Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sceptre (talk | contribs) at 20:00, 18 March 2007 (Nominating Untitled 17th episode of Lost season 3 for deletion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< March 17
March 19 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to Megatokyo. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sad girl in snow

Sad girl in snow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apparently, the issue on if it should be deleted has been brought up before, and can be seen in the article's talk page. Despite the fact that most people felt that the article should be merged into Megatokyo, the article is still on its own. Personally, I don't even think it deserves to be merged, as it's a pretty stupid basis for a "meme" in my opinion (and I love Kanon). We don't need articles like Hot girls with guns. The article is pretty much a bunch of original research, as there's no real use of the term outside of the webcomic community. It's not like its an actual named, Japanese asthetic like wabi-sabi. SeizureDog 10:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cbrown1023 talk 00:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ADD-Anonymous

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

Reason: Does not meet notability requirements in WP:ORG -- Craigtalbert 00:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rev. Dr. David Rolfe

Rev. Dr. David Rolfe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

nn person; first Google ref is WP; nothing about him in news or reference sources; only ref is apparently a personal blog; the page is very vague on details that would give any prominence to the subject patsw 00:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of PlayStation Portable emulators

List of PlayStation Portable emulators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A list of redlinks, each of which is a non-notable piece of software. This subject is already covered in PlayStation Portable homebrew, but none of these emulators have any sort of individual notability. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm confused. Wouldn't that make every emulator article on Wikipedia an candidate for deletion if it links to illegal content? As far as I am aware, as long as the emulators don't use the same code as the machine they are emulating, they are legal. --tgheretford (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel Bryant 10:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infernal death (band)

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

Everything here - nothing but unreleased demos, etc - seems to suggest this fails the WP:MUSIC guidelines, and I can't find any sources to refute it. Crystallina 00:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of popes by length of reign

List of popes by length of reign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The information presented here about lengths of reigns of Popes is redundant; it is already completely contained in the main article Pope. While it is true that this page contains unique content, that content is specific to Peter and much of it is also irrelevant to the subject of length of reign. It should therefore be transferred to the main article Pope, or possibly Saint Peter. Robin S 00:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The information is presented identically in the article Pope. The discussion of Saint Peter's longevity alone does not merit an entire article. The first AfD discussion may not have noticed the duplication of the information in Pope, or the information may have been transferred there as a consequence of the discussion. Either way, the article is in my opinion no longer viable. Robin S 04:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to those who have suggested merging, I would like to remind you that the information is already contained here in exactly the same form, so a "merge" would in fact amount to out-and-out deletion. Personally, I am in favour of a sortable table in List of popes, as Dr bab suggested (I was not previously aware that this was possible). Robin S 03:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the Wikipedia policy on merging pages. Merging is very different from deletion (even when it only involves redirecting) as the articles' history is preserved, which might be required to fullfill the GFDL in cases where information was taken from this article to the main one. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep how many ways can we slice the list of popes and have it be encyclopedic? By date of reign seems (pardon the pun) canonical. By how many cardinals he made? By how tall he was? or By how many illegitimate children he fathered, seems clearly popecruft. By length of reign? Close calls as there may be nothing particularly notable about the length of a pope's reign, there are other lists where the listees are sliced by notable things: see, e.g.,

List of U.S. states by date of statehood, List of U.S. states by area, List of U.S. states by elevation, List of U.S. states by GDP (nominal), List of U.S. states by GDP per capita (nominal), List of U.S. states by population, List of U.S. states by population density, List of U.S. states by time zone, and List of U.S. states by unemployment rate I will give deference to some people wanting to look at the list of popes so arranged. Carlossuarez46 18:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Christian High School

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

Look I am sorry but this School is not notable, plain and simple. Just because it is a school does not make it notable. A google search for this School, gets a low return. What is returned is a list of multiple different schools by this name. Yes, it is a school, unfortunately this does not make it notable. I informed people on both sides of the last AFD. Colleges have been deleted off of Wikipedia for lack of notability. Simply put this school does not need an article. So I say:

