. Prolog 17:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am the editor who reduced the article to stub length, after it had been tagged for months for its complete lack of sources. While this was all well in accord with WP:CITE, the text I wrote for the stub never stated that Japanese rock was not a genre, but that the term was merely limited in what it does convey about music it is applied to. The more absolute terms are the result of changes made by an anonymous user (200.206.182.205), 25 minutes before the article was nominated for deletion, oddly enough. Also note the faulty grammar. Let me add that I am all for an extensive history of Japanese rock music to be presented in this article, as long as it is up to Wikipedia standards, including citations. - Cyrus XIII 17:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The stub needs expansion but the subject seems notable. The history of rock music in Japan could be an interesting article. Ccscott 18:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, some people say that the subject is notable (contra what it says at the moment), but without saying why. Others say or imply that I should have used some sort of paranormal power to realise that it's notable even though what the article says denies this. The article from which an old version was plagiarised[58] isn't very convincing on this front, and tends to confirm that there's nothing very distinctive about Japanese rock — different bands have different styles, and that's about it. Oh, and Japanese psychedelic-rockers didn't take drugs...). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an expert on Japanese rock, but there are other aspects to consider beyond its stylistic differences. The history is unique to its country; for instance, how did rock develop in Japan and how was it received (both as a domestic and "imported" cultural aspect)? Rock in Japan is likely to have impacts on the country's culture that are unique. 206.213.209.31 19:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would be good grounds for an article on Rock music in Japan, or something of the sort, not for Japanese rock. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good point. We should also consider that there is a Music of Japan article, which has a rock section (longer than this stub) which links to this stub as the "main article." It briefly touches on rock music in Japan. I'm not sure what should be done to straighten it all out, but I wanted to bring that article ~~into consideration~~ to everyone's attention. (I changed the wording because I didn't want anyone to misinterpret that as a nomination for deletion or anything)206.213.209.31 19:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most article's linked in the World rock template follow the "[Nationality] rock" naming scheme and several of them are arguably well bodied and sourced articles. The music genre article also states that music may be categorized by geographical origin. Regrettably though, the Japanese rock category in Music of Japan does not offer citations either. - Cyrus XIII 20:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is not a "Rock music in Japan" topic, this is about what has been called J-Rock for many years and what is often instantaneously recognizable as different from American or European rock. The stubification was obviously necessary (but perhaps overly aggressive), but this is an article that can be developed along the lines of 206.213.209.31 above. --Dhartung | Talk 00:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Nqomc 01:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep And it seems that this deletion was brought about by an unfortunate choice of words from an overzealous stubbification. There are a lot of articles in this group with no sources what-so-ever. (i.e. Greek rock or Peruvian rock). There are no qualities that mark any of the various national rock grops as a destinctive genre. But I'll quit my whining about why we're here.

J-Rock is a seperate genre that is sets itself apart from "rock". Some of the sub-genres are considered a bit dark and violent. There are serveral newspaper reports from Asian countries that have imported this music about it having violent influences on children. Have some sources:

Note: J-Pop encompases all modern Western style popular music in Japan. (J-Pop, J-Rock, J-Rap, etc.) So, to find J-Rock sources, you often have to use J-Pop as a search term.

Nippop This is a valuable source for information on J-Bands. It's an internet source, true, but it's edited by Billboard's Asia bureau chief and author of a book on the subject as well as two others Westerns who are highly connected with the music industry in Japan. It's a highly reliable source.

Jrock, Ink.: A Concise Report on 40 of the Biggest Rock Acts in Japan "Lovingly written and gorgeously produced... the first book published in the United States to survey the delirious landscape of Japanese rock... This is a work of visual art, about some very visual artists." -- SFGate.com

New Straits Times (Malaysia) May 22, 2005, Sunday

SECTION: Pg. 2 LENGTH: 761 words HEADLINE: JRock thunders on..ZO: A-ALL BYLINE: Ahmad Nazrul Camalxaman Copyright 2005 New Straits Times Press (Malaysia) Berhad

"JRock is not everyone's cup of tea. It is very dark. It's arrangements
is also different from other genre of music", said Moon....JRock is unique among other genres of music, mostly due to its darktone in composition and the musical arrangements, while being quite melodious to sing. "It is different. And it is very difficult to play. But I do make up
for it by taking up Japanese classes because I just love the language," added Moon.

The Nation (Thailand) January 13, 2002, Sunday

LENGTH: 1024 words HEADLINE: Japan still setting the trends BYLINE: The Nation. Copyright 2002 The Nation Publishing Group

Aside from creating technological innovations in consumer electronics and automobiles, the Japanese are exceptionally good at packaging, said Salinee Panyarachun, the leader of the JPop Japanese club and a representative for Sony here.
"This Japanese uniqueness adds an element of happiness and cheerfulness [to their products] that no other country could ever copy." .... Salinee of JPop club agreed. "Japanese pop culture does have some tendency towards violence, especially in comic books," she said, adding that Japanese rock bands are also quite violent.

--Kunzite 03:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And this is different from much Western rock in that...? In any case, this is a matter of journalistic comments on the music, not the nature of the music itself (and would fit an article on "rock in Japan"). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"JRock is unique among other genres of music, mostly due to its darktone in composition and the musical arrangements, while being quite melodious to sing." -- Singaporian music columnist "Ahmad Nazrul Camalxaman" writing about locak J-Rock bands in Singapore. Did you read the quotes? They were comments on J-rock from places outside of Japan. This phenom is global in nature. "Rock in Japan" is an oversimplification of the topic. If you want to rename the article, an AFD is not the place. I would suggest that you take the entire series of articles in that template to WP:RM and seek concencus. Doing it one-by-one only creates a patchwork of confusion and inequality. --Kunzite 19:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Keep this article. "J-Rock" is a very unique cultural phenomena and its impact is affecting the world of popular culture in a way similar to the British invasion of the 60s. I would suggest, however that someone expand this article and explain just what makes J Rock so unique. Maybe a discussion of the distinction of Japanese music and how it differs from ordinary rock n roll. Piercetp 10:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tribal Council (Survivor)
edit

Tribal Council (Survivor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The whole page is smaller than the tribal council section on the main Survivor page It was originally said it was to shorten the main article, but it doesn't shorten it at all. There is also not even a link to it on the main Survivor page. TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 14:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect without merge to Survivor (TV series), already covered throughly in main article --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 22:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the decision from the same AFD two months ago unless the nominator can point to something that has changes. meshach 03:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First of all, to reply to Mesach, there was no decision in the last AfD that you cited; the result was no consensus so it is perfectly valid for someone to nominate it again. And furthermore, that AfD had very few votes and was arguably closed prematurely when it should have been relisted. That being said, this is unnecessary. The article is a stub so there is no reason for it to be separate from the main article as it doesn't help to shorten it which was its intended purpose in the first place, as the nominator mentioned. We don't need articles for individual aspects of television shows, it's unnecessary when that information can just as easily be included in the main article for that show which is also a more efficient way of doing it anyway. --The Way 08:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, Delete as totally redundant per nom. The notion was maybe good; the implementation, hopelessly bad. But delete without prejudice to recreate, in case someone later decides they actually do want to split the info from the main article (and shrink the main article in the process). Xtifr _tälk 11:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SSOE
edit

SSOE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

nn app. Google 53hit. Ziwuen 22:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--M8v2 23:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I appologise if I didn't conform to some obscure policy in writing the article - but would you mind explaining what you mean? zizdodrian 21:10, 26 December 2006 (GMT+10:00)
Ziwuen's nomination is a bad one, that doesn't follow the advice given at User:Uncle G/On notability#Giving rationales at AFD. Xe would have made a good nomination by saying that the software did not satisfy our WP:SOFTWARE criteria, and outlining what research xe had done to determine this. All that xe has actually done has count Google hits, and counting Google hits is not research. Given that neither Ziwuen nor M8v2 gave good rationales, and that it has taken four days for someone to even mention the WP:SOFTWARE criteria, I am re-listing this discussion. Please give proper rationales at AFD. Uncle G 14:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached

Delete per WP:SOFTWARE. No assertion of notability, wide-spread use, unique or special capabilities/features, etc. DMacks 17:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Online Operating System. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-30 04:33Z

Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:CORP#Criteria for products and services and, as currently proposed, WP:SOFTWARE. No non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 06:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Uncle G (copyvio). --- RockMFR 19:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apademik
edit

This is a non notable performer. And seems a vanity autobiography page. Only refs I can find are his blogs and such, and his own web space apademik.com. And this article may be a copyvio from this web site - that could be fixed and is not the only reason to delete. Obina 10:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 15:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morten Lindberg
edit

Morten Lindberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Strong Delete Not notable --BigFishy 22:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Naconkantari 22:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of importance - just another DJ - Peripitus (Talk) 00:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Master Fatman is already well covered on the Danish Wikipedia as he should be. He is locally notable here in Denmark, doesn't mean he belongs on the English Wikipedia. MartinDK 01:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep taking Martin's word for it that he's notable in Denmark- this is the Wikipedia in the English language, not just a Wikipedia for subjects in the English-speaking world. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per CanadianCaesar. Tonywalton | Talk 12:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CanadianCaesar. Systematic bias. Computerjoe 's talk 13:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 15:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, assertions of notability are weak and failure of WP:V. International subjects can have articles on en. as long as their articles assert and verify their notability, same as topics from the English speaking world. Deizio talk 15:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, fails WP:RS and WP:V. Please note that the entry on the Danish WP suffers from the same problems, so please reconsider the votes to keep, as there is no evidence yet to back up the assertion that he's "notable in Denmark". - Aagtbdfoua 17:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, per sources found by Prolog. - Aagtbdfoua 20:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, WP:NN, I lived in Denmark for 8 years and I've never heard of him. --911wasaninsidejob 17:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the user's third edit, and he has since been indef blocked for that questionable choice of a username. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Director/producer of a notable film should be notable himself. Just because you have never heard of him does not make him not notable. Ccscott 18:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. Also, interviewed on Finland's biggest film webzine and performed twice at the Danish Melodi Grand Prix. Prolog 18:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am Danish and have heard of him and seen him on TV many times. He is better known as "Master Fatman" and well covered in Danish mainstream media. Examples from large Danish newspapers: Berlingske Tidende [59] and Politiken [60]. 234 search hits on the website of Danmarks Radio and 557 (includes forums) on the other large Danish TV station: TV 2 (Denmark). (He has hosted programs on DR and participated in the TV2 show Vild med dans) PrimeHunter 21:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he may not be notable in English speaking areas, but this in no way disqualifies this article from existing in the English language Wikipedia. Also, agreeing with above notions of notabilty in Denmark. Fatlenin 22:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 16:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madlyn-Ann C. Woolwich
edit

Madlyn-Ann C. Woolwich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO considerably. Only 601 ghits and 371 yhits. Sr13 (T|C) 06:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 07:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Seems like a big fish in the small pond of pastelists - two books published, articles, gives workshops, president of an online group of pastelists, and so on. I'd be happier if I saw some museum holdings, probably pastels don't get much respect in the art world. --Brianyoumans 19:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she appears to be notable and is published, the fact that the circles she travels in don't generate a lot of coverage or attract a lot of attention shouldn't be used against her.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete When I did a Google search for her, I only got 3 hits, one of them being the Wikipedia page.[61]. A Google Image search came up with zero pages. How would I buy a painting of hers even if I wanted to? Shouldn't a notable artist return at least one image on Google Image search? TruthGal 03:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure people do Google checks correctly. I get quite a few more than 3, and far fewer than 600! Using various restrictions ("woolwich pastelist", "woolwich pastel", "woolwich madlyn pastel" etc.) the numbers fluctuate between ~50 and ~150 (this is because a ghits result may say 150 up front but when you check last page there's often a note that they're showing you x of y (total) because the rest are "very similar" i.e. duplicates. Her two books appear to have been published by reputable "arts and crafts" publishers: North Light Books (869 LC records) and Watson-Guptill Publications (1758 LC records). That said, I take no position because I'm not sure of her "notability" in the art world or the standing of the various societys she's a member/leader of. --RCEberwein | Talk 13:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's how I did my Google Search: "Madlyn-Ann Crawford Woolwich" [62]TruthGal 18:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 15:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This subject seems meets WP:N. If the linked biography is accurate, she has been the subject in multiple and non-trival coverage in various art magazines. It may be a niche notability, but she has been discussed in art magazines making her notable per Wikipedia policy. Notability is not subjective. Ccscott 17:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 08:06Z

Darren Kitchen
edit

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

Wess Tobler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

File:Darren Kitchen.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Wesstobler.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Non-notable webshow host, of which the show was previously speedy deleted under G11 and was moved to a userpage for revision (see further comments). skrshawk 15:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the associated article Wess Tobler for deletion. He is a co-host of Hak.5 and has no other claim to notability besides his association with the show. skrshawk 15:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I don't think these articles should remain in the main namespace (or I wouldn't have nominated them), I could understand an argument for the mention of these people in an encyclopedic Hak.5 article if one is created. I am not convinced that they have notability outside of the webcast and until such time as they do separate articles are not warranted. skrshawk 15:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - non notable per WP:BIO. I can't find much about this person through Google except for his work with the Hak5 show. The same applies to Wess Tobler. Jayden54 18:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 15:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both No assertion of notability for Wess Tobler, and only minimal for Darren Kitchen. Half of the latter's article is devoted to his pratfalls, and the last time I checked masochistic slapstick wasn't included in WP:BIO. Caknuck 16:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, entirely nn. Deizio talk 01:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aberdeen University Mens Hockey Club
edit

Aberdeen University Mens Hockey Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non notable university sports team Nuttah68 15:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A few of us have been trying to develop a history of this club for sometime. It is of note to allumni of the University of Aberdeen and arguably also simply for being one of the biggest hockey clubs left in the North East of Scotland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marineboy (talk • contribs) — Marineboy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The alumni of any one particular college risks being such a small minority that in a fandom oriented topic we might consider detailed information on the subject to be cruft. I think revisions to the article should reflect Wikipedia's broader audience. skrshawk 00:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Article asserts notability on the basis of being the "3rd oldest hockey club in Scotland," so may be of historical interest. This statement needs a source, however.

Weak Delete - Per nom, although can see arguments for keep upon a rewrite. MikeMorley 18:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ - If citations can be provided for the age, size, and history of this club I will change my vote. Even if my vote is changed this article will need considerable work. skrshawk 00:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article has been up on AfD I have seen no effort to address the issues brought up in discussion. Google points to press releases and current games the club is playing with no historical information readily available other than their age. As others have said, this is not notable, and therefore I revise my vote to Delete. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 03:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 15:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if it were notable it would have sources external to Aberdeen University. Demiurge 16:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real claims to notability, aside from being voted the best club in their school... Which is nice for them, but doesn't pass WP:Note. Lankybugger 17:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A 103 year old hockey club still in existence is notable. It requires expansion, notabliy historical context, however. Resolute 20:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A major club in the sport in that region. Most definitely worthy of an entry.

Note: Added by User 82.12.228.247, which is their only contribution to Wikipedia Lankybugger 22:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Conditional Keep should sources be found per WP:V, otherwise delete per nom. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 22:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - may be notable for 103 years of history. On the other hand they play at the third level in their country, which makes them sound NN. -- Bpmullins | Talk 23:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Age no indicator of notability, plenty of university clubs have been around a long time without achieving anything of note. Nothing to suggest this club is notable, take out the ridiculous namechecking table of past 4th team captains and their compadres and there isn't much at all. Primary subject of multiple, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources? I don't see it. Not too many policy-friendly keep votes here. Deizio talk 01:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I read the article over time and it still fails to assert notability. There is a section on committees that says nothing and includes a lot of names. If the only point is that it has been around for 103 years, then mention this in the school article as its oldest school assuming that fact is correct. Vegaswikian 01:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 08:07Z

Brian Cooley
edit

Brian Cooley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Just one of many many editors at CNET. On his own he is not notable. Doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO. --- RockMFR 18:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 15:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not assert notability, no non-trivial external sources. Demiurge 16:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Demiurge. --Dhartung | Talk 00:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 08:07Z

Kent German
edit

Kent German (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Just one of many many editors at CNET. On his own he is not notable. Doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO. --- RockMFR 18:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 15:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not assert notability, no non-trivial external sources. --Dhartung | Talk 00:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear notable in any way Iridescenti 15:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anime and manga series that have not been released in United States
edit

Anime and manga series that have not been released in United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is an open-ended list, of no discernible usefulness; it's difficult to see that it could ever be complete (or verifiable). Listcruft. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can see this working as a Category, maybe. However, as a list which may or may not be updated? It doesn't really work at all. Lankybugger 16:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons stated in nom. Another "not" list/category. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 17:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 17:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, listing or categorizing things by what they haven't done is generally a bad idea. Recury 20:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least until someone makes a category out of it. This is definitely information that should be retained in some form. I would support deletion if a similar category existed, however. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How can you verify through reliable sources that a series/OVA/movie has not been licensed in the US? The absence of sources should never be grounds of inclusion on a list. --TheFarix (Talk) 02:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What is the point of having a list of what has not been released where there are already articles about what has been released: List of anime theatrically released in America and Anime in the United States? --Squilibob 02:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and I could see this inspiring other such lists for each nation and/or language. A lot of the same concerns about List of anime can be applied to this, as you'd have to constantly update it with the massive amounts of anime that is released each year. -- Ned Scott 04:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a totally arbitrary list. I could at least understand, though would probably still vote to delete, a list of anime and manga that had been released in the US, but a list of negatives is almost unexhaustable. Also, why is it particularly notable that these haven't been released in the US, rather than some other country? Seems like a case of systemic bias to me. Where are the articles on anime that hasn't been released in the UK? France? Nigeria? Vanuatu? --The Way 08:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- 9muses 16:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems very US centric. _dk 22:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but maybe it should be "not released in English." - Peregrinefisher 00:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How can you verify something has "not released in English"? Omission of sources is no substitute for verification. It's a simple matter to verify when there is an English release, but the verify the opposite is an unfair burden on the editors. --TheFarix (Talk) 17:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 08:10Z

Svot
edit

Svot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non notable and unverifiable. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How, exactly, is it unverifiable? The article cites an article in Computer World whose very title is "Business Intelligence: One Version of the Truth". Uncle G 17:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Single version of the truth. This is a fairly well known concept in data warehousing. Could be explained better in the article, though. GregorB 14:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to update the wording: this is a useful and important and non-obvious concept in data warehousing and also in evidence based data analysis such as stock market surveillance (where decisions made by surveillance analysts need to have a consistent audit trail that will stand up in court, even if the data could be equally well represented with a different ordering). tjamesjones 22:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as a POV fork. A couple possible single-purpose accounts have been disregarded (though one or two that were tagged do not appear to be SPAs). --Core desat 05:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Marriage
edit

Traditional Marriage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete. This is a POV fork of the Marriage article, begun because Marriage is currently protected from edit warring. The creator of the Traditional Marriage article has stated "I will not agree to any "consensus"", declared contempt for RFC, and has been asking for a POV fork. Such a fork is no kind of solution. — coelacan talk — 16:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator of TM is currectly in good faith effort to edit Marriage. See Talk:Marriage.