note - last time this article was up for deletion people stated that it needed more time, it has been on here for a year now. It still is empty. --MJHankel 01:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: This has to be one of the more staggering examples of bad faith I've seen on Wikipedia. The previous AfD ended in one of the more resounding keep votes I've seen for a school, yet here we are again with an attempt to get rid of it. The nominator is involved in a clear case of Vote stacki*ng, see [5] and [6].Alansohn 02:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
note - first off, I was simply informing them even five people is not stacking the vote, is it stacking the vote to inform people that their is an election? no I did not inform all of those that voted to keep for they already made themselves known by removing the template. (though I did inform most) Also during the last vote, as I stated before the overwhelming reason for keeping it was because it had not had a lot of time to grow, a year is plenty. Yes there are verifiable links but that does not make it notable. Also, the fact that I am doing this has [nothing to do with my leanings one way or the other. I attended a non-notable highschool, it is not listed on wikipedia it does have verifiable sources though. I am so sorry if it seems that I was attempting to stack the vote. I simply was informing people that it was up for vote.--MJHankel 02:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Well, that happens on both sides of the aisle, doesn't it? [7] Anyway, informing a few people known to be interested in a subject is not considered Canvassing. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The statement by the nominator that "Hello I know that you patrol non-notable articles and I thought I would bring this article your attention this article is up for deletion again and you can vote on it at the following page:" was aimed at individuals with track records of deleting such schools. I didn't see any efforts aimed at identifying any individuals who might differ from your opinion or might endeavor to improve the article in question. As stated at WP:Canvassing, "disruptive canvassing, even if it seems to be within guidelines below, is never acceptable." Alansohn 03:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply How is that disruptive? Votestacking is sending out "mass" messages. WP:C specifically states that notifying a small handful of editors who share your tastes and philosophies on a topic is permissible as Friendly Notice. I've weighed in on several school AfD's, but the editor I mentioned above has never contacted me about one (which incidentally neither surprises nor distresses me). I'm sorry, I understand (and respect) that you are passionate about this subject matter, but we all still need to assume good faith and not attempt to chill those with different opinions by inaccurately accusing them of violating policy. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ok look- i knew that he or she (i am not sure which) knows a lot about the standards (i do not). I argued against that person when I came accross them many times. I did not tell them to vote against this article. they have voted for things to stay in some cases. I simply informed them because I do not know all the standards, besides they deal with Colleges not schools as a standard so they do not directly relate to this article. --MJHankel 03:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
also - i informed people on both sides of the argument, those for it help by adding to the article so it is better. I only am looking for this article to either be something of value or non-existent, either works for me. --MJHankel 03:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator has made efforts to cover the damage, but it's clear that the initial attempts at votestacking, all of which used the greeting "Hello I know that you patrol non-notable articles", were aimed squarely at deletionists. Those notified after the canvassing issue was raised here received an abridged message that avoided the rather explicit push for deletion. That such votestacking occurs on both sides is a great reason to report both individuals, not to ignore it here. The attempts to trivialize this are quaint, but do nothing to address the core of the efforts to encourage individuals to vote in one direction. Alansohn 03:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the policy? Unless you can cite to "mass" contacts in this regard, your allegations continue to be off base and unfair. Until then, the only person who might be reportable here is you, for attempting to silence opposing views and/or alter the tallying of votes here by hurling false allegations at somebody you don't agree with. You even manage to criticize the editor for taking your advice and contacting people on the other side of the issue. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator has covered his tracks as I see it, by contacting other individuals after the violations was pointed out. As I have pointed out, the nominator changed the "push" wording for those less likely to be deletionists. Your threats are entirely baseless and idle. We'd all be better off if you would explain to the nominator the potential damage he has done, rather than trying to use threats. The facts speak for themselves, and the claim that these are "false allegations" is a knowing effort to ignore the evidence provided. Alansohn 03:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're accusing me of violating policy? I didn't threaten you, I merely pointed out that you are incorrect and that if anybody here is violating policy, it is you. I know you have reviewed MJHankel's contrib history, just like I have, and that you know there were only five talk page posts before you suggested that he contact people on the other side of the issue (which he then did). Five talk page posts is not votestacking per WP:Canvassing. The only "damage" MJHankel has done here is bring more people to the discussion who may disagree with your position. Nobody has done any actual damage here except you, as you have taken perfectly acceptable conduct from an established editor and couched it as something improper using only vague references to policy. Now poor MJHankel is left feeling compelled to explain his conduct when it was completely compliant with WP policy. Well, this has been fun but we're too far off topic, and I think any further comment would be redundant as well. But, as always, I'll offer you the last word. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
please Let me be as clear as I can. I was not attempting to do something wrong, I was not attempting to sway the vote, and I was not attempting to assert my opinion. I was informing (those that were few) about this Afd, so they would know (the others would follow), I was attempting to get results one way or another as fast as possible. I did later inform all for three reasons, a. I was intending to partially, earlier but had to get off the computer, b. I wanted results one way or another and I knew that informing both sides would allow the improvement of the article, c. I wanted to do exactly what you wanted me to do. I know very little policy, and that is the only reason I informed the other person of this they patrol article that lack notability and they know what to do (for or against). I am not mudslinging here. and I am sorry that I came accross as corrupt, I was only doing what I could. I am sorry that I have caused you distaste with me. I had no perrogitives in mind other than to get results. --MJHankel 03:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While the wording is hard for me to understand, I will take you at your word that the initial attempts were not aimed at swaying the vote. I sincerely hope that your efforts to contact others caught had been planned in advance and not after pointed out here. If you do attempt to contact others about future AfDs, I strongly encourage you to avoid any wording that can be interpreted as encouraging votes exclusively in one direction. Alansohn 03:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all schools are notable. This precedent has been exhaustively proven and reproved too many times too keep arguing. All schools are notable (period). Jerry 02:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh much more schools are being deleted in AFD than kept now that I see, precedent has changed, as for me, No Vote as I was vote stacked here. Jaranda wat's sup 02:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Automatic notability of schools is not, as far as I am aware, policy or even an official guideline. It's just an argument that keeps getting trotted out, but it has never been formally agreed upon. Thus, I'd say it's an invalid argument. JulesH 13:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In addition to the overwhelming result of the previous AfD in favor of retention of this article, and the patently inappropriate votestacking going, on, there are ample sources demonstrating notability, several of which have been added to the article. If you're going to use a Google search as a justification to delete, try doing it without the words "(2nd nomination}" in the title. Searching using "Trinity Christian High School" found 1,990 hits, a good bit more than zero. I'm sure I'd find the same using Yahoo and MSN. Furthermore, the school is often cited as simply "Trinity Christian" and that search finds tens of thousands of results. Alansohn 02:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notability has now been established by the secondary sources. TerriersFan 02:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any currently open high school should be included in the Wikipedia. The article itself looks fine to me. Saying something isn't notable is merely an assertion without offering evidence. Is there any magic enrollment number that gets applied to every high school? 100, 150, 200, ... What then are objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion of a high school and why does a school with the Christian in its name have special scrutiny here? patsw 02:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • note - ok first of all that is nearly impossible. second private schools tend to be more suspect and non notable. I attended two, neither are here on Wikipedia. I am a Christian so that is a moot point. I simply started this discussion because the reasons to keep are a little week. After one year the article has grown ownly slightly. I have no problem with keeping this article if it had any real established notability. For goodness sake the attendence and faculty numbers are not even listed. This is easy stuff to find. My big problem is that the article itself has done nothing to save itself (it lacks the basic info for a school, it lacks much info at all). --MJHankel 02:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Wikipedia's standard objective criteria for determining notability is showing that multiple non-trivial independent reliable sources have discussed the subject. I see no reason why a school (christian or otherwise) should be exempt from this rule. JulesH 13:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as one of many inclusionists, i would like to note that no solid notability guidelines have been established for schools. i would argue that all schools are notable in this regard. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No but that isn't a reason for keeping. Jaranda wat's sup 02:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
if the school is notable, then it should be kept (i see no other potential problems with the article). there is clearly much disagreement over what constitutes a school's being notable. in the absence of clear guidelines relating specifically to schools (as in many cases WP:ORG is very general and does not address the intricacies related to creating articles about schools), i find it justifiable to assert the school's notability based on its functioning existence, as, apparently, do a number of other editors. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In absence of guidelines specific to schools, either WP:N or WP:ORG applies. What distinguishes a school from, say, a doctor's practice? Why should we treat one differently to the other? We certainly haven't agreed to do so, that is why there is no notability guideline that has consensus on schools. JulesH 13:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reply what suggests that a school should apply to the same guidelines as a doctor's office? the two are highly different types of establishments. i would assert that the function of schools is more important and more adapted to being recorded in encyclopedic format than doctor's offices, although i don't think including doctor's offices would be a significant violation of notability guidelines either. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 23:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The school is still notable, and the article is well referenced. --Carioca 02:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no consensus that schools are or are not inherently notable, as evidenced by the many school AfDs closed with 'no consensus'. However, the state championships earned by this school's sports program appears to make it sufficiently notable for inclusion. Two more things: 1) I moved Lil Miss Lubbock from the school awards section to Notable Alums and Students as this is a personal award, not the school's, and 2) As I have noted above, informing a few people known to be interested in a subject area of a pending AfD is considered perfectly acceptable "Friendly Notice" pursuant to WP:Canvassing. Just don't get carried away.  ;-P --Butseriouslyfolks 03:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - I fully agree that those things help to establish the notability of this school. The thing is much of what is now in this article that makes it good is new sense the start of this Afd. (which is good) I know all too well that an Afd can do much for the growth of an article. One problem I have with the new "notable" info is that the athletic section is only current events it needs far more info and history to be a real article section. --MJHankel 03:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This school doesn't have the top Google hit for "Trinity Christian High School", and as the nominator says, there are many schools by this name, so it is unjust for this school to exclusively have this page on Wikipedia. The company that owns and controls this school and seemingly many other schools must at the very least have its own page on Wikipedia before one of its schools of little-to-no significance has a page. Being "well-referenced" is not a reason for a page; I could easily make a well-referenced page about myself with tons more detail than this school's page. Many high schools win state championships, and what this school has won is a very exclusive competition for Christian private schools, not a state championship. --Ndickson 03:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply The article makes explicit claims of notability for the school, in its winning a few dozen state championships, once all of the relevant article are added. That there are other high schools with a similar name is a great reason for disambiguating the title, but a spectacularly poor one for deletion. The argument regarding the parent "company" is utterly meaningless; the school stands as notable on its own. Alansohn 03:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well-sourced and well-written. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 03:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 04:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To people voting delete, is this an arbitrary decision on your part such you can't articulate reasons other than non-notable to delete the article? Do you care to calibrate how competitive a school has be athletically to meet your criteria of notable? Is the expectation that school with enrollments of 200 can compete with schools of 2000 students? Please suggest some objective criteria which could be uniformly applied to any high school. patsw 04:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply nationwide notability is one of the govering factors of wikipedia. How well they may be able to compete has nothing to do with anything and is infact POV. Did you read this article? It has nearly a thousand students not 200. --MJHankel 04:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Where is the consensus that for an article to be written about a high school, it would have to achieve an appearance in national media? If that criterion were applied to the all high schools with articles in the Wikipedia, we shall be very busy indeed objectively determining if the nationwide requirement was satisifed, and deleting all lacking that. patsw 04:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has multiple, independent, non-trivial references. --Selket Talk 04:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This school article is well sourced and is a lot better than some of the other school articles. A lot of school articles have only one sentence saying "This school is in X state." so this should be kept. -- Hdt83 | Talk 04:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above and notable school that's been fixed up properly. Bigman17 05:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we decided this at the last afd... yet another example of "afd til i get the result i want".  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - that is not entirely true, I was not involved with the last Afd, I did not teven know about it till today. The consensus of the last one was that the article needed a little time to grow. A year has past and this article had not prodiced any fruit so the result was either to cut it down or prune it and let it grow. (farming analogy) An afd can be like ashot of penicili to jumpstart an article on life support. --MJHankel 05:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The quote primarily relied on to demonstrate N is "Trinity Christian School was selected by the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal as its Readers Choice Best of Lubbock Awards 2006 winner as Best Private School, based on ballots submitted by 2,500 of the paper's readers." This is not the best private school, but the best private school in and around Lubbock, Texas . which is not quite the same thing. matter entirely. similarly, "Texas Association of Private and Parochial School Class 4A defending state champion." is not the Texas state champion, but the Texas state champion among those private schools only, and of a particular subclass. As I do not know how many are included in that, I cannot tell just how N this is.
Yes,2 Notable college or professional athletes has sometimes been considered enough for a school to be N. and,
Yes, it is a lot better than some of the other school articles. There are zero out-of-state references. With all due respect to the Texans among us, I do not think this is enough,.
I do not think a nom after a year is excessive. Standards for N schools have changed over that period. (and nobody has asked me to come here) DGG 05:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: The school's dozens of state championships is a rather explicit claim of notability. Can you point me to the requirement in WP:N that mandates that "out-of-state references" are required to demonstrate notability? I'd love to see this one. Alansohn 05:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable in every sense of the word. The article describes why it is notable, lists notable alumni, and supplies multiple non-trivial third party sources to support the text. Yamaguchi先生 05:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Well sourced, notable school (per most), and it seems as if the editors have done their work. Kudos! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't vandalize other pages to make it look like your school is notable. Someone added a reference to the Mason Crosby page in response to this AfD stating that he is an alumnus of this school, which likely conflicts with the statement in the next sentence of his page that already stated that he went to a different high school. Fabricating references does not make for a very solid argument. Please, for your own sake, refrain from such vandalism in the future if this reference is invalid as it appears. I will not change the page because I have no sources to verify either way, but I hope that you will stop this childish nonsense. --Ndickson 06:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vandalism Confirmed: Upon checking the "secondary sources", the external article about Mason Crosby states that "He lived in Lubbock until age 5". That seems a bit young to be an alumnus of a high school. The school in Lubbock that the article does state that he attended is "Trinity Christian", not the high school of the same name. I will now remove the vandalism. This alone is grounds for deletion, since it calls into question the validity of the entire article. --Ndickson 06:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Please don't make wild accusations, especially when you have no idea what you're talking about. The claim that the reference is fabricated is completely false, as can be verified by reading the article provided in the reference in question. While he did not attend the high school, he did attend Trinity Christian. I would hope that you realize that your claim of vandalism and fabrication is inflammatory and utterly baseless. You seem to have no trouble participating in this AfD, despite your near complete lack of experience on Wikipedia. I would suggest that you learn to fix the errors, which would be a wonderful way to start learning just how Wikipedia works. Alansohn 06:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply: The article is about the high school (hence "High School" in the title), not the company of the name "Trinity Christian Schools", and as such, it is invalid to have the reference there. Furthermore, it is false to say that he is "An alumnus of Trinity Christian High School", as was added to the Mason Crosby page a few hours ago. Adding information known to be false is against Wikipedia's terms of use. You and your friends might want to read them more thoroughly. They do eventually remove account privileges of repeat vandals. --Ndickson 07:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply: Unless you have reason to believe that this was anything other than a good faith misreading of the source provided, your charge of vandalism is as ignorant as it is arrogant. Given that your edit count has not yet reached the twenty mark, I would strongly suggest that you back off on making wild accusations and threats. Alansohn 07:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply: I've contributed anonymously for many years, and speaking truth is more important than speaking a lot. I don't resort to petty insults when making a case and I don't make threats. You are correct that none of us knows the exact intent of the person who added the false references other than that the person appears to be trying to save this school's page. The person did intentionally put information there unnecessarily and in haste, and that information was false, but they might not have known that it was false, so there is a chance that it's not "vandalism" by definition. You can keep discussing, but I'm done with this. --Ndickson 08:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete God... here we go with the school b.s. again. My high school doesn't have an article and it doesn't need one because nothing particularly notable goes on there that doesn't go on in every other high school on the planet. This school is in the same category. This needs to stop. --NMChico24 08:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNOTEXIST is not a valid reason to delete this article, While you may have a negative issue with your particular high school, you have not referenced any Wikipedia policy that would require deletion of this article, nor have you demonstrated that this particular school is not notable. Unfortunately, the "school b.s." we're dealing with ere is your baseless and arbitrary decision that "no schools are notable". This pattern of knee-jerk deletion votes without any regard to the article in question or to Wikipedia policy needs to stop. P.S. What high school did you attend? I'll be more than happy to create an article for it that I can assure you will demonstrate notability. Alansohn 20:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Any School is noteworthy IMO. Every school is responsible for hundreds, if not thousands of people's education. You never know if a student of any school will become famous an but the school on the map for others. My elementary school was blown up a few years ago. 5,000+ students passed through this school within 30+ years and it is already getting hard to find reliable information about it. Lets hope that none of the 10-50 year old students will ever get famous :) --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 08:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, independent, third party non-trivial sources cited. Notability established, though the article could be expanded. Terence 08:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, perfectly adequate school article. Ford MF 11:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above, can't we move on from this one now people? Jcuk 13:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see nothing being said about this school that couldn't be said about thousands of schools. Almost all schools produce one or two notable alumni. Most schools have sports teams that from time to time win local tournaments. Local newspaper reader's polls don't seem particularly notable either to me. Most of the articles in the references section seem to fall under the category of "trivial" to me, as they're talking about one or the other of the above-mentioned unimportant things that apply to nearly all schools. JulesH 13:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: All of the information comes from reliable and verifiable sources and notability is more than demonstrated. To the exact opposite of your biased view, the fact that almost all schools win state tournaments, have notable alumni, receive awards and recognition and have this supported by reliable and verifiable sources is the definitive proof that almost all schools are notable. Alansohn
  • Keep Its a school. Other than those who attended it, or those that live nearby, it will be unknown to most people. The school seems to be well established, and it is a relatively well-written article. Just expand it and it will be a good article - • The Giant Puffin • 13:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a school, not a vanity article. --BWD (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above: nn school. Eusebeus 15:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Above I gave some objective criteria for the inclusion of a high school: currently open. Of course, I am not limiting the inclusion of an article on a high school to its being currently open, but for a closed high school, other criteria would need to be worked out. For those voting to delete, please share your objective criteria for determining when high schools should have articles (and how many articles have you applied this objective criteria do.) The delete reasons given above seem highly subjective to me. patsw 16:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. --Myles Long 16:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete . I see some sources here, but most of it is all local - so not only am I working with WP:N, now WP:LOCAL comes into play. The question then begs as to whether the school is notable outside of Lubbock, TX, and I would say "no" - and just because a student has become a member of the Cincinatti Reds baseball team doesn't make it notable (notability by extension doesn't exist), it just means that a kid got lucky. --Dennisthe2 17:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Vote changed[reply]
    • Reply: All of the information comes from reliable and verifiable sources. Can you point me to the non-local rule that requires sources to be some distance from the source provided? Alansohn 17:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed vote to abstain. There are still the notability questions that I think are paramount, but it has literally been hours since the closure of the last AfD of this article. Wait one month, give it a chance, and put it back here if it still qualifies, it is just too soon. --Dennisthe2 23:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Stricken, I misread the date. --Dennisthe2 23:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not what's at contention here, it's notability that is. What I see for assertions of notability are an award granted by a newspaper based in Lubbock Texas, quite a number of athletic achievements, and two students who have some claim to fame: a pro baseball player and a local beauty pageant winner. Maybe the sources of these are reliable and verifiable (which, by the way, I do not contend is what is at issue), but I still question the notability of the school. Not saying that it's not good (really, it is), but I'm not entirely convinced that this meets Wikipedia's notability standard. --Dennisthe2 21:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. If this was not a bad faith nomination, then it was severely misguided. Numerous reliable third party sources are provided to support this article, plus various awards and alumni demonstrate notability beyond a shadow of a doubt. Silensor 18:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment at every AfD about a school, someone pops up to say "All schools are notable". This is patently untrue. My local village primary school has less than 30 students and two teachers, and does nothing that the other thousands of primary schools everywhere don't do. And that's why it doesn't have an article. And that's not just a size thing - large secondary schools must have notability, or else they should simply be merged into the article about their locality. EliminatorJR Talk 19:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the following reasons:
A) For the most part, the article in its current version meets the Wikipedia:Attribution policy by refraining from original research and using secondary resources. The only unsourced statement is that school opened in '79 but noone graduated until '91.
B) From the Wikipedia:Notability guideline: "Notable is defined as 'worthy of being noted' or 'attracting notice', but is not synonymous with 'fame' or 'importance'." . The school attracted the notice of various newspapers when it won state athletic championships, and the article now references these news stories. The national level of fame or importance the school earned by winning these awards does not grant or remove notability as because notability "is not measured by editors’ subjective judgment."
C) The Wikipedia:Places of local interest essay states that if a place is not notable to stand on its own, it should merge into its city article (Lubbock, Texas in this case). The resulting merge would cause an imbalance of information on Trinity Christian High compared to other schools in the education section.
Those reasons being said, the article was indeed unreferenced and stub-length at the time the deletion notice was posted (view that revision), and would have qualified for merge or deletion. Schools should be held to the same notability requirements as other places unless a guideline or essay for schools is formed to state otherwise. (If such a guideline or essay does exist, please let me know.) - fmmarianicolon | Talk 20:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 21:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I saw "high school" in the title. That means it's notable in my book because all high schools are notable, just as, in Wikipedia, all towns are considered notable, and my book is right here User:Noroton/opinions. That said, I'm not opposed to redirecting some stubbly little high school articles to their school district or town pages, but that's not a deletion matter and can be discussed and disputed on the school's or town's talk page. Noroton 21:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep High schools are inherently notable, delete one, delete all. -- Librarianofages 21:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both respondants above, please go to WP:WAX and scroll down a touch to the part where it says "Notability is inherited". Not a guideline, but a very valid point here. --Dennisthe2 21:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, Dennisthe2, I don't understand the relevance of what you pointed out to what I said. And I hope you're not confusing "inherited" with "inherent" ("involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit"), both Librarianofages and I believe that all high schools are inherently notable. I make my case here: User:Noroton/opinions.
    • Surely, per WP:ALLORNOTHING, this cannot be the case. Many high school (secondary schools in the UK) are obviously notable, but many can easily be dealt with via a section in the entry for their locality. In the UK there are nearly 5,000 secondary schools - it is not credible that all can be notable. We would end up with a collection of stubs saying "School A is a secondary school in town B. It was founded in year C and has D pupils." EliminatorJR Talk 21:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is isn't a case of "What about X" (WP:WAX), but what are the objective criteria for including or excluding a school. Explain (here or elsewhere), what your criteria are. It's simply not helpful to write: some, but not all without suggesting some objective criteria that can be applied to the current case, the next case, and the next case. And, yes, I think that all 5,000 secondary schools in the UK could and ought to have a well-written Wikipedia article. patsw 22:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to write a userspace essay on this soon (and I'll inform you on your talk page), but I would say that some reasons for notability would be (a) excellent performance, abhove and beyond what would be expected (b) alternatively, very poor performance involving the threat of closure, etc (c) some notoriety not related to education, which produces secondary sources (d) A long and easily notable history. (There are probably more). I don't think you can possibly create well-written WP articles on all high/secondary schools, without them merely being clones of each other. On a personal note, my daughter's school isn't notable in the slightest. I'd love to write an article on it, but it'd just end up like the one I linked above. EliminatorJR Talk 00:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To explain my inclusion of WP:WAX, the appropriate link for inherited notability doesn't exist - and I can't seem to create a wikipediaspace link for the redirect. =( I just needed a reference - note the instruction to scroll down. --Dennisthe2 23:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "google test" is not an adequate rational. — MichaelLinnear 21:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All schools are notable. This is Wikipedia and not a regular encyclaopedia and we should accommodate as much as possible. Xanucia 23:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article as currently stands shows notability. The nominator perhaps had a good reason to nominate when the nomination was made, but now that the article has been improved, it's not even a close question now, and this should be withdrawn in response to the changed circumstances. -- TedFrank 23:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1)Article has several references.2)High schools have generally been found to be notable (more notable in my view than several other types of articles which claim their subjects are "inherently notable"). 3)Stare decisis Afd is not a "pitch til you win" game. 4)I object to nominators canvassing for deletionists votes. 5) With WP:SCHOOL tagged as "historical", there is no subject-specific ghuideline for schools, which means that each AFD becomes a free-for all with no basis for deciding other than gut feeling and compliance with [[WP:N}} and [[WP:ATT}}, which this appears to satisfy. Edison 00:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At the time this AfD was proposed, the article was not in its current condition. However, since we now have a solid, well-referenced article, I see no reason to throw it out. —C.Fred (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please schools like this are important and the article has still made many improvements with reliable sources too yuckfoo 00:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, looks fairly notable, considering the notable students especially. // Gargaj 00:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I still can't see notability. Local sports seems the main claim, but these seem thin. All papers cover local high school and college sports to some extent; every school in the city has probably been mentioned in the paper. The award about being the best private school was from a local paper and those sort of things are often advertising driven, not achievement driven. I consider mere mention of the school in newspapers a trivial source. --Pigmandialogue 00:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per any school article that is well referenced with a decent article. I see no reason why deleting this would improve the quality of the encyclopedia. THE KING 08:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, real high school. Clearly notable. bbx 12:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the article is now sourced and there appears to be at least something slightly inappropriate about the initial nomination and the recruitment of support by the nominator. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment so why should we have to state whether we were "canvassed"? Does that make our votes less valid? I object to the big-brotherism of that whole process and it will doubtlessly lead to the opportunistic behavior of "canvassing" people whose views are likely opposed to yours and then have some requirement that they admit that they were canvassed and their votes be discounted. Can't we just have a discussion without having to worry what brought us to this page? ferevinsake....Carlossuarez46 18:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response - I'm not sure you should state whether you were canvassed (it seems irrelevant), but IMO, asking people who you know are biased toward this is kind of gaming the system. In my opinion, it doesn't really look that good - and it's possible that the closing admin will consider that. Just sayin'. --Dennisthe2 02:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep High schools are important institutions. It is ridiculous that so much controversy is focused on them, when many classes of article of substantially lower importance are left alone. Hawkestone 00:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whether an article is noteworthy does not make it valid to delete it. Leave it alone, someone may find the information useful, and thats what Wikipedia is all about. Dwellen 01:36 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The school is notable and the horse is long dead, move along now. RFerreira 02:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Note to admin - I suggest that WP:SNOW now applies; the balance is now about 39-11 in favour of Keep (and yes I know its not a vote :-) ) and the nominator has effectively withdrawn the nomination by changing to 'Weak keep'. TerriersFan 03:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for my usual reasons. -- Necrothesp 15:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Satisfactory. — RJH (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7: "An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." A high school is a "group of people" and therefore subject to this criterion. —Angr 14:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The school is not subject to A7 (and therefore not eligible for a speedy deletion), because they make an assertion of notability. Whether that assertion is up to standard...well, that's why we're here. --Dennisthe2 16:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition to which, a school is not a "group of people" and therefore does not fall into this category in the first place. -- Necrothesp 18:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...well, you could probably pull WP:CORP, but that's a stretch. --Dennisthe2 19:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course a school is a group of people, what else would it be? So schools are in fact subject to A7. And having read this "article", I can find no assertion of notability in it. —Angr 19:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The assertion is that they say it's notable and provide some references. There are plenty of admins who will tell you the same thing. --Dennisthe2 20:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • An additional note, a school - an educational institution - is more a facility to contain a group of people (the students), and its faculty. Like I said, it's a stretch, but WP:CORP would be closer to the truth for this purpose. The "group of people" would factor in if you were working with the student body. With no assertion whatsoever, A7 would work for sure (and I would have probably beat you to the punch =^_^= ), but with those links, it's going to be removed. --Dennisthe2 20:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Nothing they say asserts the school's notability, though. They only assert (and show with references) that the school exists. Thus the school is verifiable, but there's still no assertion of notability in the article itself. —Angr 20:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • This is true, but the quandary we're in is that A7 expects that there is positively no assertion whatsoever - including references that don't meet WP:N. If we have links, or something more than, say, a note from the author's mother saying it's notable, then the A7 falls out. At least, that's my experience. --Dennisthe2 23:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • A school is not a group of people. It is an institution in which people are educated. There is a big difference. That criterion is intended to cover things like random gangs or groups of friends, not institutions which have permanent buildings. These desperate attempts to extend A7 to anything you want it to cover are ridiculous. -- Necrothesp 13:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Raven

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

1) Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability_(people) guidelines for entertainers. 2) NPOV/Subjective 3) Seems to be written by subject or associate / Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest / Wikipedia:Autobiography 4) Some links mismatch (e.g., name of link is linked to seemingly unrelated article to avoid red linking?) Delete Touchdown Turnaround 01:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updated to add -- this article was deleted once before according to the logs. Touchdown Turnaround 02:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BULL. Bigman17 04:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable actress. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable - • The Giant Puffin • 13:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Basically, it says she is going to appear in a movie, and the rest is filled with fluff. And say, how would the article's author know all about the childhood aspirations, likes, dislikes, etc of an utterly non-notable actress?? Hmm... Wavy G 13:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I created the article. The article was speedily-deleted before as a non-notable stub. The deleter told me that in order for the article to be put up again, I would have to write more than a stub, and establish with references the case for notabilty. I believed that I had accomplished that when I put up the current version of the page. This has been reflected on the talk page since I first put the page online. Also, I would like to respond to the points made by Touchdown Turnaround.
    • First, notability guidelines. On this point, I agree that Robin Raven's inclusion only borders on meeting notability standards. Nevertheless, wikipedia is not paper, and there is very little wrong with accepting an entry that may miss the mark of notability guidelines by a small amount. I would point out that many current entries make much less of a case for notability on wikipedia right now.
    • Second, non-subjectivity in the article does not seem lacking to me. Some parts are written from info gathered online, and these sources may not be completely objective, but in rewriting the wikipedia page, I thought that I had removed any aspect of subjectivity that may be in the original sources, stripping it down to facts and general knowledge of the actress.
    • The third issue is the only one of the four that I agree with. The article was originally written by me, and I do know Robin Raven irl. However, I believe wikipedia standards regarding such conflicts of interest require only that the article be reworked by someone not in such a situation of conflict of interest. But in the question of whether or not the article should be deleted, conflict of interest in irrelevant. Articles, if deleted at all, should be deleted on the basis of whether or not an article should exist on wikipedia, not on whether or not the current edition of the page was authored by someone with a conflict of interest. Therefore, I do not believe this aspect of the situation is relevant on this afd page.
    • Fourth, the links do NOT mismatch. To say that this was done intentionally to prevent red links is not a good assessment of the page. In many places in wikipedia, such links as the ones on this page are considered standard. Take, for example, the case of characters from movies or video games. In most situations, a character will be linked to, but no content at that page would be present. Instead, it would redirect to the page containing the movie or video game that character is from. This is not meant to confuse, nor to prevent red-links. It is just because no page for the minor topic exists, and linking to the broader just make more sense for users wanting to get more information about it. On the Robin Raven page, Letters to Liesl, a book by the people behind The Sound of Music about The Sound of Music is linked to The Sound of Music. I felt this was appropriate linkage; if others disagree, they are of course free to change the links -- but even so, this has nothing to do with whether or not the page should be deleted.
I hope that you will all take note of my comments here, and decide your votes accordingly. — Eric Herboso 19:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm going to err on the side of caution here and put in a keep vote, Eric makes a good case, and with her name in a fully fledged feature film she will make WP:BIO, moreover I read her article in VT I saw this AFD and did remember her name, although that’s only because I have a particularly good memory. -- Librarianofages 21:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article author certainly makes a long case but I don't know that it's a good case or that it changes the situation. Either way, you should re-read WP:BIO -- being credited in a movie does not meet the guidelines for notability or inclusion in WP. Touchdown Turnaround 21:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article does not establish that she meets the WP:BIO criteria. She only has one credit in a feature film, which is an independent film which has not yet been released, and it is not clear whether it is even a major role. She would need to gain more public attention, particularly media coverage, before she could qualify for a Wikipedia article. --Metropolitan90 23:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the notability bar is set rather low specifically because wiki is not paper, but even given that low bar, I don't see that this person currently meets the guidelines. -- Whpq 20:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable now, when she gets more notable cum bak and do a new one that we agree with.--Zedco 12:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. MER-C 08:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community of practice

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

Another incoherent article created by Stevenson-Perez (talk · contribs). Other users have improved the article somewhat, but I still don't see its value for Wikipedia. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific Community of Practice Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific value Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meaning (scientific) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Stevenson-Perez (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) -- Chris 73 | Talk 01:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. The article actually predates Stevenson-Perez and appears to have sociological notability, though even the pre-Stevenson-Perez version needed a severe rewrite. -- TedFrank 01:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per TedFrank. Despite Stevenson-Perez's nonsense, there is a verifiable and noteworthy concept here which deserves to be properly documented. I don't envy anyone the task of cleaning this mess up, but even if it has to be chopped down to near-stub, some of this does deserve to be kept. Pete.Hurd 01:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article quality is never a valid argument for deletion. Delete those that can NEVER be improved to meet standards. Edit and improve the others. This is in the latter group. Jerry 02:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This looks to be an understandable overreaction to the recent Stevenson-Perez activity, but as noted there seems to be a firm "Community of Practice" concept out there. I'd recommend reverting to a pre-SP, and leave the "cleanup" and "Expert needed" tags in hopes someone can improve it to a reliable overview article. - David Oberst 02:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable series finales

Notable series finales (1960s-1970s) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Notable series finales (1980s) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Notable series finales (2000s) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Notable animated series finales (1980s) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Notable animated series finales (1990s) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Notable animated series finales (2000s) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Well, here's a mass nomination. I've discovered while reading Series finale that the article Notable series finales (1990s) has been deleted through this AfD back in January. But it's obvious that the article was just part of a series, and it doesn't make much sense to delete the one and keep the others (or vice versa), and so I had the choice to either go to deletion review with the the deleted article, or nominate the other articles for deletion. I chose to do the latter, because right now those articles don't cover notable series finales, they simply cover all series finales from that time. I think we should merge these articles into one article, List of notable series finales, that only cover the notable series finales, and not all of them. Now we're going to have a lot of fun while discussing which series finale is notable and which isn't, but I think that it's possible to create a few criteria for inclusion (For example: having multiple emmy nominations (Everyone's Waiting), or being praised/noted by well known critics (All Good Things..., I'm sure some sources can be found). --Conti|✉ 01:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, renaming or merging is at editors' discretion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights in pre-Saddam Iraq

Human rights in pre-Saddam Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No referenced material in this article. Human rights in Iraq is a better idea. DavidYork71 07:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, I have no problem with deletion as long as it's not seen as a sign that recreation (with material and sources) is not allowed... so:
  • Delete with allowed recreation gren グレン 07:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  09:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Quite a notable and lengthy subject in British history, I must say I am surprised that this article is so neglected. I have added in a source for what material is there. Some also appears to have placed a tag on the article page saying that the neutrality of the article is disputed, but I find scant comment on the talk page. Seems fairly neutral to me. There is a wealth of material, on the net too, which could really turn this into a quite tremendous article. Cloveoil 02:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination makes the case for a merge more than a deletion. As for whether such a merge should be made, I believe a general article on human rights will inevitably focus on current events or Saddam's atrocities. --Groggy Dice T | C 03:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: (1) mixes history with very recent and fuzzy concept of human rights, (2) the only event mentioned (bombing) is likely part of supression of Kurdish autonomist movement during 1922-25, (3) the whole post-Ottoman Empire history of Iraq is history of uprisings and putches which Brits, when in control, tried to moderate. The article looks as prime example of making propaganda through original research - take a loaded word (human rights, fascism, terrorism, anti-xyz, ...) and mix it together with something author does not like. That the heavily biased media do it is understandable but WP should be based on different principles. (I used the book by Marion Farouk Sluglett & Peter Sluglett, Iraq since 1958 - From Revolution to Dictatorship, 2001, London to get overview of the era). Pavel Vozenilek 00:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Bryant 01:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Human rights in Iraq as above. Manik Raina 03:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to work put in by author Manik Raina

*Merge: With Human rights in Iraq until sufficient information can be found that a separate article would be needed. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete without prejudice to recreation As it stands, this is a pathetic POV stub. Any article that discusses human rights in pre-Saddam Iraq without mentioning the Simele massacre, for instance, is seriously under-researched. Somebody who actually knows something about the history of Iraq should rewrite this in a user sandbox then recreate the article when it's comprehensive. Until that ever happens, delete. --Folantin 08:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote to keep Since Noroton has made good faith efforts to improve this article, I believe it is salvageable. It still has large holes - the 1933 massacre of Assyrians by the Iraqi Army was a major event - but these can be plugged. --Folantin 19:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RaveenS 18:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - user has gone to great lengths to improve the article and seems to be extremely willing to improve it further. --pIrish 01:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's sad and pathetic that more effort has gone into this discussion than seems ever to have gone into the article. The subject is important and sourceable, the only question is whether Wikipedians have the interest and responsibility to treat the subject with the work and care it deserves. It is an important subject because it helps to give some perspective to the more important subject of Saddam Hussein's human rights record and the human rights situation that followed the invasion. I think we can do it, so I'm voting "Keep". I'll try to put some appropriate external links in the article, and maybe others can help improve it as well. Noroton 16:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)crossed out blathering Noroton 22:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, I've tried to put my effort where my mouth is. I've added substantially to the article, but it's only a start and from only a couple of sources. I hope to make further improvements later. I think these additions (which I'll continue making) show that this article can be improved and the subject matter is substantial enough to support a good Wikipedia article. I haven't changed the British section at all yet. I hope everyone who voted already will reconsider in light of the changes, which, again, are just a start. Noroton 19:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I still believe that this article should be the topmost Human rights in Iraq article, because that article should not be a disambiguation page but an overview. It is not a judgement of the importance of this topic vis-a-vis the other two eras -- I just think those are obvious breakouts from a top-level article. Consider my vote "keep but rename" if you like. -- Dhartung | Talk 22:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very open to a main article instead of a disambiguation page, but I don't have the time to work on it any time soon. A main article could have sections on various ethnic groups and how they've fared in terms of human rights, as well as a chronological overview. But I think the period article "pre-Saddam" has so much meat to it that we shouldn't cut it down to fit into a larger article.Noroton 03:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I didn't see what this was before, but it looks like it is starting to come along. I'd suggest that there is a lot of material for the pre-1920 period for this region as well. When time permits, a navigational template among the different articles would be useful, and ultimately these should be integrated into broader histories of the region. A Musing (formerly Sam) 02:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the massive improvement by Noroton (see diff). Well done! Any merge should be discussed on the talk page of one of the articles and should include comments from those editors directly involved in editing the articles. -- Black Falcon 20:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ripple (newspaper)

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

A couple of sources, neither of which is primarily about this student newspaper. A lot of original research. Copious vanity namechecks. And that is about it. Guy (Help!) 01:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this page serves no useful purpose except for people to boost their egos and others to criticise a perfectly good student newspaper.