Speedily Delete This article appears to have been created solely to push a point of view agenda on an article that is protected from edit warring. This directly circumvents the entire purpose and process of Wikipedia's policies and is totally unacceptable behavior. Lankybugger 16:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Quite obviously a POV fork. -- Ec5618 16:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—article created only to circumvent protection of Marriage page and to advocate a POV.--GMS508 16:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-even the title is uncyclopedic.--Yannismarou 16:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Traditional" Delete. POV fork. AgentPeppermint 20:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a sign of our sacred commitment against WP:POVFORK POV forks.-- danntm ^T _C 01:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a POV fork & being generally unencyclopedic. SkierRMH,02:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above --BenWhitey 03:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Marriage is between one admin and one Delete, under AfD. -/- Warren 05:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism of this AfD by User:Nkras may be interpreted as a vote of "keep", I guess. Trying to be charitable here. — coelacan talk — 06:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Coelacan has no basis - nor the permission - to assert a vote on my behalf. Such an action on Coelacan's part constitutes fraud. Nkras 00:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He also removed the AfD tag off the article itself. Restored the tag and warned. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a POV fork and salt name space (or make it a protected redirect). NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per above comments. Bad faith effort on the part of one user to get his own way about the definition of marriage. Jeffpw 09:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article created to push one POV when contributor couldn't get their own way on another article. POV forks are always a terrible idea. -- Siobhan Hansa 11:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork of the worst sort. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 13:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article describes Traditional Marriage. Its very existence angers the Same-sex marriage POV pushers who seek legitimacy. That is not a reason to delete an article. Using their logic, Same-sex marriage is also a POV fork, and must be deleted as well. Arguing that a "consensus" of a few Editors, drawn from a narrow socio-political caste, is enough to delete this article while retaining the blatantly POV Same-sex marriage will render Wikipedia as hopefully biased and without credibility. Traditional Marriage describes Marriage as it has been understood to the world through history. Nkras 19:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy keep, per precedent set at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Same-sex_marriage. Both are POV-forks, and frankly both should share the same fate. I would have voted for deletion for both, but same-sex was speedily kept. - Aagtbdfoua 19:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You seem to misunderstand what the term "POV fork" means. Read the article in question here, and compare it with Marriage; someone has attempted to rewrite the Marriage article by removing most of the information on same-sex marriages (while leaving intact practically all other information on other types of marriages) and filing this version under a different name. This isn't how things are done at Wikipedia. Same-sex marriage exists as a separate article because it's a major social issue; it can also be seen as a natural result of Wikipedia:Summary style editing on the Marriage article itself. -/- Warren 20:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A good-faith effort is now underway to resolve the Marriage article. Traditional Marriage should not be deleted. Doing so could damage the process of resolution and the goal of Wikipedia NPOV on this issue. The disputes concerning the TM and Ssm articles can be resolved later. Nkras 20:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to re-creation with a mostly original text. This does seem to be a POV fork. But I am pretty sure the phrase "traditional marriage" is noteworthy, not obvious or tautological in the meaning given to it by those who use the phrase, and otherwise could support an article. That article has yet to be written, though. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Disregard my above comment. I didn't realize the Same Sex article was already in existence, and this is a POV fork four days old. Delete it, this content dispute needs to be settled elsewhere. - Aagtbdfoua 00:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not any kind of SSM or gay-activist, but traditions of marriage are too varied to allow for just one article. Articles in Category:Marriage and religion and Category:Wedding should deal with most of the concepts of marriage in traditional societies, but if not there might be a need of expansion in this area.--T. Anthony 01:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP "Traditional marriage" on Wikipedia. Why would anyone want to remove this term? It exists all around the world, deleting these two words doesn't make it go away. So sick of people who feel that they must push their agendas by taking away from others.DeltaFox 02:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC) — DeltaFox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP "Traditional Marriage" This will allow the original form of marriage to be defined. Proponents of SSM can explain their position on their own entry.Esteemedeffendi 02:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC) — Esteemedeffendi has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

KEEP "Traditional Marriage" I agree with the last comment. Same-sex-marriage is already a conceptual branch off of the marriage article (even if the latter's content is not yet resolved). This article too is a branch with valuable information. That most of this data is repeated in the original article is not really the point. The information here can and should be rewritten to be more narrowly-focussed. Also, if "same-sex marriage" is a social issue, then "traditional marriage" is as much a social issue; the two terms reference one another and I'd say deserve separate entries. Silverstarseven 02:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC) — Silverstarseven has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Comment: Same-sex marriage is a distinctly different topic than marriage, in that it is a controversial, modern development in marriage. The article deals with its development and political history, as well as its status throughout the world. The traditional marriage article is just a cut and paste job of the original marriage article, with all references to same-sex marriage deleted. That's what makes this a POV fork, while the same-sex one is not. Someone above suggested delete without prejudice. I second that. A fine article can be written about what traditionalists think of as marriage, and their efforts to defend that in a changing world. The article as it now stands is not that.Jeffpw 11:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, POV fork. --Duke of Duchess Street 03:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As others noted, a POV fork with nothing new to say. Luis Dantas 17:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although the creation of this article was pretty plainly a POV fork, the term "traditional marriage" is notable in the context of the same-sex marriage debate -- social conservatives have made it a buzzword similar to family values. Assuming this afd results in deletion, I hope this will not be taken as prejudicial to recreation of an article called "Traditional marriage" that discusses the political use of the term in a neutral way. DanB†DanD 20:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That's it exactly. "Traditional marriage" is now a political slogan with a non-obvious and non-trivial meaning. Opposition to same-sex marriage is often cast now as a "defense" of "traditional marriage". These usages are quite common - they appeared in every other political ad during the last US national elections, it seems - and surely deserve an article of their own. The text now under consideration is not that article. - Smerdis of Tlön 23:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP There is another article Same-sex marriage that deals with only the same sex side of this issue. Either Same-sex marriage should be folded into the larger "Marriage" article, or if Same-sex marriage is allowed to stand, than "Traditional Marriage" should too, since that term is as-common as "Same Sex Marriage" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucid-dream (talk • contribs)

Please read the AFD more closely. That point has already been addressed and countered.--69.156.204.183 02:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - POV, and rather sleazy POV at that. Besides, inaccurate title - as traditional marriage would involve same-race only, 10 year old brides, spouses meeting each other only on their wedding days, no divorce, kidnapping, spousal parents paying off the other, etc. etc. --John Kenneth Fisher 22:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a POVfork but support comments by 'DanB_DanD' and 'Smerdis of Tlon' above to recreate an article that discusses the recent political use of the term. -- Adz|talk 03:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Eydt Village
edit

Ron Eydt Village (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A university dorm. Notability is not asserted. Akihabara 16:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a university dorm. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete don't find much notability about this, on the University of Waterloo article or their website. SkierRMH,02:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've been there. It's not notable enough to merit an article. -/- Warren 05:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. - Aagtbdfoua 16:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Let's not dignify this tripe with a full AfD. -- Steel 16:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture and the Penis
edit

Architecture and the Penis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Unsourced, most likely a joke. Looks like a reason to say penis a whole bunch. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 05:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scooby Doo 3
edit

Scooby Doo 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Movie not yet announced, no verifiable information available, not even listed in IMDB yet. Brian Kendig 16:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Speedy Delete Fails per WP:CRYSTAL. Obviously a joke as well, given the dates (released in 2009), the poorly-photoshopped 3 overtop of previously-released press material, and the location of the movie (coolsville?) Lankybugger 17:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced crystal balling, probable hoax. —ShadowHalo 23:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing on IMdb or Warner Brothers website. SkierRMH,02:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 16:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Opera Company
edit

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}}.

Chelsea Opera Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable company, possible CSD A7 candidate but I'm sending it here for community review. Article's only sources are from the entity itself. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the NYT article cited calls the company "small, fledgling". At the moment they look like many other small companies all over the country. Give them a few years and see how they develop. -- Bpmullins | Talk 23:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep it has received some media coverage, not necessarily as a traditional opera company, but for their work with youth and exposure to opera. - initial problems with the initial Afd & citations appear to have been fixed. SkierRMH 02:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very small fish in a very big pond. The NYT article cited is only a passing mention, to boot. --Calton | Talk 00:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stong KeepThis is a great sample of the best that "small" can be. The outreach programs and assitance to young artsts is an example that should be noted and kept on this site. added note. I'm fairly new here but see that this site has multiple pages for roads, road 400. . Isn't having an article about "people" just as important? Let's not look at numbers, just for once, but what is at the heart of a project in determining it's value. Greekvoice 10:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong Keep Ditto to the above!!! Much more worthy than many of the single musician stubs that are on this site. This is just a stub, give it a chance. I've been in the audience and seen first hand what they do and they have great community support and will bring many people to this site. A very positive addition.Operadog 14:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong KeepKeep this page as a stub, at least. Much more deserving of space on this site then many who are given that distinction, absolutely. A growing and thriving company, also has a California affiliated group who are helping expand their reach. A shame if you drop this deserving company.Leah01 15:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must add to previous coments and ask why Lancaster Opera Company is allowed on this site with no problems from editors, and they have no offical website and not one reference listed. Give this company a break and stop threateniing to remove it. You have allowed other small companies, much less notable. Fair treatment please. Leah01 16:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Operadog, Leah01, and Greekvoice all have very few edits outside of this article and the related Daniel Rodriguez (which is not up for deletion), and appear to be working in concert (no pun intended): see [63], referring to "I and our team." | Mr. Darcy talk 17:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
don't see the concern as the issue is that this deserving company has as much right be in this encylopedia as any, and more than some. Lets concentrate on the situation of relevancy and important, and not who is stepping up to give their educated opinions. It would seem that the purpose of Wikipedia is to encourage MORE people of good intentions to join in, and open up sites like this, instead of blocking their atttempts to do something positive. Makes absolutely no sense at all, and eventually you will simply be the losers, as you will chase away new customers. It may already be working to do exactly that. Is that really what you wish for Wikipedia, check out the Kansas City star today.. an interesting editorial, comments on giving more deference to less important and far less worthy, than those who should be encourged to come here.Operadog 19:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ps. from my limited experience here, I've seen already far too many examples of bullying or trying to belittle the attempts to do something good. The climate precisely seems to discourage what the Goals of this site imply. Operadog 19:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here tis