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

The result was speedy deleted by ChrisGriswold[8]. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 16:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ranger Up

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

Delete Unsourced article on non-notable company; earlier prod removed by article's creator UnitedStatesian 02:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Persecution in the Spanish Civil War

Religious Persecution in the Spanish Civil War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)} – (View AfD)

POV Fork based on one-sided rendition of events that are overripe with propaganda from multiple biased sources. Cberlet 02:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Edit summary at article creation seem to confirm that this is a FOV fork: "Shifted article to new page that continuously was removed from the main article on the Spanish Civil War". There is a relevant discussion at Talk:Spanish Civil War#bias (religious atrocities). Article appears to be based almost exclusively from a single controversial source (Hugh Thomas, The Spanish Civil War (1961)) and legitimate POV concerns exist about the article. Seems this topic is dealt with adequately and neutrally at Spanish Civil War. WjBscribe 03:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep--The article was not deleted but shifted by me to the new article at the suggestion of an editor. The footnotes and authorities are impeccable. Hugh Thomas is THE authority in the English Language as his 1961 work has now gone through the 1965, 1977. 1986 and 2001 editions.

The article deals with the persecution on both sides of the conflict, and it happens that the most flagrant was on the losing side of the conflict.

The article is still under construction and so I am wondering if the deletionists haven't jumped the gun here. Out of fairness and scholarship, shouldn't the article be finished?

Finally, truth is the truth. This presecution is probably the major reason why the Republic lost the war. The atrocities were so broadcast around the civilized world, and caused such an abhorrent reaction, that ONE country, Mexico, rallied to the Republic at the time of the rising.

I realized that the article may offend the political sensibilities of many, but often the truth hurts.

Here is the removal notice that was done without notice to me or by posting.

(cur) (last) 17:10, 11 February 2007 Onofre Bouvila (Talk | contribs) (I removed the section "Anti Relgious Atrocities in Republican Spain". It was approached in a very biased way, mentioning random examples, and this subject is already treated in the article.)

That was why I expanded the article and created its own area.

GenghisTheHun 21:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun[reply]

  • Amendment to Keep--Criticism of Lord Thomas

Hugh Purcell, The Spanish Civil War speaking of Hugh Thomas's work, p. 122 "This is generally considered the fairest and most comprehensive history of the Spanish Civil War, in English."


GenghisTheHun 21:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)GenghistTheHun[reply]


  • More Amendment to Keep--Criticism of Lord Thomas

I feel that the deletionist attack Thomas for being biased against the Republic. If that is so, why was his work banned in Franco Spain until Franco died?

I would also cite Sheelagh Elwood in the Historical Association Studies book, The Spanish Civil War. On p. 122 we find this comment about Thomas's book, "[Names author and work]is packed with detailed information, but its density and lenght may be a daunting project fir relative newcomers to the subject." The author continues about the Spanish edition. Thomas' book, published in 1961, has gone through revisions in 1965, 1977, 1986, and 2001. Lord Thomas is now probably in his eighties and perhaps we have seen the last of his revisions. That is a terrible loss to the historical community especially now with the work being done in the Soviet Archives. His expert eye on the Spanish material found there would be beneficial to all concerned.

To delete this article based on the assertion that Hugh Thomas is biased is akin to book burning, internet style. It is quite obvious that those who attack Lord Thomas, have not read the book.

GenghisTheHun 22:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun[reply]


I inadvertely removed this Keep Comment from another editor

I inadvertly removed this keep comment. I copied it and inserted here. My apologies.

- *Keep - all material seems properly sourced, and if some editors have POV concerns that is not the reason to delete the article but to expand it. -- Vision Thing -- 21:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GenghisTheHun 22:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun[reply]


  • Maybe the testimony of an International Brigader in support of Thomas might affact some the attacking deletionists

I refer the deletionists to Don Lawson, The Abraham Lincoln Brigade, Americans Fighting Fascism in the Spanish Civil War, (1989) where he states about Lord Thomas, p. 146. "Every writer, including this one, who has written anything on the Spanish Civil War, is indebted to historian Hugh Thomas. His The Spanish Civil War, [publisher omitted} was first published in 1961 and was throughly revised and updated in 1977. It is unquestionably the definitive book on the war and so far as I have been able to determine, misses no important wartime fact or detail, large or small. But I would hesitate to recommend the Thomas book to a young reader, except an extremely advanced one, because it is so highly detailed."

I recognize that a person who is not familiar with the subject would find Thomas a large undertaking.

GenghisTheHun 22:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun[reply]

  • I would refer the deletionists to Gerald Howson.

A new and exciting work that I am just finishing reading is Gerald Howson, Arms for Spain, The Untold Story of the Spanish Civil War (1998). On page 249, Howson notes Hugh Thomas' work as "great." Howson's work, by the way, is quite revolutionary. He has used the recent access to Polish and Soviet archives in his book and reviewed actual inventories and lists of the ships that carried arms to the Republic and also was able to get copies of some of the actual arms purchases. I will need to update my "Foreign Intervention" article with the new information.

GenghisTheHun 23:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun[reply]


  • Perhaps the deletionists would be interested to see what Herbert Mathews states about Hugh Thomas.

As all the learned experts on the history of the Spanish Civil War know, Herbert Mathews of the New York Times covered the war from the Republican side during the entire period of 1936-1939. An interesting anecdote, that Mathews does not cite in his book, is that Mathews and Ernest Hemingway went in with the troops when the Republic captured Teruel in 1937-38. This intrepid pair actually were at the fall of the governor's headquarters where the troops fought each other from different levels of the building firing at each other through holes in the floor.

In any event, Mathews in his work, Half of Spain Died, A Reappraisal of the Spanish Civil War (1973), states on page 104, "The judgment of the British scholar, Hugh Thomas, whose work is as authoratative and objective as any history of the war can be...." Mathews, an eyewitness to the war, cites Thomas twenty-four times in the index to the book and praises it in other passages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GenghisTheHun (talk • contribs) 23:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]


GenghisTheHun 23:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun[reply]

  • Would Cecil Eby's testimony about Hugh Thomas have an bearing on the deletionists?

Cecil Eby has written at least two books on the war. I have them both, but I only purchased the second book last week and I haven't had time to read it. In his work on the International Brigade, Between the Bullet and the Lie, American Volunteers in the Spanish Civil War, Eby states on p. 323 "The best general study of the Spanish Civil War is Hugh Thomas' The Spanish Civil War.... His second book that I have not yet had a chance to read, is The Siege of the Alcazar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GenghisTheHun (talk • contribs) 23:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

GenghisTheHun 00:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun[reply]


  • I have other works if you are interested that cite or praise Hugh Thomas.

I have an extensive library on the Spanish Civil War and started to review it when I started working on the various articles and edits that I have done on this site. If anyone wants more citations, I shall provide them.

I have no illusions that I am going to convince anyone. I am quite familiar with academic politics and I have discovered in my short time on Wikipedia, about 4-5 weeks, that the politics of this site are quite similar. There is a huge "Old Boy" network and lots of point of view politics here. There appears to be a large happy group that sends valentines to each other and pin medals on each other's user page. Hilarious.

I had hoped for better but at my age, I should have known better. Some editor posts a delete and immediately we have about half a dozen deletes from people who obviously have never read much about the Spanish Civil War. I doubt few of them ever cracked the cover of Hugh Thomas' work or Professor Jackson or Gerald Brennan or anyone else.

I liken this to a modern bonfire of knowledge that Savonarola or Dr. Goebbels would have throughly approved. You can do this virtual burning of knowledge, but I would be hopeful that truth and knowledge would somehow carry through.

GenghisTheHun 00:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun[reply]

This does not necessarily mean it is the best source for specialized aspects. All the references mentioned come from a very few pages of the book, so they must have been simply listed, rather than discussed. There should be a very large number of specialized academic and general interest articles on the subject, and I think it would be reasonable to insist that individual incidents be sourced and to more than this single textbook.
  • Weak delete This is especially true because of the overall tone of the article, which is both sensationalist and politically biased. To anyone with even the most general awareness about the period, or about war atrocity stories in general, it is obvious that some are real, some are not, and many depend in the end upon a single report. This is why the WP guidelines require multiple sources, not one text no matter how high its reputation. Both sides in this war were noted for their expert efforts at propaganda, and this article is a retelling of it. I don't want to say the subject is not N, but I do think that the articles is plainly on the face an attempt at a POV fork. I think it so contaminated with POV that it should be started over. The article is so radically short of normal WP standards that this seems the wisest course.DGG 03:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Francis Tyers · 12:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if its a POV problem, fix it, there are clearly a number of good sources on what happened to the clergy during the Spanish Civil War, and it would seem that the information is too much for the main article, and warrants its own article. POV concerns are not a reason to delete an article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or move?) - by the looks of it, this article should be called "The Spanish Civil War according to Hugh Thomas". Some of the material could be moved to some sort of article about Hugh Thomas' scholarship perhaps. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this should just be called "The Spanish Civil War according to 4 pages of Hugh Thomas' scholarship". In any case, the tone of my comment was not constructive. I think that this article could be workable, but it doesn't seem balanced as is. Without balance, I can see why people want it deleted. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have to say the most recent changes have in my opinion created even more problems. The section "Consequences of the Persecution to the Republic" is so badly written, ambiguous and confused that it is effectively unitelligible. The overall impression of the article as being one-sided and still based on a few pages from one single work remains and has even been reinforced.Maybe it is an issue to be taken up with the editor who originally suggested creating a separate article, but I am not sure that this subject merits an article of its own. Even if it does, I am not sure this current article could even be used as a basis for a satisfactory article. Its shortcomings and problems are so numerous that the ammount of work would probably be greater than just starting from scratch.

Riotboy81 21:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, Hugh Thomas and the tale of the atrocities is good enough for Enclyclopaedia Britannica

I have a 1967 Set of Enclyclopaedia Britannica and looked up this controversy. No article in that work exists on the Spanish Civil War, but in the general article, Spain, history, volume 20, page 1108, we find this quotation:

"On both sides the war was marked, especially in the early stages, by a ruthlessness that astounded the world. Churches were burned and desecrated and public religious observances forbidden throughout Republican Spain; ten bishops, and many thousands of priests, religious and devout members of the laity were murdered in cold blood, for no political activity or crime."

Also in the bibliography, p. 1116, as authority for the 19th and 20th Centuries, yep, there is "H. S. Thomas, The Spanish Civil War New York (1961)." Another of my sources, Professor Jackson is also noted in the citation.

Let's examine the question of criticism of "weasel words," so beloved by certain editors of this august web site. The good gray Britannica staff and editors approved these words in that short quotation: "ruthlessness," "astounded," "desecrated," "murdered," "cold blood," and perhaps we could argue about a couple more.

This language is so good that I plan to include it in the article if I can get it by the politburo.

GenghisTheHun 14:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In current Britannica's article on Spanish Civil War [9] Hugh Thomas and his The Spanish Civil War are still listed in Additional Reading. -- Vision Thing -- 20:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Startling Revelation

I forgot to respond to the criticism that the article relies heavily on Hugh Thomas. I hate to make this startling revelation to that obviously erudite comment, but the bulk of the literature on the Spanish Civil War is in SPANISH. General histories in English are harder to find.

In any event, after Franco died, and the ban against Thomas' book was lifted in Spain, it was translated into Spanish, and is now a Spanish standard on the conflict.

GenghisTheHun 14:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun[reply]


  • ==Somebody else was editing when I hit the save button and his comment was lost. I copy and insert below==

n current Britannica's article on Spanish Civil War [10] Hugh Thomas and his The Spanish Civil War are still listed in Additional Reading. -- Vision Thing -- 20:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GenghisTheHun 20:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot-Gilmore Girls

Pilot-Gilmore Girls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article duplicates the purpose of Pilot (Gilmore Girls) but not the content. Since this is nearly worthless and orphaned, seems like the better one to delete. As far as I can tell, this doesn't meet a speedy criterion, although it seems like it should; sorry if it's my mistake. Deltopia 02:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Prodego as CSD G12. WjBscribe 03:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Absinthe

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

Article was written as: Self-promotion. Seraphim Whipp 02:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of sports team names and mascots of European origin

List of sports team names and mascots of European origin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NOT#INFO (Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. It may arguably be original research also. Note: please place this on lists-related deletions. YechielMan 03:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there exists an ongoing controversy surrounding Native American sports team names (and possibly other Indigenous peoples, I'm not certain) that makes that list have a purpose.. Citicat 03:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Saving Private Ryan. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ramelle

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

1) this is an article about a single scene from a movie and has no notability on it's own. 2) the 'battle' is entirely fictional and does not exist outside of the movie in question 3) the movie has its own article. 4) this is basically a line-by-line novelization of the movie scene and as such constitutes a copyright violation. --Lepeu1999 03:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of streets in Hamilton, Ontario

List of streets in Hamilton, Ontario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#INFO. I return to my favorite AFD argument, and one of the first I ever used on these pages: if we had an article on every city and town about all its roads and streets, the size of Wikipedia would spiral out of control. If we won't have them all, we should not have any. YechielMan 03:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "out of control"? Not at all... even 1 million such articles wouldn't come close to using up the storage space Wikipedia already has sitting empty. Text files just don't take up much space, deleting articles to save space isn't necessary or wanted. This is what "Wikipedia is not paper" is about. At any rate, this particular article doesn't seem terribly useful in present form but could probably be expanded to cover streets there's actual encyclopedic information on. --W.marsh 03:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, on looking closer this article does have some useful, encyclopedic information... especially impressive since it was frantically rushed to AfD no less than 1 minute after creation! keep. --W.marsh 03:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We seem to have {Category:Roads in Hamilton, Ontario}. Manik Raina 03:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I actually saw a section of an article once which was just a directory of every mailbox in the area, I guess whoever added them thought it would be useful if you were logged onto Wikipedia and suddenly needed to post a letter, but didn't know where to go Croxley 21:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional Antichrists

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

The entire list is unsourced speculation, does not appear fixable. Jay32183 04:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to make an issue of this (I hope), but isn't the problem with that article that the entries are speculation? Entries in this list can be limited to those that are specifically mentioned as being the Antichrist. If you want to say the list has no encyclopedia value I'll understand the point (although I feel otherwise) Citicat 17:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term Antichrist does not have a clear, objective definition. "List of fictional characters to be called Antichrists" would not be an encyclopedic list. The problem with this list is that it cannot be sourced properly because some one has to make a judgement call. Jay32183 17:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a Christian, but isn't the Antichrist part of Armageddon? At least in Good Omens Adam is clearly referred to as the Antichrist, the son of the Devil, and necessary to bring on the final battle between good and evil. Someone correct be if I'm wrong. Citicat 03:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't how our own article on Antichrist defines it. The list does not have a clearly defined criteria for inclusion, and that's where the problem is coming from. There's no clear definition so people have to make judgement calls, and you can't source a judgement call. Jay32183 04:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this article could be good with some listed sources. It is a normal-sized list and is coherent. -- Theunicyclegirl 18:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no reason this couldn't be a decent little list if it is sourced properly. It wouldn't be OR to say that the dude in the Left Behind series is a fictional antichrist, for intstance. Oskar 20:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But can it be completely sourced with an objective criteria for inclusion? The source doesn't just need to point out the character actually exists within the work of fiction, but that the character is actually referred to as an antichrist. Most of the characters already on the list won't have that capability. My reasoning for nominating isn't just that it isn't sourced properly, but that it cannot be sourced properly. Jay32183 22:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All of the characters listed here are either explicitly Antichrists in the works in which they appear, or (as in the case of the South Park character and Randall Flagg) are implicitly associated with the role in the context of the fiction. -Sean Curtin 04:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename or merge So WP can determine and verify which "Antichrists" are fictional and (more importantly?) whether any aren't fictional. Carlossuarez46 18:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Judging by its present state, the article has clear criteria and definable bounds. As long as it avoids the temptation to include all villains under this name ,it should do well. There is a purpose to such articles--so that a reader having checked one, can see additional ones, and this list provides more information than a category. DGG 03:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The composition of the list is clear enough and in keeping with other lists of its kind. The line items on the list can be supported by references, it just takes some diligence to find reputable reviews ... I'll not cite the guidelines on movie reviews, but essentially these need to be published in mainstream periodicals or books and not merely blog postings (the vast majority of movie reviews are only blog postings now). I've added two external links to supporting material for one of the line items (not using Template:Cite_news, sorry). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the end there will only be two or three you can source like that, not deserving of a list. Also, the list does not have a clear scope because the term "Antichrist" itself does not have a clear scope. It is subjective to call some one an antichrist. Jay32183 14:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I started at the top, did the first two line items and found support for each; that seems like a high hit rate for the ability to find supporting references. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No doubt you'll find one for the third as well, because it's The Omen. After that, you have things that would not have been written about in reputable reviews, things written as speculation (arguably), and one that is even wrong (Point Pleasant, daughter of the devil but not antichrist). Do you really want to maintain a list of three? Jay32183 15:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel Bryant 07:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wonder Girls

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

The creator of the article has removed three times, without comment, notability and reference tags. There are no sources for any of the information in the article. Fails WP:ATT and possibly fails WP:MUSIC. janejellyroll 04:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Wonder Girls was already prod'd. -- TedFrank 04:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The proposed deletion of an article can be contested at any time, even after it has been deleted. Unless the article was previously AfD'd or speedy-deleted, it can not be deleted as a "recreation" (assuming, in fact, this is an identical recreation). -- Black Falcon 03:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Korean name 원더걸스 has 749,000 GHits with independent media coverage like [12] clearly visible in the first page of results. --cab 04:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn notable, couldn't find much on Google.--Paloma Walker 20:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Paloma Walker. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xanucia (talk • contribs) 23:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. -- cab 02:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Paloma Walker StuartDouglas 14:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted above and ignored by User:Paloma Walker, there are three-quarters of a million Google hits in Korean, including a large variety of reliable sources, three of which (representing coverage in two different countries) I had already added to the article shortly after I made my comment above (thus meeting WP:N). cab 14:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see the links, but as they are in Korean and Chinese they could be about pretty much anything and the sites could be utterly non-notable in themselves (the two I looked at look like MySpace style pages to me). In the absence of verifiable links, I still say Delete I'm afraid. StuartDouglas 15:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, Joongang Ilbo is one of the three largest newspapers in Korea. Your inability to read the facts it publishes is not a reason for deletion. If you really distrust what I'm saying and think the links "could be about anything", you are welcome request to the relevant WikiProjects to confirm that these articles in fact say what I have cited them to say. cab 15:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't distrust what you're saying (and never said that I did so please do not put words in my mouth), but people differ on what amounts to a reasonable secondary source - and the pages I looked at seemed to me to resemble kid's MySpace pages. As for inability to read the facts it publishes - well that's an essay not a policy or guideline (and I'm not entirely sure how it even applies here) and I personally think it's for you to demonstrate notability which, thus far, you haven't. StuartDouglas 15:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are welcome to your opinions about the web design skills of Korean newspaper editors (which I share), but given that you freely admit you can't read them in the first place, I'd have to question your qualification to judge what constitutes a reliable source in this case. We judge what is a reliable source based on their editorial policy, not on superficial impressions of having too many Flash ads on their site. cab 16:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • You seem to be taking this personally, which I hope is not the case as I have based my opinion on the evidence on the article page - three unreadable sources (again, it is your job to convince other editors of the band's notability so I suggest you find English language sources for the band's notability). To be honest though, even if the sections you mention were in English, I think the band would still fail on notability since all it says in the article is that the band were formed and then signed to a record label. Hundreds of bands do the same thing every year, without being in any way notable. (wholly unrelatedly, how can the title track to an album have a different name to the album itself?) StuartDouglas 16:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Two of the references are somewhat reliable sources in Korean (one is a news site operated by a large web portal, while the other is a sports newspaper operated by the same company that runs a mainstream newspaper). Both of them are non-trivial mentions, where one talks about an all-male fan club for the group, while the other talks about the recovery of a member from a hospital stay. I have no idea what the Chinese page says. Kiersta 23:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the improvements to the article since it was nominated for AFD, including the addition of sources to establish notability (see diff). The inability of some editors (including myself) to comprehend Korean-language sources has no impact on the notability or lack thereof of topics. -- Black Falcon 03:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel Bryant 02:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nuh Ha Mim Keller

Nuh Ha Mim Keller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails notability. Article is incompatable with WP:BIO because of the complete lack of reliable secondary sources. Not to mention the article is completely WP:OR. Sefringle 04:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. In the first 15 pages of the google search, I found none.--Sefringle 07:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by secondary sources but the book is which I mentioned is unique and he's the author and the introduction is pretty much from the book. Can you elaborate on what you mean by secondary? --Nkv 06:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore crime 2007

Baltimore crime 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Anon IP removed prod tag. This is a non-notable subject, this is indiscriminate information, and this is largely just a collection of news reports. No need to merge — all notable information is already at Baltimore#Crime. No need to redirect — title is too specific for anyone to search for. — Rebelguys2 talk 05:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Farming - The Ecosystem Approach to Forest Management

Forest Farming - The Ecosystem Approach to Forest Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Content is original research; while the essay looks great, it, in effect, violates WP:NOR, and as such should be deleted in its present form --Mhking 05:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

from- ====User Talk: Forest Farming - The Ecosystem Approach to Forest Management==== This is not vandalism, please read as supporting documentation for the article.


Here is an additional forest farm (yes, another one of "US") website to check out: http//www.highdesertnet.com/morninghill/



There are quite a few forest farmers out here and we have a forest farm association. Following is a letter by Orville camp exerpt from The Forest Farm Management Journal: (journal is hardcopy only, not available online at present.

The forest management controversy

Dear Forest Manager,

Management of our forests has become one of the most controversial issues of this century. Many species are now extinct or in danger of becoming so. The controversial spotted owl, for example, is only one of many species dependent on ancient forests which are rap­ idly being eliminated. People are concerned. Our social and eco­ nomic well-being is at stake.

Forest management practices continue to deplete our forests. As a result, opposition to these practices has become intense. Many are desperately working to save what little remains of the ancient forests by having them placed into wilderness for future generations.

On one side the traditionalists want to continue converting forests into tree farms. On the other side, environmentalists want all of the forests preserved. While both may serve some immediate needs, neither seem to have a long term solution on how to manage and sustain the forest ecosystem so that it can continue to provide our many dif­ ferent needs.

Most timber management pro­ grams, for short term economic rea­ sons, are based on the clearcut con­ cept. Clearcuts are typically done in one or two steps. They are called "clearcuts" if everything is removed in one step, "seed tree cutting," "shel­ terwood cutting," or "selective cutting" if done in two or more steps.

Who do you know who's able to sustain either the forest or himself using clearcutting practices? The truth is, probably no one. Most businesses keep track of what is happening to their "net worth" as a measure of their success. However, many foresters prescribe clearcutting which reduces the net worth of that forest to zero. Even the value of the land itself is often re­ duced because of the reduction in potential for productivity. They then try to measure their success by the number of trees they plant. Regard­ less of how many trees planted, or survival success, the net worth of that forest is still relatively close to zero. If the forest was one of old growth, it will be several hundred years at best before the some values can be ob­ tained.

The main cause of the management problem is a result of not recog­ nizing the forest as an ecosystem of all species and ages where each are dependent on the other in some way as we are upon them. This body of living things also has a natural system of checks and balances which keeps it healthy. The sec­ ond cause of the problem, as a result of the above, is in failing to select the right individuals for har­ vest so that all species' needs can continue to be met.

Proposed solutions to forest management problems typically call for either dividing it up, or eliminating unwanted parts, to serve special interests .. Since all parts of the forest ecosystem are interconnected and interdependent, neither of these solutions are good ones.

There is now an alternative for those who support management of the forest as an ecosystem. Mid­ way between just growing and har­ vesting trees, on one hand, and maintaining a do-not-touch wilderness on the other, the Forest Farm Association offers a new meaning to the term forestry. The Forest Farm Association is comprised of forest managers who support and practice a middle-of-the-road approach.

If you are interested in practicing forest management in an environmen­tally sound manner, or want to learn more about it and also help educate others, please join the Forest Farm Association. Your contribution is needed and very much appreciated.

Sincerely, Orville Camp

submitted User: jeanniekendrickJeannie kendrick 21:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BitTorrent index comparison

BitTorrent index comparison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not encyclopedic, completely unsourced, full of redundancies, generally it's a mess. Painezor TC 06:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was NOT discussed in the AfD for Comparison of BitTorrent software. Do not try to bolster your argument with blatant lies. -Painezor TC 23:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have asked them if they did consider both pages, or if it was an oversight that both pages were nominated on the same AfD page. hopefully they will clarify things for us. I am sorry if I misinterpreted the keep decision. --Tim 04:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sounds good if you want to check out the Top 100 and add what is missing that would be great --Tim 20:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. — Krimpet (talk/review) 23:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although sadly it is clearly the result of hard work, which I hope the editors should find a home for elsewhere. (1) There are no reliable sources, and it seems to me that the nature of the information presented is that there cannot be reliable sources; we should not see blogs as references; (2) it is original research per WP:NOR, synthesising too much from its sources. An editor posted "... believe that they should both be kept, since this comparison is useful, and exists nowhere else on the internet " which seems to me to confirm this; nothing on Wikipedia should be justified by its not being anywhere else, quite the opposite. Notinasnaid 08:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At least delete the ones (if not all) which are private and people have gotten the information by being or knowing a member of the communities. eggnock 03:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All information was obtained without membership. --Tim 18:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Fix Dont be so delete happy, thats such a problem with wikipedia, none of the reasons that have been put forward for this pages deletion are beyond repair.
    Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver And The Vandal Watchman 21:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seriously this topic accounts for 1/3 of all internet traffic and people want to delete it? To me it seems like an attempt to obfuscate on the misguided hope that protection will be found in doing so.--Tim 04:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kicks Hawaii

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

non-notable store, possible advertising Stlemur 06:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel Bryant 07:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cockring

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

Blatant advert for a non-notable nightclub, with little or no salvageable content once non-neutral statements removed. Orderinchaos78 06:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Bobet 17:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timpuyog Organization

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

Blatantly non-notable Stlemur 06:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Macdougall

Unreferenced bio of a living person with negative facts, possibly hoax Alex Bakharev 06:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Townsend

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

Professional poker player. Speedy deletions were overturned on review, so the discussion now moves here. Procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 06:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Keep: Are you guys joking, this guy is at the forefront of one of the most popular games in the world. Just because some people do not consider someone or somthing important doesnt mean others dont. He is one of the biggest winners in online poker history and tons of people would love to know more about him due to his HSP appearance.

  • Delete Article doesn't say anything about him that would make him notable. JulesH 13:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just went through and added references and more information about this guy. I disagree about your assertion of non-notability; he was selected to appear several times on a nationally broadcast poker program (GSN's High Stakes Poker). Further, he has had in-the-money finishes at both World Series of Poker and World Poker Tour events. Finally, he is an online sensation, playing high-stakes heads up poker against the likes of Phil Ivey on a regular basis. His online popularity is corroborated by an article in The Official World Poker Tour Magazine that I have referenced. I admit that I am an inclusionist at heart, but that certainly suffices to establish his notability in my book. --Romanempire 14:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's more notable than the rest of us. Wikipedia is the greatest resource on the Internet BECAUSE we have articles like this. Xanucia 23:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - while I don't necessarily agree that simply playing on one or more episodes on HSP automatically takes one across the notability threshold and I strongly disagree that being an "online sensation" or playing heads up against Phil Ivey does (I'm sure Phil would be happy to play against anyone heads up if there were enough money in it for him), there is just enough in the way of sourcing for me to pass the article. I added another interview to the links section. Otto4711 06:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Also Phil Ivey can play Brian 300/600 NL HU whenever he wants. I'm sure that is enough money for Phil, so maybe he's not playing because Brian is good.