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/16353073.htm

Titled: Wikipedia is hardly authoritative on any subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by Operadog (talk • contribs) 19:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry for not addding my name. But I also wanted to ask Mr. Darcy if he would rather we come to this site with limited knowledge of what we are opening a page for, or go to our resources and ask for help, as I have done, in assembling the information that has been placed on the several sites, I have been a part of in developing. What is it yu have against people of good intentions working together for a good cause. It's called "Team work". Not some kind of conspiracy, as I've been made to feel, I am imposing on others. I applaude all who consider this to a good thing, and question the motives of those who are so against it. 20:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Sorry again for forgetting to sign nameOperadog 21:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's fix it and be fair. I don't see why a reputable Opera company's article could be 'deleted' without any additional support. This can't be happening. Please let's not delete the article. Let's work on it so that it meets the Wikipedia guidelines. Come on, give the article a chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaeNamorada (talk • contribs) 22:33, 1 January 2007 — LaeNamorada (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Very strong Keep I've just added information and links or references, and also asked for help in mediating this situation. This strong and young public minded Opera Company would be a valuable addition to Wikipedia. They would be enhanced to have such fine organizations as this, as part of this site. No reason whatso ever for deleting this group. They are fimly and professionally a thriving part of the Manhattan artistic community and do a lot of good work with young artists, even the recent USO fundraiser. An example of the best of any in their size and scope, that I've seen, in giving back to their community. Why in the world would anyone even consider removing this group. Don't allow this to happen!! Broadwaydad 07:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC) — BroadwayDad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Very strong Keep Attended several events there, definatly will see more of this exceptional group of artists. Absolutely outragous to even suggest deletion. An outstanding group of professionals working hard to do something special for their art and advance the careers of young performers. (and they are) Yes, a sterlinlg example of the best that small can be. Size is not always an indicator of excellence. Leah01 11:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User's second !vote. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per NYT review and notable singers appearing. Strong warning to the related entities over here: AfD is not a vote and meatpuppeting is very poorly regarded on Wikipedia. - crz crztalk 12:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The article should be seriously cleaned up to meet Wikipedia standards, or else it will have to be deleted due to Wikipedian guidelines. I also suggest finding out more about the company. Acalamari 19:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit and will return, and see if I can figure out exactly what should be removed or added. Any help is always appreciated. Not sure if we need more specifics about past performances or that kind of detail. Not sure if being "stub" can allow it to be very short and skip those details or not? Broadwaydad 01:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SkierRMH but there is still cleanup needed. JamesMLane t c 10:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 08:13Z

Joeltris
edit

Joeltris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

File:Joeltris.PNG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

NN game; WP:NFT. Schutz 17:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFT. Also fails WP:V and WP:SOFTWARE. If Wikipedia had an article for every Tetris clone available the servers would have to be double the size they are right now. Lankybugger 17:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - V & SOFTWARE. SkierRMH,02:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 08:14Z

Lavaeth Church
edit

Lavaeth Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

contested speedy/prod and recreation of speedied page. WP:OR or creative writing: only ghit is an okcupid.com self-test; not sure if it's WP:HOAX, but could be WP:NFT DMacks 17:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed the speedy and the prod. First of all; speedy or prod, please pick one and don't use both. I didn't think the db-context applied to an article that long; and as for the prod... Don't you think we should give a newbie contributor who is probably confused as to where their first attempt at creating this article went a chance to learn what's wrong with their article and create something coherent out of it? If this is an emerging cult, sect, or new religious group the article should be tagged for clean-up, issues mentioned on the talk page, and given a chance to evolve if possible. I watchlisted it when I tagged it for clean-up and if there was no change would have prodded it a few days from now. Lets give the creator a chance to look over the links in the welcome message I left them, and a chance to look at the issues pointed out with clean-up messages and on the talk page, and see if there is a change in the article. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added the PROD as well because the article had already been speedied today; I wasn't sure the speedy tag was quite right and also wanted to avoid speedy/recreation pingpong, so I figured I'd save time in the event admin didn't speedy-delete it. DMacks 17:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is patent nonsense, and so should be deleted quickly. Unfortunately, that would mean that all religious pages shold be deleted for being patent nonsense. delete anway. Rugbyball 17:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think that comment is awful close to a personal attack? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If people are stupid and have stupid beliefs that's their problem. Rugbyball 17:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, you won't make many friends here with that approach. Live and let live here.--Anthony.bradbury 22:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not patent nonsense. Please read Wikipedia:Patent nonsense and familiarize yourself with what patent nonsense actually is, and, importantly, what it is not. Uncle G 18:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, then salt the earth It was already deleted once today. Lankybugger 17:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a reason to speedily delete it again. It shouldn't have been speedily deleted in the first place. None of the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion in fact apply. Uncle G 18:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have a feeling I saw this page get speedied more than once today. Is it possible for an admin to look at the edits of the original author and see if he had created it under an alternate name as well (that was also speedied) today? DMacks 17:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm suspicious as-is, since the reposting of that article is the user's first and only edit. Lankybugger 18:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same text as before, by the same author. However, speedy deletion does not apply to this content. The policies that apply are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, and AFD is the place to discuss them. Uncle G 18:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article discusses a religion purportedly founded last year. It cites no sources, and I can find no sources at all. I can find no evidence that this religion even exists, let alone anything about it. Much of the article is simply badly re-hashed gnosticism. Unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 18:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - religiocruft.Baka man 18:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article creator appears to be attempting to address some concerns and remedy some of the problems in the article. Unfortunately, in doing so they have just asserted that, at this point in time the existence of Lavaeth Church is not verifiable. This quote from a recent edit they made to the article:
The number of members of the Lavaeth Church is not numbered greatly, and therefore is given the term "sect". Due to its foundation last year in the United Kingdom in the county of Kent it does not have a great deal of publicity. The reason for the Wikipedia article is to give a brief outline of the beliefs of the sect, with references to the scriptures.
[Emphasis added]

If you cannot demonstrate via previously published material that this sect actually exists, then Wikipedia is not the place to give a brief outline of its belief system. Try another website like myspace, or Wikia. If and when this belief system catches on and is written about in reliable sources, then this article can be re-created. Delete without prejudice ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly, comments by one or two editors above show total religious bias, which is not needed in an AfD discussion. But a number of comments made in the article in relation to other religions are inaccurate in the terms of those religions, the basic text is unreferenced, important details lack context, and the sect is, as stated within the text, unknown and therefore non-notable. Could be a hoax, otherwise religiocruft and definitely WP:NN.--Anthony.bradbury 22:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per UncleG's well-stated arguments. -- Bpmullins | Talk 23:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this article has been reproduced on Wikia as per requests. This article was NOT a hoax, this is a religious following, and I'm worried at the thought that people would take it as a hoax. Nevertheless, I thank you for your comments: In particular:

If this is an emerging cult, sect, or new religious group the article should be tagged for clean-up, issues mentioned on the talk page, and given a chance to evolve if possible.
Since indeed this is an emerging sect I understand your concern that it has not been cited by reliable sources. Thankyou. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.141.158.153 (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete simply from WP:V - not sourced, and if it's an "emerging cult", let it emerge and get some notareity. SkierRMH 02:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This has absolutely no sources and, if real, is completely non-notable. It also may very well be a hoax and even if it isn't the article is so hopelessly POV that it is unsalvageable. --The Way 08:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, you really think that I would attempt to write about a religion which is a Hoax? My religious beliefs are not a hoax: Do people really write about Hoax-religions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.202.85.119 (talk) 13:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Unfortunately, it seems to be that Hoax Religions appear with regularity on Wikipedia. I understand that this faith may be real and may be something by which you live your life (and I do, despite the implications of others, respect that), but without verification it's nigh impossible to seperate from Religions which might have been invented. I do wish you the best in your goals, though. Lankybugger 16:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not verifiable. - Aagtbdfoua 16:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to non-verifiability and extreme religious bias. This may be corrected, but it does not look like this will be possible very soon. ("Jehovah, your father") --SYCTHOS ^talk 15:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. It is lifted out of the organisation's promotional literature, albeit with permission, although there is no trace of how that permission has been granted and in what are the limits to that permission, so it may fail WP:COPYVIO. If a profit-making business put up an article like this, it would definitely be considered spam, so why not a "church"? Ohconfucius 08:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Straight forward delete because it is not notable and not verifiable in published sources. Verifiablity is covered above. A prophet could be considered inherently notable, however, my understanding of the various Wikipedia guidelines would suggest that a prophet would have to attract a significant number of followers before achieving notability, or alternatively, a significant number of gainsayers. There is no evidence either in this case. --Bejnar 19:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Youth subculture and List of youth subcultures. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 08:18Z

High school subcultures
edit

High school subcultures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

too POV, previous attempts of correcting haven't worked, too many pastel boxes for too long Will ^{(Because you're filthy, ooh, and I'm gorgeous)} 17:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete- It just might need cleanup... --SUIT 18:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty POV. ~ Ed B oy^[c] 19:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there's a salvageable article here, it needs to be rebuilt from the ground up using references properly (not in combination with OR, and with substantive and/or multiple refs for each subculture (not just a mention on a page in a book)) and avoiding a US-centric perspective (unless its retitled) Bwithh 20:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - The salvageable parts of this article should be merged with List of youth subcultures and Youth subculture. As it currently stands this article seems to focus almost entirely on schools in the USA, despite the article professing to include a list of so-called UK and US-centric subcultures. However the term high school is not used in this context in the UK (we use the term "secondary schools" instead but would never talk about 'secondary school subcultures) so it is a complete nonsense to include any references to British youth subcultures under such a heading. Some of the British subcultures which are listed (eg, chavs, emos, goths and casuals) are not just confined to secondary schools in any case and can often refer to people in their twenties. Nearly all schools in the UK have school uniforms (I presume that is not the case in the USA) so the subcultures are mainly manifested in the clothes children wear in their leisure time. If there is a need for an article on American high school subcultures then the article should be retitled "High school subcultures in the USA" and should confine itself to American usage only. Dahliarose 20:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - It needs work but there's no need to throw the whole thing out. I second the motion to merge with "List of youth subcultures". Squidfryerchef 22:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge (but very little is worth merging). Few if any of these are genuinely applicable only to high school (e.g. I know people well into their 30s who would qualify as goths). The notable and verifiable ones have their own articles anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above --BenWhitey 03:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Squidfryerchef's comments S.dedalus 05:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see the first and second AFD debates Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High school subcultures / Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High school subcultures (2nd nomination) Paul foord 02:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as copyvio. Khoi khoi 03:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bush war crimes tribunal
edit