  • "The rest of us" don't have wikipedia articles either, Xanucia. At least, I don't. Delete as posting on internet forums and appearing as a contestant on a cable tv show is not enough for WP:BIO. FiggyBee 09:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • High Stakes Poker is not a game show. He was not a "contestant." According to WP:BIO, "a person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." This has been criterion has been met. What is your objection? --Romanempire 14:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, my general feeling is that playing poker (even televised poker) isn't in itself a particularly notable activity. Obviously though other people feel differently, as we have lots of articles about poker players. FiggyBee 16:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In response to Otto4711, he doesn't just play Phil Ivey heads-up, and it is not just "money in it" for Ivey. According to the WPT magazine article, Ivey got "taken to the cleaners" by Townsend. Some people in the media consider Phil Ivey to be the best poker player in the world, but Townsend regularly contends that notion. In response to FiggyBee, I could say that I feel like cooking food isn't a notable activity. But when someone is so skilled at the activity that a large audience watches him perform it (Iron Chef), it becomes notable. Bunzobunzo 17:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)bunzobunzo — bunzobunzo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Weak Keep I personally would predicate notability on being noticed/mentioned in general interest as opposed to only trade publications. My weak keep recommendation is based on applying notability criteria for 'athletes' as opposed to 'entertainers' as I consider the 'athletic criteria' to be applicable across all sports and poker could be described as a sport as much as football can be when played professionally. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Also Otto Phil Ivey can play Brian HU for 60k on Full Tilt Poker whenever he wants, there is a reason he rarely does. If you delete Brian's entry there are several other entries that should be deleted.

Keep Whether I consider basketball or chess to be notable activities is not important, what is important is that a substantial number of people do. The online poker community is quite large, and Brian Townsend is one of the most well-known online poker pros.MikeThicke

Keep If you don't know that this is one of the biggest names in online poker, then you should not be voting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBS2007 (talk • contribs)

Note: User was just created, and only contribution was this vote. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note: Lot of single use accounts here. I smell voting fraud. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southern mafia

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

Delete Original research. Mere use of a term in print does not remove the WP:NOR issue. Avi 07:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note recent text reduction to remove OR. --MBHiii 18:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Every group of criminals in America gets called the Mafia of somewhere or other; it is a pretty generic term for organized crime. I don't think this is a good start on an article on organized crime in the rural South. The references are a bizarre mish-mash. Out! --Brianyoumans 07:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Every group of criminals in America..." very likely true, but it's also become a journalistic term for certain Congressmen, and a rap group has taken the name, all indicating a special meaning to the culture, in general, of the US. --MBHiii 18:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ATT and quite possibly WP:HOAX. Superficially this article looks extremely well cited, but I've gone through the footnotes and they are far from reliable sources. Two of them are to other wikipedia articles, two are to blogs, one is to a letter to the editor of a paper (so, a letter from a person, not a researched news article), and a couple are to music sites. Thing is, and I admit not reading every word on each of these weak sources, I actually never saw the exact phrase "Southern mafia" on any of them. -Markeer 11:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Two sources deleted (originally included for implied reference), two added, now all specifically use "Southern mafia" in the senses defined. --MBHiii 18:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Definite problems with WP:ATT, and clearly Original Research. All but two of the citations are used to back one particular (somewhat POV) statement - and as Markeer points out above, many of these are not reliable sources. The two exceptions relate to a completely different Wikipedia article listed in the "see also" section. The bulk of the article is completely unreferenced. Blueboar 12:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See all other comments, and recent edit history tags. --MBHiii 18:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sourcing is very suspect. Maybe a wonderful topic for a magazine or journal article, but not for an encyclopedia... this article is drawing original conclusions based on a handful of vague and shrouded (and sometimes misinterpreted) mentions of the phrase "Southern Mafia". --W.marsh 14:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See all other comments, and recent edit history tags. --MBHiii 18:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Save it - note changes to text and sourcing to address OR; can be expanded as more sources appear. --MBHiii 15:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

appears to violate? How does what's there, now, violate "Although everything in Wikipedia must be attributable, in practice not all material is attributed. Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged"? 216.77.231.87 17:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply you've picked a somewhat vague sentence out of WP:ATT, please note some of the more concrete language under it's subsections, such as Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources. The article has indeed been improved so far, but some of the footnotes are still highly questionable e.g. this blog (blogs are not peer reviewed and so are rarely reliable sources) or this book review which only demonstrates that the reviewer (on a site I'm not familiar with) uses the term Southern Mafia, not even that the book itself uses that term. Also at this point, the article is also looking like a dictionary definition-Markeer 21:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note further additions of links to related topics in Wikipedia. W.r.t. "reliable sources" I don't want to rely on blogs, but if one wants to show a term used journalistically then blogs and reviews should be allowed (not, of course, to the exclusion of other sources). Also, I note from your Wikilink "the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." To some extent, any publisher must consider all these issues before allowing a review, or letter to the editor, onto his pages. BTW (not that I'm claimimg to know) how do you know the book doesn't use the term?
Also, about that review in the Texas Observer, a biweekly magazine, from their website "Our Vision: The Texas Observer writes about issues ignored or underreported in the mainstream press. Our goal is to cover stories crucial to the public interest and to provoke dialogue that promotes democratic participation and open government, in pursuit of a vision of Texas where education, justice and material progress are available to all." ... "The New York Times, Harper’s, 60 Minutes, 20/20, and ABC News have followed the lead of Texas Observer stories." ... seems a very reliable publication. --MBHiii 00:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if the sources weren't a little on the wonky side this wouldn't be much more than a dicdef as it stands. This article suffers the same problem as a related article recently deleted in that the 'sources' are largely just instances of the phrase being used and do little if anything to establish the meaning of the term or convey any information about it. It does little more than establish the existence of the term - the point of WP:ATT is not to simply find quotes but to tell us something, which this doesn't. Arkyan 05:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment note recently added specifications to definition. Do you or any of the other deletionists ever change your vote in response to edits after the AfD begins? --MBHiii 12:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - why yes, I do. When they are constructive edits that actually resolve the problems that have been brought up. Your edit really hasn't satisfied that, and I will explain to you why. If you haven't read WP:ATT in detail please do, but for starters, pay attention to the line that states The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. The problem with the sources in this article (as well as the now-deleted Unholy Alliance) is that they are almost exclusively quotations of someone using the term Southern Mafia without actually telling us what the southern mafia is. Your article then goes on to use these various examples of the word use to support a conclusion - but that is a violation of WP:SYN. Wikipedia cannot rely on articles of this nature that basically say "This person has been called a member of the Southern Mafia, and so has this person, therefore the Southern Mafia can be defined as ..." What you really need is a source that explicitly tells us "The Southern Mafia can be defined as ..." You have one and only one source that does that - but the problem with that is that it is from a blog and not a reliable source. Again, read up on WP:RS for a more clear picture of what a reliable source is, and why a blog is not. Finally, if you do find reliable sources to cite on the subject, make sure that you can expand the article beyond a mere definition, else it will not pass WP:DICDEF.
Honestly, no one here has any kind of vendetta against you or your articles, we merely have a problem with articles that do not pass inclusion criteria. I am certain you are very well intentioned in wanting to contribute to the project with these articles of local significance that you feel are underrepresented here, and we all appreciate your desire to contribute. Unfortunately Wikipedia is not a vehicle for the advancement of new thoughts and ideas - there are plenty of other outlets for those kinds of things. Once an idea has become established, studied and verified, that is when it belongs here. Arkyan 15:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Can't speak for anyone else, but I know I've changed my opinion on several articles up for AfD if they've been improved. The problem with this article (in my opinion) is that while it's sourcing has indeed been improved (with the addition of the Texas Observer link added to the decent Scarfone link), there are still serious issues. One is that pretty much all of the other footnotes should be removed as they do not add any verifiable benefit to the article that I can see (all they seem to do is show the authors of this article didn't make the term up, which is covered by the two more acceptable sources, and that the term is used sometimes in the music industry, which oddly isn't mentioned in the article itself).
Unfortunately while the sourcing has somewhat improved, the removal of basically all of the text leaves this with other problems that I see. One is it now appears to be just a dictionary definition as mentioned already, but the sparsity also leaves two other issues: 1) that there is no assertion or evidence that the term is particularly notable, 2) that from what I've seen so far, the phrase seems to clearly be a neoligism.
Shorter answer: There may well be an article to be found on this phrase, my issue is that so far all we have is a weakly sourced dicdef of a neoligism. My apologies if I sound overly blunt about this, just trying to answer your question about changes in votes and why mine at least hasn't changed so far. -Markeer 16:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, mulling, learning, thanks for the lengthy replies. --MBHiii 17:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Dispite adding quotations to show usage of the phrase (most taken from various book and movie reviews), the article remains little more than a Dictionary Definition per WP:DICDEF. Also, without a reliable source to tie the disperate usages together it remains an uncited OR synthesis per WP:ATT. The article needs a reliable source that discusses what the "Southern Mafia" is, where it came from and how it has developed over time. Blueboar 14:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What? Are you saying that a Wikipedia article showing disperate (sic) usages, that are each cited or sourced, cannot stand alone without another citation or source showing all those same disparate usages? Where does it say that? --MBHiii 16:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not when they are being used to make a point... It says it at the WP:SYNT section of WP:ATT and is further highlighted in a foot note in that section where it says: Jimmy Wales has discussed the problem of unpublished syntheses of existing material, stating: "Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history." (Wales, Jimmy. "Original research", December 6, 2004) Blueboar 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where? Disparate means different and not related. I am NOT creating novel theories or synthesizing anything. Where do you get that? What, precisely, is synthesized? If you can't answer this, change your vote. --MBHiii 18:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to change my vote ... if the concerns that have been raised by myself and others were actually addressed in the article. So far they have not. A synthesis occurs when you place two seperate ideas together so that they form a conclusion, whether stated outright or implied. In one sentence you talk about "traditional and ongoing criminal enterprise" and "organized crime". In the next you mention "conservative Congressmen from the South working together for a shared purpose". The clear implication to the reader is that that criminal activity and conservative congressmen have a connection. Whether this is "true" or not does not matter, we (as editors) can not make these connections ourselves... we need to cite reliable secondary sources that make such connections for us. Blueboar 19:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, "separate" like "disparate" is spelled with an "a" in the middle. Second, you may not infer something that is not explicitly implied. That's a real synthesis on your part! As in any dictionary or encyclopedia, I am simply listing separate and disparate uses of the term. If they need to be more physically separated on the page (say, Usage#1, then Usage#2), just do it. Apart from that, what else is there? --MBHiii 20:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just because an article has a ton of sources doesn't mean it can't be orignal research as well. Let me explain by example:
Suppose someone thinks that a new Ford Motor Company advertising campaign has hidden racist messgages in it.
They go online and find a few books/magazines that explain what subliminal messages are and what racism is defined as.
Then they go and find a summary of the ad campaign.
They write an article explaining their ideas and citing their sources.
However, none of their sources explicitly states that the ad campaign is racist, its all done by inferring facts based on the cited source material.
Therefore, although the article is well cited, it is still OR.
Based on the above debate, this seems to be the problem here. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 21:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems to be the problem, but where? Criminals and politcians that are not linked, remain so forever, until they are linked in some clear way. Mentioning two thoughts on the same page does not link them, other than, in this case, as separate and disparate uses of the same term. You all should stop imputing things that aren't there. --MBHiii 21:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And you shouldn't add text to my comments. What I was trying to explain is that an article can be OR even if you give sources. The sources need to explicitly say what you say in the article. Many of the sources on the article only mention the Southern Mafia, in popular culture. I see nothing that connects "a traditional and ongoing criminal enterprise" to "The Southern Mafia in the Senate." I wasn't comparing your article to an ad campaign, that was merely an example. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as a neologism. Note that per WP:NEO, Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, multiple literary uses are documented here, going back 14 years to 1993. Scarfone seems to use "Dixie-Mafia" and "Southern Mafia" interchangeably (online). Granting that Dixie Mafia is a synonym, it is absolutely spelled out and nailed down by Swearingen and Lee, in 1990 (also online). --MBHiii 22:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of which makes for a wonderful Wiktionary entry... but not a Wikipedia article.Blueboar 22:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Literary uses" = the words "Southern" and "mafia" are used in conjunction in books and magazines. What is needed is a reason that these two words belong next to each other for some specific reason. As it is, you just have a collection of referenced occasions that the words have been put next to each other. You need to show that the words next to each other have meaning beyond what the two words mean alone. There isn't any one specific group here that is called the Southern mafia (except groups that also go by other names?). In fact, each reference in the article weakens the case that an article is needed, as most of them are talking about a different thing. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, redirect to Dixie Mafia which needs the references. --MBHiii 23:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Objection - I really have to object to redirecting the article the way you did ... Perhaps I have misinterpreted your motivations, but redirecting an article that is in the middle of an AfD debate comes across as a back handed attempt to save the material in violation of the process ... which in turn comes across as a POV ploy. All this redirect does is shift the problem to another article. The material is still a dicdef and is still a violation of WP:SYNT. Plus the article into which it was moved has it's own issues with lack of citation (ie it had none prior to your redirect). Blueboar 12:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, it had a lack of citations tag and only one ref. (anti-snitching) all of which is astounding, since you added that tag (now gone). --216.77.231.87 14:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with Blueboar that the redirect/merge mid-debate like that was inappropriate. Shunting the material over on to another article, regardless of how well that other article may or may not be established, is not the way to fix the problem. All it does is turn Dixie Mafia into a poor, unsourced article. I will assume good faith here and go under the impression that the merge was an honest attempt to fix the problem how you best saw fit, but please be aware that it very much appears to be an attempt to play a shell game by simply hiding the content elsewhere. Arkyan 16:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced was exactly its condition until all the references, specific to Dixe Mafia, were added.

W.r.t. the SYN issue, "comparing and contrasting" are stock in trade for this kind of writing, and a separate and disparate use is certainly a contrast worth noting. That's all. --MBHiii 16:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MBHiii, This really isn't the forum to explain how WP:SYNT works... I will respond on your talk page and try to explain further. Blueboar 17:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:SYN, "that precise analysis (A+B=C expressed by the author) must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia."

In the Smith and Jones case, the author analyzed what Jones did (A) in light of some standard the author chose (B) to assert Smith may have been wrong about Jones (C) without citing a souce who agrees with the analysis. He takes A from one source, B from another, and asserts C on his own.