Bush war crimes tribunal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article has been prodded two times, has to come to AFD. Current prod rationale was "This doesn't exist in any real sense. It's a proposal, not an article, and Wikipedia is not free webspace." Original prod was "Not sure the subject carries the signifcance to warrant an article". I add that there is no sourcing and no clear assertion of encyclopedic notability. GRBerry 17:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, copyvio from [64]. With the copyvio removed, it consists of two sentences: "There are several organisations trying to prosecute bush administration and its officials for the war crimes committed in Afghanistan and Iraq. bushcommission.org is probably the most prominent.", which is hardly worth keeping. Google turns up blogs, indymedia stories etc. but I can't see any reliable sources. Demiurge 17:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete copyvio. If anyone wants to possibly add any sourced information about this to Criticism of George W. Bush, go ahead. --- RockMFR 19:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as it is a copyvio and tagged as such. TSO1D 00:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC) TSO1D 00:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, discounting the author's WP:ILIKEIT opinion. No prejudice to a recreation with multiple reliable sources. Sandstein 16:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ClickBank
edit

ClickBank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not sure how notable the company is, but the article reads like SPAM. Schutz 17:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised that this page already got deleted recently, see log, so that it could be deleted under CSD G4 (although I don't know if the previous article was similar to this one). Schutz 18:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability asserted ("likely similar in scale to that of Amazon.com") but no reliable sources to verify it. Google results are all advertising and counter-advertising. Demiurge 18:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment also delete Clickbank.com and Clickbank. Doesn't qualify for CSD G4 because the previous deletion wasn't a full AfD. Demiurge 18:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. ~ Ed B oy^[c] 19:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Sanitized. Deleting this article would bias Wikipedia toward the other companies in the same market as ClickBank, namely 2Checkout, Digital River, Commission Junction, LinkShare, and Google AdSense, all of which have their own Wikipedia entry. I have deleted the middle paragraph to omit the material that was substantiated only by archival copies of the ClickBank web site. Tpbarber 21:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. (note that Tpbarber is the original author of ClickBank). Even if the article has been "sanitized", as you say, it still does not explain why this company is notable. As for the bias, if you believe that the other companies which you mentioned aren't notable either, they can be listed for deletion as well. Schutz 21:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -- Read this before firing off a delete based on the articles current content. ClickBank is a system that is in widespread usage on the Internet. Do a google search and start sifting through the 3M+ hits. Even aside from WP:WEB, one could argue that ClickBank needs a page based on WP:SOFTWARE. To fill editors in, ClickBank is essentially an affilliate marketing program that would most closely mirror multi-level marketing. You'll also notice quite a few links to get-rich-quick schemes based on ClickBank techniques. I believe an article on ClickBank would be good to have, not merely as an article to define what this widespread product/server does, but also to allow ClickBank's critics (and critics of affilliate-marketing programs in general) an opportunity to present a balanced description of the service. Do I think ClickBank is a great product or support what they do? (No, I have no opinion on that.) Do I want to lead people into shaky get-rich-quick schemes? Definitely not, but I think WP should have a balanced treatment of the subject. Here is a balanced review of ClickBank that I found while searching around:

http://www.epublishingdaily.com/feature-clickbank-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/
...That presents many of the negatives of the service. Maybe this isn't the sort of information that the creator of the ClickBank article wanted, but it is good information that probably needs to be considered in an NPOV article. Tarinth 22:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment epublishingdaily describes itself as "a mix between a blog and a portal"[65], seems to be self-published and not a WP:RS. Demiurge 22:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not necessarilly advocating that particular reference as a definitive source supporting notability, but merely to find one of the first things that came up in a search of the zillions of links found. I think it clear that something in such widespread usage is notable per se, and that there's both considerable criticism and controversy regaring the product--certainly enough to justify an entry here. Tarinth 22:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick trip to amazon.com and a search for "clickbank" turns up a few dozen books that include information on using ClickBank. Yes, a lot of these are self-published vanity works such as "How to Become Wealthy Selling Informational Products on the Internet", but then you'll also find some books such as "Build a Web Site for Dummies." I don't think anyone would claim the For Dummies series doesn't count as WP:RS: http://www.amazon.com/Building-Site-Dummies-David-Crowder/dp/0764571443/sr=8-8/qid=1167431620/ref=sr_1_8/102-9031080-3452160?ie=UTF8&s=books
Sifting through the Web simply turns up a huge number of links, some in the get-rich-quick category, some more balanced:
A few others: http://www.profitpapers.com/reviews/clickbank-review.php http://business-reviews.com/business_opportunities/clickbank.php http://moneymakingbusiness.wordpress.com/2006/11/08/clickbank-review-part-2/
Some critical reviews/links: http://scamsreviewer.com/blog/?s=clickbank http://www.problogger.net/archives/2005/08/23/affiliate-programs-clickbank/
Essentially I think it is clear that there's so much out there on this subject that a good article on this company/service seems possible and inevitable.
I am in no way affilliated with ClickBank or their products, and I've never even used their products. But I *am* very familiar with Web technologies and companies, and I was incredulous when I saw this come up for deletion given that I'd heard their name so many times. I'm just against deleting articles off the cuff simply because the first version of them isn't that great. Tarinth 22:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability rarely matters as much as people seem to think it does. What matters is the information in an good article on the thing would be given in reliable sources, and I do not believe that. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? If it's notable, it may come up in a discussion, and if I then don't know what it is, I reach for an encyclopedia in the hope to find some truthful information on the subject. As long as it's truthful, and gives me some idea what it is about, it's still much better than nothing. 85.176.180.216 21:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and rd to surface piercing. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 08:20Z

Hips Piercing
edit

Hips Piercing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The term "Hips Piercing" is a neologism for a specific placement of what is normally known as a surface piercing. While many surface piercings have their own articles (nape piercing, Madison piercing, corset piercing), there is no commonly referred to placement for a hips piercing. Surface piercings can be and have been placed, with varying degrees of success, anywhere on the body, including the hips, but there is no specific placement, commonly accepted term, history or other factors that would justify an article for "Hips Piercing" at this time. Currently, a google search[66] for the term "hips piercing" turns up very little other than this article and the video referenced in it. The first result is a BME article that refers to a "surface hip piercing", which I take to be a descriptor, rather than an actual piercing term or name. Glowimperial 17:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless we're going to get into Neckline Piercing, Wrist Piercing, Sternum Piercing, etc. Surface piercings are a dime a dozen and pretty much all of the ones which are in positions normally covered by clothes, especially at stress points like the hips or neckline, require jewelry made of flexible material. Lankybugger 19:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge at least a reference to this to the Piercing article. SkierRMH,02:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator. -/- Warren 05:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 05:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KissHello
edit

KissHello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Subject does not meet the notability guidelines of WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 18:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, 0 listeners on Last.fm. Prolog 18:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Non notable band--SUIT 18:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. ~ Ed B oy^[c] 19:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KissGoodbye. Fails WP:MUSIC. AgentPeppermint 22:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; WP:MUSIC and WP:BAND. SkierRMH,02:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND. —ShadowHalo 04:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G12. - Mailer Diablo 07:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time To Ride 2: Saddles And Stables
edit

Time To Ride 2: Saddles And Stables (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Copyright infringement: Material appears to be copied from Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/Time-Ride-2-Saddles-Stables/dp/B000FX4X3M) Jim Dunning 18:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Per nom--SUIT 18:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - and marked as such - clear copyvio from amazon.com website. SkierRMH 02:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Francis, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 08:22Z

Princess Antoinette of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld
edit

Princess Antoinette of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The Princess who is the subject of this article is non-notable. Her only claim to fame is being the daughter of Franz Frederick Anton, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld. (Note that not all of his children have articles.) Furthermore, it is unlikely anything can be added to fill out her barebones autobiography (vital stats on birth, death and marriage). Tocharianne

Delete Tocharianne 18:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per precedent on royalty inclusions. SkierRMH 02:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: are there different rules for royalty and nobility? She's a member of a ducal family, not a royal one. (Apparently the term "Princess" was more commonly used in the German aristocracy than it is in England.) Tocharianne 02:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This seems to be an instance of Prince#Generic use, partly explained by differences between English and German terminology. --Dhartung | Talk 05:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is my inclination given she never ruled as a titular princess or duchess, only as the daughter or spouse of one, no matter how notable her close relatives (two jumps to Victoria, two to Leopold of Belgium, etc.) --Dhartung | Talk 05:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to have been notable in her own right. --Duke of Duchess Street 03:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Erwin Stein. Deizio talk 21:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Stein
edit

Edwin Stein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This page needs to be deleted. It mis-names Erwin Stein as 'Edwin', and contains almost no information about him. Compare it with the entry correctly named 'Erwin Stein'(originally posted by Pfistermeister 15:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)). Tickkid 18:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 05:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Team America: World Police 2
edit

Team America: World Police 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I think this entire entry is a spoof, since I can find no actual announcement that a sequel has been announced searching google. In addition, Trey Parker and Matt Stone have repeatedly stated in the past that they do not intend to make a sequel to the movie. (See http://www.cinema.com/articles/3059/team-america-world-police-interview.phtml for an example of this. Barnas 19:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, I vote to delete the page as a spoof, unless someone provides a reliable source that a sequel has been announced. I could very well have missed the announcement, but when I looked for one, I wasn't able to find one- which isn't a very good sign. Barnas 19:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax, no sources. Nice edit to the poster, though. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete. I saw the announcement, it seriously was on dutch TV. And as for that article, everyone knows they kept saying that season was South Park's last, but there were another 3 coming up. User:Floris|(talk) 23:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, "I saw the announcement" is not a reliable source. And note that, despite the signature above, the above was actually added by User:Keesssie, the hoax article's creator. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No announcement that I can find. A hoax article.--Anthony.bradbury 22:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until there is an actual citable, respectable source to verify this, this is nothing by a crystal-balling at best and hoax at worst.-- danntm ^T _C 01:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (sadly, loved the first movie!) nothing on the Paramont website about this. SkierRMH,02:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced crystal balling. —ShadowHalo 04:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fake in an obvious way. CSA956

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 16:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Delinquent Road Hazards
edit

For starters, the concept of "The Delinquent Road Hazards" referring to a group of characters from the motion picture Cars is a neologism and is unverifiable by reliable sources. This is actually explicitly stated in the article:
"They are not actually referred to as the "Delinquent Road Hazards" in the film. The name has actually come from fans of the film, taken from the title of a race in the subsequent game, which introduces them, & from what Sheriff calls Lightning McQueen when instructing Mater to tow him to the courthouse for trial. This name is included in this article for the sake of identification."
A Google search on the term returns no reliably sourced results ignoring results referring to the videogame and wikipedia mirrors. The rest of the article is chock full of unverifiable original research. A few examples:

Wingo is a modified 2000 Nissan Silvia S15" - Where is this stated in any movie or game? Google returns no reliable sources on this. This goes for all the "model" information in this article.

While some believe that he lightly parodies the import scene, others believe that he lampoons rice burners - Unsourced original research.

Some must wonder what a muscle car is doing in a gang of imports; it could be related to the mix of tuner cars & classic muscle cars & shown in the movie "The Fast and the Furious". - Unsourced original research.

Normally I would advocate cleanup of the original research, but in this particular case, if you removed all the WP:OR, what you'd have left is information on the film and video games that should be at those respective articles, all at a namespace that is unverifiable in reference to this grouping of characters from the film. Each of these characters could have their own seperate article, but having one overall article so full of original research at a namespace that is a neologism is simply not the right way to do this. Delete.--Isotope23 19:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Disputes like this just don't justify deletion.Hondasaregood 20:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't a dispute. The problem is that this article fails WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NEO. That justifies deletion in my opinion.--Isotope23 20:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe the source on the car types is from the toys, but I'm not sure. Could be from somewhere else. Don't know. However, I don't think these three characters need have their own article. I'd say one for Characters in Cars would be more appropriate. Given the questions raised here though, I can't recommend a merge. FrozenPurpleCube 21:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I hope that disputes as to impossibility of meeting a core policy justify deletion... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR and failing WP:FICTION. Perhaps an eventual merge into a list of minor characters in the Cars universe article? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That's alot of OR. Should be covered in an omnibus article on Car characters per above comments. Eluchil404 09:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I herewith maintain that the page for The Delinquent Road Hazards should NOT be deleted. While I agree that information on each vehicle (viz., DJ, Wingo, Snot Rod, Boost, etc.) does not warrant individual entries, this one article is THE SOLITARY, yet primary source of information on that whole group of characters, which is priceless. Even just having a place for the JPEG photos of these cars argues for the retention of this article. Where else would the inquiring mind find useful information on these vehicles were it not for Wikipedia's diligence in creating this article in the first place? Please do not flush this valuable information into cyberspace oblivion!!!! We NEED this article to REMAIN in the cache of information on the CARS movie, as provided by Wikipedia! KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, KEEP ALL YOUR GOOD WORK, AND DO NOT DELETE THE ARTICLE ... PLEASE!
Rpaltza 23:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)rpaltza[reply]
Wikipedia is most explicitly not supposed to be the sole source of information. That is a reason for deletion. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Rpaltza meant the only place on wikipedia. I would agree that these characters should be covered but feel that the current article has too much original research to be worth merging into a better place. Eluchil404 04:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right and that was my original reasoning for the AfD. This article is so far outside of what is acceptable as an article that it would be better to have a Characters in Cars article covering this. The reason I didn't suggest merge is because there is almost nothing verifiable to merge in the existing article.--Isotope23 14:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... that's an odd interpretation of WP:AGF. It's very possible that he thinks, in good faith, that Wikipedia is a place to put things which are nowhere else. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, the cars only really appear in one scene. oTHErONE _(Contribs) 13:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete G12. - Mailer Diablo 02:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Craig poirier
edit

Craig poirier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Seems non-notable. Computerjoe 's talk 19:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, copyvio. So tagged. Demiurge 19:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Agent 86 00:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bodé
edit

Mark Bodé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Minor artist, failure of WP:BIO and WP:V Deizio talk 20:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article doesn't state this but he's a published author having drawn the graphic novel "A Night in a Moorish Harem". Minor notable. Article needs to be rewritten so it doesn't refer to subject by his first name. --Duke of Duchess Street 03:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable artist. (Ibaranoff24 21:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hizbollywood
edit

Hizbollywood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Neologism, material covered elsewhere. Nothing to merge, not worthy of a redirect - crz crztalk 20:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. - crz crztalk 20:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomOo7565 20:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, neologism/POV fork. Demiurge 20:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn neologism and the material is covered elsewhere. --70.51.229.211 20:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletions. --70.51.229.211 20:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone else. Wow, that title sounds like somebody trying to imitate gangster speak to be cool. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV WP:SOAPBOX, neologism violation. Bwithh 01:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with WP:POV problems & as a neologism. SkierRMH 02:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 04:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV content forking, Tewfik^Talk 06:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Love it! Anyways, its defntly not WP:SOAP, it was all over the media. Find a better WP:rule. frummer 21:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversies ...

AnonMoos 12:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it it is a refferance to the general abuse of the media by lebanese terrorists [not just the last israel-lebanon conflict].. which used to be described as Pallywood [being perpetrated mostly by palestinians] but now the term Hizbollywood has picked up in notability. i don't know about you, but i've seen it on plenty occassions. Jaakobou 15:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The term is widely used - but just in blogs. I looked up in a search engine, and found that the term is used primarily by bloggers, and other media refers to blogs when mentioning it. Thus, it is not a verifiable term, according to Wikipedia rules (as opposed to Pallywood which caught up with mainstream media during the Intifada years). Move the relevant material to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversies and then redirect. --Gabi S. 18:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 08:24Z

Don Ed Hardy
edit

Don Ed Hardy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Tattoo artist and self-published author. Name-drops a ton of celebs and apparently a "pop culture icon". Only source to back up these assertions is his own site. Deizio talk 20:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep - alternate source here for some of the article. Otto4711 21:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Upgrade to keep based on rewrite. Otto4711 20:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while this is an incredibly poorly written article, Don Ed Hardy is a major tattoo artist who's contributions to the industry are numerous. I'm going to try and do a total re-write of this article over the weekend to right the situation and hopefully address the issues with the current article. Glowimperial 23:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've done a total re-write of the article. Please take a look at it in its current state before commenting or voting here. I think I've addressed the issues. Glowimperial 15:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - (I don't know if unnamed passers-by can vote or not, so I apologise if this is a breach of etiquette). Don Ed Hardy is a major celebrity in some subcultures, and at least some of his celebrity name dropping can be verified by sources other than himself (the Needled blog for example). He is more than just a self-published author. Also becoming increasingly well known due to the highly successful eponymous clothing label. Deleting an article because it's poorly written is a knee jerk reaction - poor writing does not mean the subject doesn't deserve an encyclopaedic entry. --59.167.84.214 10:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - why is this up for deletion? Ed Hardy is at least as famous as Kenneth Howard. Seragenn 17:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More famous, as I've heard of hardy but never heard of Howard. Otto4711 20:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Agent 86 00:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vyvyn Lazonga
edit

Vyvyn Lazonga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Tattoo artist whose claim to fame appears to be being female and independent. No sources other than own site. Deizio talk 20:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article has independent sources, but the <references /> tag was accidentally removed. I've added the tag back. --Muchness 22:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, leaning towards keep. A minor figure, but the multiple non-trivial mentions in notable publications (e.g., Bodies of Subversion, Modern Primitives) arguably make a case for her as part of the historical record in her field. --Muchness 01:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Vyvyn is notable in her field, and merits inclusion. She's been the subject of several non-trivial mentions, especially the RE/SEARCH books mentioned above. Both of the RE/SEARCH texts are major texts in the fields of women's studies and body modifications. The article is well cited and put together, as well. Glowimperial 14:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep third party coverage satisfies WP:BIO. Eluchil404 09:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 08:25Z

Inside lag
edit

Inside lag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

~~This is a dicdef that has now been transwikied. It is unexpandable and would never be more than a stub. Delete.~~ BlueValour 20:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per the citations in the article, there's ample scope for expansion of this stub encyclopaedia article about a concept in economics. Keep. Uncle G 03:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - speedy keep in view of expansion of the article - well done Uncle G. BlueValour 17:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g12, also r3 (as unlikely redirect to Lima). NawlinWiki 01:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lima peru
edit

Lima peru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Relevant material is already available at Lima _SUBWAYguy 21:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This also appears to be a copyvio eligible for speedy delete _SUBWAYguy 21:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: This one and Peru lima by the same creator. Speedy delete both and then fill in with a redirect. Do it that way to get the copyright violations out of the database. Hu 21:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete copyvio. Possibly recreate as redirects to Lima. --- RockMFR 21:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 08:26Z

Project Rockstar
edit

Project Rockstar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

File:Rockstar-logo-normal.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Non-notable game OriginalJunglist 22:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep By who's definition? Yours? If you work hard enough, every game listed here could be considered 'non-notable' in some way or other. And considering the article is nearly two years old, it'll take more than a single person saying it's non-notable to get it deleted. Also, considering half of the articles you contributed consist of a single sentence, it's kind of ironic.