But here, there is no "Conclusion C." What are you saying are the A+B=C? If you assert I imply C, first of all that's not in WP:SYN, and if you do so on the basis of two different meanings of a term sitting on the same page, you'd better not read any dictionaries, your head might explode from possibilities.

Finally, there is nothing I "say in the article ... that connects a traditional and ongoing criminal enterprise to The Southern Mafia in the Senate." - Mr.Z-man(above) It's you, making it up.

Note, wording changes to be less of a DICDEF and focus more on the two, separated subjects - no HOAX. --MBHiii 03:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update - With recent changes to the article, especially re-paragraphing, SYN is indeed much less of an issue. Unfortunately Dicdef still is an issue. The article basically says that a whole bunch of people have used this term, and then gives quotes of them doing so. It is an article about the use of the term "Southern Mafia" instead of an article about the concept of a "Southern Mafia". That is a DICDEF. Blueboar 12:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another update - note recent expansion and rewording to address remaining DICDEF issue. --MBHiii 13:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - First, the entire recent update is a cut-and-paste from your source which is a potential WP:COPYVIO. You can't do that. Second, it doesn't help address the DICDEF issues anyway. Third, the subject of that particular source is the "Dixie Mafia", not the "Southern Mafia". Your assertion in the article that "Scarfone uses the terms 'Dixie Mafia' and 'Southern Mafia' in the same work, therefore we can establish Dixie Mafia = Southern Mafia, and therefore any reference to Dixie Mafia can be treated as a reference to Southern Mafia" is the very core definition of WP:SYN.
I have to commend the effort you are putting in to trying to save this article. It shows a lot of editorial perseverance and dedication that are very good traits and I for one appreciate your enthusiasm. Wikipedia can always use such tenacious editing! Unfortunately I think the problem with this article is that the "Southern Mafia" simply does not exist beyond a mere term of use and just can't be expanded beyond a dicdef - nothing out there seems to support anything more than that, and no amount of sourcing in examples will cure that fact. The zeal you are showing in trying to find sources leads me to believe that if they were there, you would have found them by now. Arkyan 15:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere between SYN and COPYVIO must be room to write. Note, new rewriting so as not to cut-and-paste. Another more direct example of Dixie Mafia = Southern Mafia has been cited. It's amazing to me that, still, you don't believe it exists, so I added the case about which Hume wrote. --MBHiii 17:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MBHiii, there is tons of room to write between SYN and COPYVIO ... Don't simply quote what the sources have said, write about what those sources have said. Also, I don't think anyone is saying that the Southern Mafia doesn't exist... We are simply saying that the way you are writing about it constitutes either OR or DICDEF. You keep going from one extreme to the other... without substantive statements discussing what the Southern Mafia is, where it came from, how it developed, etc. the article is nothing more than a dicdef stating that the term exists. When you try to add substance... you don't cite any reliable source to back up your substantive statements, which swings the article into violating NOR and SYN. Blueboar 18:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note 1. removal of key erroneously cited blog ref and extraneous quotations from fiction 2. addition of areas of operation and summaries of operation from key refs cited. BTW on the discussion page, you said "The issue is whether such a thing as a 'Southern Mafia' actually exists." I hope by now all doubt's removed by this article. --MBHiii 03:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knacker's yard

Knacker's yard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Richard 07:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted by Xiner[13]. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 20:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Alli Muhammad

Dr. Alli Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail notability and verifiability guidelines. Few ghits (or alternate spelling}, and sources are from myspace. NMChico24 07:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Talib_Talib

I do not agree that this article “Appears to fail notability and verifiability guidelines” or is not notable. The article refers to this person whether myspace or not. The link is audible and clear on what he believes and organizes according to his beliefs which are proven in his (audible-audio) lectures which are placed on myspace. Who said myspace was not notable or verifiable? Myspace is reliable. Myspace has rules and criteria and if someone writes a page on myspace and it is not correct, notable, verifiable, offensive or “libel” it will be removed from myspace. And myspace is also affiliated with CNN. Myspace is notable and verifiable(as everyone from political figures, political organizations, businesses to artist have a page there) and there are many “wikipedia pages” which uses or refers to myspace as a source. Do not be slanted in your view and misquote verifiability or notability. How notable and verifiable do you get, this guys actual lectures and speeches are on (audio) on myspace and the actual existence of his page and speeches (being there) is a very verifiable and notable source. I have also found flyers and postings of his lectures and speeches as well by going to the page. --Talib_Talib 19:24, 18 March 2007

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yellowstone National Park. Daniel Bryant 02:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mallard Lake trail

Mallard Lake trail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A stub of two sentences- a non-notable nature trail. Very few edits, and no other articles linking to it. CattleGirl talk | sign! | review me 07:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with some other article in Category:Yellowstone. YechielMan 17:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Yellowstone National Park or merge to an appropriate article from above. --Wafulz 00:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletions. -- CosmicPenguin (Talk) 01:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Yellowstone National Park. This trail is beautiful (I've hiked it) but isn't especially noted and featured enough for an encyclopedic article. One reason (not mentioned in the nominated stub) that it's noted among a small circle of biologists is that it's been studied for regrowth since the 1988 fires that were reported worldwide; thousands of new trees have been growing among stands of utterly burnt trunks. A Google search shows that the trail is listed in some trail guides that are independent of the National Park Service (Yellowstone's caretaker), as well as less attributable sources such as personal hiking blogs, but I don't think there's enough. Maybe a Park naturalist could provide enough history and book citations (such as Aubrey Haines' and Lee Whittlesey's books, I haven't checked Google Books) to make a new article, in which case it should be welcomed. But this stub doesn't assert any notability nor provide any sources. I'm not aware of much historical relevance, and if the trail has some attributable sources that are more like "featured" rather than "passing mention" or "directory entry", this belongs in Yellowstone National Park which doesn't currently have a trails section, let alone a "Trails of ..." breakout article that Mallard Lake Trail might be merged to. Barno 15:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Redirect. I have hiked this trail too -- takes about three hours round trip if one goes slowly to take in the beauty. I think this would be a good article if expanded properly.

Billy Hathorn 03:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I see that NPS (and USGS) sources are the vast majority of references for the Glacier articles; they're reasonable authoritative, but not very independent. Some third-party sources would be nice. There are enough books about Yellowstone's trails, backcountry, and history to write a trails section if we can devote enough time to it. This would be better broken out as a topic than split among geographic regions, in YNP's case, because the best trails either link two or more developed areas, or start in backcountry and go deeper (such as Bechler). I'm considering starting a draft in a user subpage, and getting interested people to improve it there and cite the Haines and Whittlesey books, so it won't get AfD'ed like this stub. This trail's article exists because someone wanted a place to put one photo of a stump, with no other claim of notability or interest such as the fire-regrowth studies; it won't help for the YNP article nor for the "Trails of ..." article I might write. Barno 22:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel Bryant 07:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tyrell (drug trafficker)

Michael Tyrell (drug trafficker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The subject of this biographical article is non-notable. There are few sources to justify this article other than the one crime report provided by the Evening Standard.-- Zleitzen(talk) 21:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A criminal who committed a routine crime, unlikely to be of lasting or widespread interest. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N AlfPhotoman 22:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (original author) I would hardly think that the smuggling one of the largest shipments of cocaine into Great Britain by a well known Carribean based drug trafficker to be a routine crime. There are quite a few news reports available for a subsciption fee at Google's news archive. MadMax 03:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. There's been some discussion, although no apparent consensus, about the standards that news reports about crimes need to rise to in order to be proper encyclopedia subjects. Versus the obvious fact that they typically do usually meet the basic standard of disinterested, third party coverage, there is the sense that we ought not to be creating a memorial to every crime or criminal. As to the specifics of this crime, while half a ton of cocaine is nothing to sniff at — aye, it's a great deal to sniff at — it isn't particularly impressive by U.S. standards; there are at least several thousand people in U.S. prisons who could top that. There are, of course, also WP:LIBEL considerations when living dealing with people who are accused, or stand convicted of crimes. Have any important legal or police precedents been set by his case? - Smerdis of Tlön 18:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may certainly be true by U.S. standards, and while that may be an unfair comparison, by British (and arguably European) standards it is one of the largest ever to be smuggled into the country. It was also the subject one of the largest survailance operations undertaken by British customs officials. Additionally, his wife and co-conspiraitor Julie Paterson, apparently a personal friend of actor Timothy Dalton, was sentenced the largest prison term ever given to a female drug trafficker. All of the points are stated and cited in the article. Also, if there is discussion on establishing notability on criminals, WikiProject Crime or any of its related projects may also be interested in contributing to the discussion. MadMax 20:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Although I believe that that the scale of the crime makes it a worthy article, it is based upon such an unreliable source (a single article in the Evening Standard), is lacking in detail and contains so many flaws that it should be deleted. For a start, Michael Tyrrell is spelt with 2 "r's" and he was not married to Julie Paterson (she was a former girlfriend). Michael Tyrrell's partner was Jill Fuller and between them they bought four properties in the UK with a value exceeding £1 million. One of these properties was Orchard Bay House on the Isle of Wight and it was here that the smuggling operation took place. It was Jill Fuller who was convicted of money laundering (not Julie Paterson) and she got a sentence of 4 years. Jill Fuller was a friend of Timothy Dalton and he was a character witness at her trial. Julie Paterson did indeed receive 24 years, the longest sentence for a female trafficker in the UK, although this was subsequently reduced to 22 years on appeal. The comment that this crime is small by American standards is not a good reason for deleting this article but it so fundamentally flawed, it should go. Negferret 14:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are obvious flaws or otherwise innaccurate information, then it should be corrected, not deleted. As I live outside the UK, my sources are limited to internet news articles and reference books generally between 5-10 years out of date. However, I would assume editors from Great Britain would be able to provide more substansial inforation and references. Obviously as this infomation has since been corrected, this issue should be resolved. MadMax 23:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about Michael Tyrell. See, for example, (i) Whitehead , Tom. (April 29, 2002 ) PA NEWS Drug smuggler's girlfriend guilty of money laundering. ; (ii) The Scotsman (April 30, 2002) Drug money laundered. Page 6.; (iii) The Daily Mirror (July 2, 2002) 007 pal in drug plot: Close friend of James Bond star Timothy Dalton jailed for part in a pounds 40 million drugs plot. Section:News; Page 15.; (iv) Daily Record (Scotland) (July 2, 2002) Cocaine baron's wife gets 4 years. Section: News; Page 19.; (v) PA NEWS (December 17, 2002) Operation 'eyeful': Two jailed for drug trafficking - British woman. ; (vi) Dovkants, Keith. (December 20, 2002) Evening Standard From country girl to Cocaine Queen She was a farmer's daughter who walked out on her marriage to the scion of a Norfolk dynasty for the glitz of the Caribbean yachting set. Then Julie Paterson fell obsessively in love with a self-confessed drug runner ... Page 1819.; (vii) Kirby, Jane. (April 25, 2003) PA NEWS Money laundering woman faces more jail.; (viii) Dowell, Ben; Clarke, Liam. (May 16, 2004) The Sunday Times (UK) IRA chief joins criminal 'elite' with Euro 50m fortune. Section: Home news; Page 9. -- Jreferee 06:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The same case could be made for George Jung or Zachary Swann, however both men are also considered notable drug dealers as well. While it would be unfair to compare between American and British drug traffickers (given the larger customer base, supply/demand, street value, etc.), the fact remains Tyrell's career is just as notable as a number of drug traffickers already existing on Wikipedia. MadMax 23:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, there are few sources available online at this point but they do attest to the "record £100M haul", so there's that. The article could use a touch-up, but with these sources I suppose it passes WP:N. I would move to Michael Tyrrell as about 4-5 times as many sources have that spelling. -- Dhartung | Talk 08:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep mmm, drugs. Nardman1 13:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The sources cited are mostly from what is known as the 'gutter press' which thrive on salacious gossip and are known for sensationalism. It is laughable to rely on such tittle tattle. When time allows, I'll present further information from reliable sources such as the UK Government agencies and the BBC. The article should not be published until it is corrected Negferret 18:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Keep the criterion for criminal notability is still ambiguous, but I think this article does fit the general criteria of inclusion set by WP:BIO, since the person has been main subject of articles on several national newspapers. Until new rules for notability of criminals are set by wiki community, I say now we should keep it, at least for now. Wooyi 04:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as many sources appear to exist. The fact that many of those sources are not available online is a horrible argument. Please imagine for a second what Wikipedia would look like if we would not allow offline sources. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, certainly not an ordinary criminal, notable... notorious enough. --FateClub 20:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the addition of multiple references by Jreferee (see diff) that establish the notability of the subject. Arguments for deletion presented so far are either no longer applicable (only one source) or subjective and unconvincing ("routine crime", "so he smuggled drugs"). -- Black Falcon 03:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the recent sources provided, subject meets and exceeds our standards for notability. RFerreira 03:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UCodit

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

NN open source search engine. Article links to news articles on Krugle, but that is a completely different website. JLaTondre 15:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 08:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable. Once again we seem to confuse things which verifiably exist, and those which are notable. This fails notabilty criteria, including primary notability criteria. Where are the multiple articles 'about' this bit of software? An obscure mention does not count. No disrespect to the folks who wrote this code, but it is one of many bits of non-notable code.Obina 09:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 08:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Marlette

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

Does not seem to satisfy WP:BIO. Unless I'm missing something, he seems to be a fairly obscure cartoonist; who has won only a few awards, all of which seem to be relatively minor; and the most notable thing about him seems to be his involvement in a very brief controversy about one of his cartoons at a college newspaper. Purifiedwater 20:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 15:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Kramer (politician)