The game has won multiple on-line awards. Simply because you've never heard of it, doesn't make it non-notable.HalfShadow 23:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article fails to assert Project Rockstar's notability per WP:N. The only on-line awards that the game has won are monthly user polls on a non-notable website and an unsourced, non-notable award from a telecommunications company.--OriginalJunglist 000, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Which was taken care of well on half a year ago. Possibly longer. This was looked over by a few admins, so if it were non-notable, it wouldn't be here. HalfShadow 02:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 21:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't see any sources cited here. A review in Web User ("UK’s best selling internet magazine", allegedly) appears to be the closest thing to non-trivial independent reporting (the surest sign of notability per WP:N, WP:WEB) my sad google skillz can find. Nothing on Google news, Factiva not checked, but Google news archive finds that this was "Amy's site of the day" in the Daily Mirror 14-Feb-2003, and there may have been some serious coverage in Multichannel News. I suspect that better legwork would find sufficient published material to produce a verifiable article, but I can't prove it and I'm not much of an eventualist. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources. TJ Spyke 07:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources, failing WP:V, failing WP:WEB. The awards it claims to have won don't seem important (some website's game of the month, won some advertising convention award for "Best Online Music Game"). Wickethewok 19:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless verifiable sources added. --Alan Au 19:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Style Guide
edit

Nintendo Style Guide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Try as I may, I cannot figure out how this is encyclopedic. Stifle (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ditto. -- Kicking222 23:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I question that this even EXISTS. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It does indeed exist, though I'm not certain if it's something they created exclusively for that event (I don't have a login to the NOA press site to check). It was available at E3 as stated, and since they had a guest login enabled at that time, it was simple to get the document back then. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 23:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Nqomc 01:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic. --- RockMFR 07:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 21:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this isn't an encyclopedic article - it's instructions for Nintendo's PR department. This doesn't even belong on a gaming wiki, much less an encyclopedia. Koweja 08:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-encylopedic. --Scottie theNerd 13:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:All it effectivly does is say the names of nintendo's consoles, definately non-encyclopedic Da Big Bozz 17:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete —Tokek 13:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is indeed a real PR document, and as such, might be appropriate for Wikisource (if sourced). However, it doesn't establish notability, and as such doesn't seem appropriate for Wikipedia. --Alan Au 19:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 08:27Z

Warker
edit

Warker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Vanity nonsense. Just noticed last paragraph even says it was created by two college freshmen blah blah. 2005 22:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as something made up in school one day. No assertion of notability, and reads like a game instruction manual rather than an encyclopedia article. Heimstern Läufer 00:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:NFT, and WP:NEO. Ohconfucius 08:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. — CharlotteWebb 11:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical evolution
edit

Not a scientific term, made up by creationists. Evolution is a speicific type of process, and this does not fit. QWERERTRYEHEFYF

Speedy keep, trolling nomination. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, it's not. QWERERTRYEHEFYF 23:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, yes it is a scientific term. But obviously not speedy. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a real term. Nominator is quite clearly a single purpose account. Mashing the keyboard when you make a username makes it quite obvious.... --- RockMFR 23:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Erm, I just re-read the article, and it appears that only the first sentance refers to the creationist definition. The rest is seemingly valid. maybe I should just get rid of that sentance? QWERERTRYEHEFYF 23:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How does it refer to Creationism? In fact I would say just the opposite. TSO1D 00:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was made up by creationists, an attempt to group everything involving the development of the universe under the tag 'evolution'. Stellar nucleosynthesis is not evolution, it's stellar nucleosynthesis.
That doesn't mean that it can't get an article. Wrongness of a term doesn't mean it doesn't exist. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Five seconds of Googling shows the term is in entirely scientific use by the geophysics department of MIT, the astronomy and astrophysics department at Clemson, the Dept. of Astrophysical & Planetary Sciences at the University of Colorado, the school of physics and astronomy at the university of Cardiff, and the Wright Center for Science Education at Tufts. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's an authentic and notable scientific term. TSO1D 00:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Editors on this page might care to look at "Chemical Evolution: Origins of the elements, molecules and living systems" by Stephen F. Mason, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1991, ISBN 0-19-855272-6. Mason is a very reputable British chemist who when he wrote this was Emeritius Professor of Chemistry at King's College, University of London. It is a good source for improving the article and certainly demonstrates the notability of the topic and that it is a valid scientific term. --Bduke 00:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. per Bduke's citation, as well as the links provided by Finlay McWalter. SkierRMH 02:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -- a quick Google Scholar search shows that it's a notable scientific term. Mike Peel 19:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Finlay McWalter. This is a legitimate term. I see no reason why chemists and physicists cannot use the term "evolution". --EMS | Talk 04:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - QWERERTRYEHEFYF only has four contributions at this time, and they are the creation of this page and the comments placed on it. See QWERERTRYEHEFYF's edit history. --EMS | Talk 04:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep; the last sentence of Jimbo Wales' mailing list comment is also applicable. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rangers F.C. season 2005-06
edit

Rangers F.C. season 2005-06 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

unneeded, there's an article on scottish football for those seasons

I think this and all other seasons included in the RFCbyseason template (and the Rangers F.C. seasons category) should all be deleted. There has to be some sort of line set as to what you can add to this encyclopedia and what you can't and I think that the Scottish football 05/06 article is sufficient on its own (same for other seasons). If we keep this we could be setting a dangerous precedent, starting thousands of season articles for particular clubs. I really appreciate the amount of work put in by WP editors into these articles but I just don't think they're necessary. Yonatanh 23:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - More than just the Scottish league info is included, such as the Champion's League games. I also don't see how thousands of season articles for clubs is a bad thing. A club's season-by-season history is encylcopedic, and would overwhelm the club articles themselves for teams with very much history. It also provides a nice place to put roster info (who else was on the team with XYZ in 2005), which have been turning up in more than a few places lately. Neier 12:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This will be setting a precedent where you could have 50 articles for all of Falkirk or Bolton's seasons (if there's a bored enough supporter). You have to draw the line somewhere. Yonatanh 13:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why stop there? We could have Forres Mechanics or Caernarfon Town seasons too! Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, too much info is a bad thing? There are already bars for inclusion of soccer teams. Adding info like this to each team's article is not against wikipedia's policies, and by creating a sub-page for a season, it keeps the main article relatively clean. Would we rather have all of the World Cup results discussed on the single FIFA World Cup page, or should we leave them split out onto separate pages? Neier 00:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Perfectly encyclopaedic, contains team information as above as well as details of transfers etc. which were removed from the main Rangers F.C. article as the season by season articles provide somewhere for more detailed statistics. Archibald 9 9 15:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For the reason Yonatanh said. Except the thousand of articles that willbe created about every team, there is the danger to create articles for every season, including the past, and just remember; Imagine how many articles such this will be in the future KRBN 13:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I ask, is too much information a bad thing? Why is there such a panic that there could be so many articles? Neier 14:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, I fail to see what negative impact these articles have on Wikipedia. Archibald 9 9 14:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, Articles on the seasons for football teams are encylcopedic. Wikipedia does not have a limit to the articles created nor do valid articles waste space. These articles are useful and I am in 100% favour of them. Englishrose 10:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - these articles are supplements to the main club articles. They comply with all WP policies. They are entirely encyclopaedic. There will not be thousands of articles produced - these take a lot of work and will only be written when an editor is committed enough to do the work. Even if many were written so what, we are not short of server space. TerriersFan 21:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As with the recently deleted articles on month-by-month results and lists of goalscorers, the majority of the information in these articles fails WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a news (or sports news) service, nor a sports almanac. Particularly important/relevant information in this article should be able to be merged to 2005-06 in Scottish football and/or Scottish Premier League 2005-06. QmunkE 13:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Oh, and the article is also almost completely lacking citations/footnotes. It currently fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. QmunkE 13:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fixed easily enough. Archibald 9 9 15:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not that easily: it's not fixed yet. Still seems like a hundiscriminate collection of hunformation, or something that sounds similar. Last time I looked this was Wikipedia, not Followfollowpedia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring that particular piece of comedy, I said it was easily fixed 6 hours ago. There may be no citations added yet, but the point still stands that they could be. "It's not Followfollowpedia" - are you planning an AfD for the Rangers F.C. article? Archibald 9 9 21:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought it was funny, but I don't suppose that proves anything. This AfD will make interesting reading: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arsenal_season_review_2005-06. Now at least Auchinleck Talbot F.C. season 2005-2006, if anyone had written it, would have had a happy ending. The precedent, pace Gasheadsteve, is not to have season articles. WP:CCC, WP:NBD, YMMV. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those season review articles were completely different from this one, they were deleted because they were highly POV and written in the style of tabloid newspaper reports. They contained no stats or results or anything else useful, which is why they were deleted, not because this type of article shouldn't exist. Gasheadsteve 22:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For reasons given by Englishrose. Yorkshiresky 16:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. There is already a precedent of season-by-season articles for professional sports teams. Have a look at Category:Current sports events and you'll find plenty of them. WP:5 states that Wikipedia incorporates information that would be found in almanacs, and to me this article falls within this field. Gasheadsteve 19:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a copyright violation. --Core desat 05:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sid Sushman
edit

Sid Sushman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Speedy delete copyvio from here. If it can't be speedied, still delete as the subject does not seem to pass WP:BIO and additionally looks to fail WP:NOTE. Otto4711 23:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for copyvio -- BUT... I'm not convinced that Sid Sushman is not notable -- I'm just not sufficiently prepared to make that case yet. Zero sharp 01:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Latte macchiato. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 08:28Z

Caramel macchiato
edit

Caramel macchiato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable drink, it's just a macchiato with caramel in! And Starbucks isn't the only company that serves them Steve _(Slf67)^talk 23:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into latte macchiato. I've removed the gratuitous advertising. Akihabara 03:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Akihabara. --- RockMFR 03:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 05:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Keohane
edit

Mark Keohane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Another hoax player. Player is not listed as a reserve [67] or first team player [68][69] on the Manchester United site and Google returns no reliable sources that he plays for the team [70] One Night In Hackney 00:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated. Unverifiable/hoax. Demiurge 00:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -WP:V! SkierRMH 02:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 21:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax ChrisTheDude 21:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Show Me How
edit

Operation Show Me How (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Nomination for deletion Fails WP:V for its claims of encyclopedic notability. This badly sourced article came to my attention and thousands of others when it appeared as a "Did You Know?" item on Wikipedia's front page on December 16, 2006. I was surprised by how badly referenced this front page DYK article was and commented at the time[71]:
This article has insufficient references and if it were not a current DYK, I would nominate it for deletion. The external link provided gives very little information on this operation - not even the year when it happened. I ran a Factiva search for "Show Me How" and "Interpol" and received zero relevant hits. I found this magazine interview which gives the operation a mention and dates it as starting at around 1998 but gives no end year for the operation. BUt the interview does not support the article's claims that this was an encyclopedically notable operation [72]. The claims that this was an unprecedented drug bust involving unusual use of the postal system are so far unverifiable, as is the claim about the children's colouring book. Even if proven, I'm not sure how these amount to encyclopedic notability. I'm having difficulty understanding why this is a DYK too.
Despite being on the front page and being scrutinized by thousands on that day, the only further reference added was a History Channel documentary episode on heroin. This documentary episode is easily found on Youtube (I won't add the link here due to copyvio concerns) - I watched the whole thing and there is no mention of this international 1990s police operation at all (the most modern era part of the documentary focuses on the USA and ends in the early 1970s and ends with a mention of an "Operation Golden Flow" (I'm not kidding) - the first US government mass urine drug-testing operation - applied to US soldiers leaving Vietnam; possibly this is what the person who added the History Channel reference was thinking about but it is totally irrelevant).
It is has not been proven that this operation is sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia or even significantly more notable than the other operations carried out by Interpol that have been mentioned alongside it e.g. Operation "Hostal" and Operation "Black Powder".
~51 google hits
No google books hits
Single hit on Google Scholar (same ncjrs link as mentioned above)
Bwithh 23:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, notability not established. Presumably Interpol does this all the time as part of their job. --Dhartung | Talk 04:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:N. --Wizardman 04:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Robert B. Sherman. Cbrown1023 22:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moses (painting)
edit

Moses (painting) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Group Nomination for deletion I am also including the following paintings by the same painter with this nomination:

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

Self Portrait (painting) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The person who painted these pictures, Robert B. Sherman, is clearly encyclopedically notable as an important songwriter. However, painting appears to be a avocation or hobby of his and these paintings do not appear to be sufficiently notable to warrant articles for themselves - or I would argue, even anything beyond very brief mentions in his main article. It is worth noting that a famous songwriter paints as well, but if he is not a particularly reputable painter beyond the association with his songwriting celebrity, I don't think individual paintings deserve their own articles - if they have not received attention from art critics and the images are also not in mass production and there is not other outstanding circumstance related to the painting itself. Furthermore, I am concerned that the articles seem to come across as essentially advertisements for buying the limited edition prints from a website ( and the "symbolism" sections - what there is of them - appear to be OR).
Please note: this group afd nomination has the blessing of the other editor, User:Robertissimo who recently tagged two of the articles with merge recommendations[73].

oops - one of the articles was tagged as merge by another editor. I'm informing that editor too. Bwithh 23:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bwithh 23:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, possibly augment existing mention of interest in painting into main Robert B. Sherman article. Numerous figures, past and present, famous for other pursuits also paint. Noel Coward, Elke Sommer, Tony Bennett, Queen Victoria (and her multiple-great-grandson, Prince Charles), and Frank Sinatra spring immediately to mind; none seem to have separate articles on individual works. A painting by Winston Churchill recently made headlines when it sold for £612,800. It doesn't have an article. These articles demonstrate that the paintings are part of the avocational oeuvre of a notable songwriter, but, per nom, they don't include multiple sources discussing the individual works and they do include a possibly commercial aspect. (NB: I ran across a rather good 1990 article from the LATimes on celebrity painters that discusses the business of selling their art). Robertissimo 04:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as vanispamcruftisement. They lack only the "buy now" button. Very lame. --Dhartung | Talk 04:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all three into the main article (with deletion of the commercial aspects). He's in my eyes a gifted artist and deserves to have his paintings discussed in Wikipedia. While alive, Churchill was considered a Sunday painter, but now his paintings fetch high prices. The same for Herman Brood, a Dutch singer who committed suicide in 2001. Even if I don't appreciate Brood's paintings, they also fetch high prices now. This two examples to stress the point that a person may have great fame in his / her principal occupation, but behind that person may lurk another artist who deserves equal attention. Whatever the outcome of this vote, the images should be kept in Wikipedia JoJan 06:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
may lurk another artist who deserves equal attention - but we need reliable sources showing a reputation now, not a possible one in the future Bwithh 06:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed to merge the content of these three articles into the main article of Robert Sherman. As to his reputation : Imdb states : "The London Exhibition was widely covered by TV, radio and printed press. Robert subsequently enjoyed a succession of successful art exhibitions in the United States" ([74]). Another appraisal can be found here : [75]. In other words, his work as a painter is at least NOTABLE today. If I were to follow your reasoning about future reputation, then Vincent Van Gogh, who sold only one painting in his whole life (to the Belgian painter Anna Boch), would never have been mentioned in Wikipedia if he were alive today. JoJan 13:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While useful for its listings, the IMDb is not really a reliable source for biographical material. The text cited above is an unreferenced, user-submitted "minibiography" and includes a great deal of hyperbole and at least one glaring inaccuracy (I would hate to see it be used as a source indicating that "Her Royal Highness" is an appropriate appellation for the late Queen Mother). And you're quite right; in his lifetime, the estimable van Gogh was probably not, in WP terms, a notable painter. Robertissimo 14:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As Robertissimo states, IMDB is not a reliable resource and is not one which is typically used to assess paintings anyway. Absolutely if Van Gogh were alive today, he would not be encyclopedically notable for Wikipedia if he had no reputation. Wikipedia is not a crystalball and adding articles based on our own personal ideas about what unknown art should be appreciated is original research Bwithh 16:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per Robertissimo and Bwithh. I oppose a full merge as this would create too much focus on the painting in the Robert Sherman article. --Kubigula (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete per JoJan: Although this artist is not as notable for his paintings as Van Gogh has become postumously, few artists are. Robert Sherman has had showings in London, England; Vevey, Switzerland; Los Angeles and Orlando, Florida. The fact that he is, on the other hand, a world class songwriter should; therefore not detract from his painting career. His work in both fields has received notariety. His painting is clearly more than a hobby, in as much as he sells prints of his work. That said, the article, for mentioning this fact, is not an advertisement, but a statement of fact which proves it is of a professional nature. There is no "click to buy" button on the article nor is this anymore an advertisement of the artist's work than is any article about a piece of intellectual property. One could use this arguement that an image of Paris, France is really just a shameless bid for tourist dollars, when such is not the case. More importantly and to the point, after studying the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, there seems to be no valid reason for deleting this page. It should not be up to the editors whether or not a published and publicly displayed piece of art is "important" enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. For this reason alone, the article should not be deleted nor should the artist's other work, Sacrifice (painting). I have not endorsed "Merging" of this page with the artist's main page, because it would prove confusing and disturb the flow of the main article, whereas all out "deletion" would be inappropriate for the reasons I've cited above.Howard352 16:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The issue at hand is whether the works in question are notable, and nothing in the articles makes a solid case that they are. If they have been discussed in multiple independent reliable sources, that's not apparent from the existing articles. You might - and I emphasize might - be able to make a case for a sub-article along the lines of Painting Career of Robert B. Sherman or similar, but I know of no other celebrity artist (see brief list above) with same. Note, too, that the articles in question are not being considered for deletion under the criteria for speedy deletion; if they could have been speedied, I believe they would have been. Different standards apply for deletion through AfD. Robertissimo 17:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Wikipedia:Notability states literally : Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice", not "important" or "famous". It is not synonymous with fame or importance. It is not measured by Wikipedia editors' own subjective judgements. It is not "newsworthiness". -

The question is thus : "Are these works worthy of being noted" ? If there haven been major exhibitions of his work and if these exhibitions have been covered widely by the media (answering the question : "Are they attracting notice ?") then the paintings of Robert B. Sherman can be considered notable. I don't consider this a subjective judgment from my part as his paintings have been discussed in the media (= independent, non-trival source). Furthermore, his works have been judged worthy of several expositions in the UK, US and Switzerland. In my view these works have thus been judged "worthy of being noted" and have been "attracting notice", thus satisfying the guidelines of WP:NN. JoJan 19:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Robertissimo (above)' The fact remains that this is a published and publicly seen work. The fact that Wikipedia does not yet have a wide library of visual artist's works should not be an argument for deletion of this artist's work, rather it should encourage the creation of a few pages of (for example) Tony Bennett's better known pieces, if in fact there are any pieces which have been seen by large numbers of people, (as Robert Sherman's work has and is). Please also see the following page: Talk:Moses (painting) for further arguments made regarding this article. I have laid out why this "work in question" is notable.Howard352 19:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Robert B. Sherman. Not notable enough for its own article, but we can salvage a couple sentences from each and put it in the main article. --Wizardman 18:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with the sentiment, but it seems to me that the Robert Sherman article has just about the right amount of content regarding his painting. You could expand it a bit, but I'm concerned that too much about the paintings would overemphasize their importance in his career.--Kubigula (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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