Steve Kramer (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

See first nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Kramer (politician) 1st nomination. Delete Non-notable and not sourced. GreenJoe 03:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Co-chair of significant national party clearly establishes notability. AfD two months ago was unanimous keep. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 03:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not notable. It simply means you chair something. Besides, they have 7 co-chairs. That's hardly notable. GreenJoe 03:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I think this nomination is pretty inappropriate given the very recent, unanimous keep vote. Links to Green party websites verifying some of the info on this page seem to have been added in response to the unreferenced tag. You don't seem to be bringing any new information or arguments with this nomination. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 03:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I agree with Rustavo. The article could probably be beefed up a bit, but I think it is notable. Slavlin 03:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable major figure in minor party. more than local significance.DGG 06:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly notable, the lack of reliable third party sources in this case is due to a systemic bias by American media outlets and publications, third parties simply don't receive the coverage that the two major parties do but being a co chair of the most important third party (currently) in the U.S. is certainly notable. IvoShandor 09:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. May only be a big player in second-tier politics, but is a big player nevertheless and visible on the national stage. Notability is pretty evident. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Co-chair of a very notable political party. And I notice this nom is speedy tagging, prodding and AfDing a majority of Green Party member articles. Could be a bad faith nom. --Oakshade 16:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I always cringe when people claim systemic bias with regards to political articles. I'm also not sure whether being one of seven co-chairs of the party makes him notable. The complete lack of sourcing in the article makes me uncomfortable. Even the Greens' news clippings page only brings up five items when searching for 'Kramer' - and they're all from 2003. Going against the grain here, I know, but delete. (And the other co-chair that currently has an article. Rebecca Rotzler, doesn't look good either.} Tony Fox (arf!) 20:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may indeed cringe but are clearly mistaken if you believe the American media covers third parties with the same vigor they do the two major parties. IvoShandor 02:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus, defaulting to keep. Shimeru 08:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force One in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Trivial information that neither needs its own article nor a section in Air Force One. Besides, the only notable thing on the page is on the film of the same name. SeizureDog 09:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Air Force One ? Manik Raina
  • Keep. The article was created to move the popular culture references away from the main article. If deleted people will start to add them into the main text again, making maintenance of the text more annoying than it needs to be. In any case do not merge anything back, please, that would be step back in quality. Pavel Vozenilek 11:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree it shouldn't be merged back, but to keep it on grounds of being too lazy to make sure it's not re-added to the main article doesn't seem justified.--SeizureDog 12:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh good, we have a volunteer! Bear in mind that there are TWO articles (Air Force One and Boeing VC-25) which deal with the current AF1s, and you'll have to watch them both. I RESENT your assertion that editors who don't wan't to deal with the cruft are simply lazy. I have fought cruft for months here on Wiki, and they do NOT add THEMSELVES. Many crufters will fight tooth-and-nail to keep their items in the articles (see Talk:F-15 Eagle's battle over Transformers). As I detail below, as long as Wiki policy permits itms like these, they have to go somewhere. I have yet to encounter a crufter who objects to having a separate page for their items, but they just want them on Wiki. I am totally for banning ALL unsourced cruft, and will join you in this fight if you want to challege the current rules. But for now, having pop-culture pages is an acceptable compromise on the issue under Wiki's current policies and guidelines. - BillCJ 16:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I much agree here. Trying to maintain a popular article where people add pop-culture references every day gets futile after a short while. The leaf pages, IME, lessen the maintenance burden significantly. Pavel Vozenilek 15:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in popular culture. The way to fix bloated "in pupular culture" cruft is to prune it, not to split it out into new "articles" composed of nothing but cruft. Guy (Help!) 12:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The way to fix bloated pop-culture items is to BAN them, esp. since most are unsourced. Until then, these articles are legitimate, and should remain. This IS a PRUNED list; I participated in the pruning on several occasions. - BillCJ 16:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and the rest of popular culture with it AlfPhotoman 15:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article was created (by me) after a split of the Air Force One page (which covers the history of the name and callsign), and the Boeing VC-25 page (which covers the current planes uses as AF1). Because of the split, it was confusing to have two separate Pop culture sections in both articles, with the same items being added to each list by editors unaware of the other list. ALL items on this page at this point are there because of consenus over several months of editing and pruning of the list on the main article. Most serious avialtion editors in Project AIrcraft would rather not have pop-culture items at all, but as long as Wikipedia permits them, pages such as this are a suitable compromise. I will oppose re-adding this material back into the main article on that page, if it happens. It will only cause confusion in the furture. If you don't like cruft, then try get Wiki policy changed to ban it; deleting pages like this is not the way to go. As long as crufters feel they are allowed to add their cruft to Wikipedia, it has to go somewhere; better here than cluttering up the main articles. - BillCJ 16:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - an indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture any reference to a president's being on a plane, since "Air Force One" refers to any airplane on which the POTUS happens to be flying. Better here than in the main article is a terrible justification for these "...in popular culture" articles. If editors don't want the material in the articles they maintain, then they should remove it and keep removing it instead of dumping the problem off on another set of editors by splitting it off. Otto4711 16:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless it's vandalism, repeatedly removing items will violate WP:3RR. This is official policy, not a guidline, and some idiot admin will block me for it. So in the real world, your suggestion to keep deleting is just not practical, and VIOLATES policy. Besides, crufters have friends, and they can gang up to form a concensus to keep the most inane items imaginable, and then you're screwed. - BillCJ 17:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still, if someone keeps re-adding the same cruft, and I keep deleting it, it's a content dispute. Deleting repetedly-added material is not a preferred way of handling content disputes on Wiki. - BillCJ 19:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with BillC. Until a policy is created banning such articles, they have a right to exist if their topic is notable enough, can be sourced, is non-POV, etc. This topic is notable enough to justify an "in popular culture" article. 23skidoo 16:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And again, that's a guideline, not a policy. In this case, it's better here than in TWO places, as explained in detail above. Whether one like Pop-culture pages or not, one really should consider the actual intent here, which could have been uncovered by a little reasearch. It was easy to find out who created the page, and ask the creator why he felt it necessary. But that was not done in this case (others might accuse one of being lazy). - BillCJ 19:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that it's an essay. At no time did I suggest that it was anything other than an essay so I'm unclear as to why you felt the need to remind me of it. Essay or not, BHTT is still a piss-poor argument and if the best or only reason for having an article is because the information in it is trivial clutter from the main article, then that ought to be an indication that the information shouldn't be anywhere. I also understand why you thought it was necessary. Thinking that you couldn't possibly be more wrong in your reasoning doesn't mean that I don't understand your reasoning. The big problem with your reasoning is that now, instead of there being two articles to monitor for garbage content, there are three. That doesn't really strike me as accomplishing, well, anything. Otto4711 21:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not really a BHTT argument, because the Pop-culture content is sufficient for a stand-alone article. The case at WP:BHTT deals with splitting unsuitable content, rather than deleting it. In this case, cruft has been pruned, and the article contains substantial items like major motion pictures, books, etc. Dhaluza 21:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not all "trivia" references are trivial. Some are important. The summary style link in Air Force One is excellently written leading to this breakout article. The subject matter of this article includes notable books by well-known authors, high-budget Hollywood movies, and songs, of which Air Force One is the primary subject, not a mere mention in passing. This kind of article is an excellent reference intersection of several items on the same subject matter but which aren't otherwise linked. SchmuckyTheCat 19:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambivalent, delete it or keep it, but do not merge with Air Force 1. Good technical and encyclopaedic articles are distracted by excessive trivia and are ruined by volumes of cruft. Emoscopes Talk 20:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the Air Force One article is long, and splitting off a section is normal editorial practice, as was splitting off Boeing VC-25 because it was an obvious content dividing line. Further splitting off the popular culture is a logical choice, because the relationships to the main article are more tangential, and including the trivia in both articles is redundant. With a major motion picture, books, etc. there is more than enough verifiable content for a stand-alone pop-culture article. The arguments here against popular culture content sound like WP:IDON'TLIKEIT IMHO. Dhaluza 21:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Given AF1's use in so many films and other media, this article should be there. -Fnlayson 21:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The material is notable by definition (especially the films and TV references), and yes, there actually are people interested in cultural references to aircraft such as this one. This article and others like it, are part of an effort of WP:AIR to accommodate information that needs to be mentioned somewhere other than in the aircraft's technical article. Akradecki 02:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BillCJ, Akradecki, Fnlayson, and others, although I will say that I'm not the least bit happy about the creeping fancruft in aviation articles either (and completely agree with Bill's reasoning for creating this article).--chris.lawson 03:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Guy's comments. Splitting articles into other articles is good when it's notable things: not trivia. Wikipedia isn't a trivia/pop culture guide. Small sections are fine in articles: if it gets big, prune it... don't seperate it into a cruft article. RobJ1981 03:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as indiscriminate list. Why not rebroach the topic of cruft?--Mmx1 18:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear god no! Please don't create any kind of policy solely for the purpose of allowing or disallowing "in popular culture" articles. Case-by-case consideration, even if time-consuming, is the best approach. That said, most of this article is verifiable and indeed verified through primary sources (i.e., the films, books, etc. themselves). However, the main article has a short "in popular culture" section that I believe is an adequate replacement for this list (although it could use selective expansion--of analysis, not additional instances). So, redirect without merging to Air Force One as this is a plausible search term. -- Black Falcon 03:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Neisz

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

Not notable. Prod removed. Dweller 09:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hatesex

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

WP:OR, a dicdef, and a copyright violation to top everything off (compare to here). I'm not even sure if the band is notable either... SeizureDog 10:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 vandalism. - Bobet 17:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Golden Briefs

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

Unverifiable, this just may be a hoax, well, I can't find anything that verifies this, anywhere. Gelreoz-0 10:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Freedom Life

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

Google search turns up nothing. Creator is almost certainly a sockpuppet of banned user Lyle123; he's been creating these types of hoax animated film articles for several months now. He also created The Wild II (which had been deleted twice) under a separate nickname. That article is also up for deletion over here. Esn 10:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, this article has been deleted once already for being a hoax. Esn 10:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Wizardman 00:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia High School (Florida)

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

Reason summed up with one word: "And?" Another non-notable school. Edit: Article has since greatly improved. It should not take a AFD to make an article keepable though. The people creating school articles need to get in the habit of establishing notability well before it's nominated for deletion. SeizureDog 10:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was closed; a non-copyvio version was in article history; reverted to it. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 16:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bailie Nicol Jarvie

Bailie Nicol Jarvie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is directly copied from product website TS Astra22 10:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel Bryant 02:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2003 Demo

2003 Demo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Content-free article on an unpublished demo single by a non-notable band Iridescenti 10:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete self-published albums in general (there may be exceptions, but nothing indicates that this is one of them), just like self-published books. Punkmorten 11:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The band does meet the notability requirements. They have six albums to their credit at the present time according to the article about them. Additionally, notability in itself is not a criterion for deletion. That being said, my concern is that there are not any sources listed. As a result none of the tracks or information can be verified. If the author of the page can find some credible sources, then I think the page should stay. --Cyrus Andiron t/c 15:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator I haven't nominated the band (although on closer inspection three of those six albums appear to be self-published), but just this album which appears to be an unreleased demo with nothing in the text to indicate any kind of significance. I recognise that some unreleased albums, eg the Beach Boys' Smile or Big Star's Sister Lovers, are genuinely notable but there's nothing to indicate it here. Iridescenti 15:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My comment about the notability of the band was directed at the post above mine. I understand that you did not nominate the band. I was simply pointing out that they did have some degree of notability. As I said before, because this is a demo, the author of the page is going to need to provide sources for the content of the article. Otherwise, there is no way to prove that the album even exists. If the author is unable or unwilling to provide sources then the article should be deleted as per the nomination. I was not arguing for the album, I was merely stating that it needed sources in accordance with Wikipedia policy. --Cyrus Andiron t/c 17:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Inquisition

Islamic Inquisition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Comment: Can the page be protected from recreation, seeing how its been deleted twice before? - Ozzykhan 14:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: Yes, it is possible that the page can be protected from recreation. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protected_deleted_pages

- Kernel_NickM 7:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • restore, There is no 'political aim' behind creating the page, the phenomenon is huge, that it's unfair to ignore it in a encyclopedia, it's a wave, a movement.

To: Ozzykhan 14, It was never deleted (as far to my knowledge)! PS Criticizing radicals is in no way an "attack" anyone. Historianism 07:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See deletion log: [14] Ozzykhan 14:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru 08:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BugBox (software)

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

Advert for non-notable software. Survived a previous VFD but the standards have changed since then while the article has not. MER-C 11:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - all revisions of this article appear to be a copyright violation with the initial revision taken from http://wiki.ittoolbox.com/index.php/Topic:PRINCE2_Software and then new material added from the same source. Or what is more likely, both this article and the ittoolbox entry were copied from internal promotional material. The article does not meet the WP:CORP recommendations for products and services or establish notability with respect to the WP:SOFTWARE criteria, citing multiple independent reliable sources. There is substantial evidence that the main contributors to this article are editing with a conflict of interest. Aside from entries made as part of these conflict of interest edits, no article links here, so in that sense there is no demand for the article. ✤ JonHarder talk 13:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless the references for the software can be satisified. --Sigma 7 14:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Software is notable according to example on Wikipedia software guidelines page: PC Tools satisfies this criterion [software notability] because it was the subject of a full-length magazine review in the October 1991 edition of Compute!. BugBox software has independent review published on official APM Group website.Stevo 12:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)StephenAshurst[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. There is an important distinction to be made here between the book and the possible seccessionist movements themselves, in that nothing has been advanced here to show that the former is notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civil War II: The Coming Breakup of America

Civil War II: The Coming Breakup of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a book review for a book which was briefly published by American Eagle Publications, which is hardly what one would call a mainstream publishing house, and is now an ebook. No evidence of any scholarly discussion of this book that I can see, the closest we get to a claim of notability is this: In about 2001 there was a made-for-TV-movie about a Civil War II that started in 2020 with a Chicano revolt in the Southwest that appeared on a cable channel with a scenario very similar to but not based directly on Chittum's book. Er, right, so it was not made into a film then. The Wikipedia article is obviously written from personal knowledge, not a distillation of the cited sources (because there aren't any). Guy (Help!) 11:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Fails notability. Also WP:ATT, WP:RS and probably WP:COI. --Folantin 14:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete American Eagle Publications is an organization that exists primarily so its founder can publish books about computer virus writing that (presumably) nobody else would publish due to the obvious legal risks in doing so. Its books, with one or two exceptions, are not notable. This is not an exception. Also, the article The Next American Nation: The New Nationalism and the Fourth American Revolution may need attention, as it seems to contain a reference to this book. JulesH 14:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are a lot of secessionist groups listed in the "see also" list that want to secede from the United States. Even though these groups are small as of 2007, secessionist sentiment is an important political issue that may need to be addressed in the near future, especially since there is a possibility that the Peak Oil situation which may develop in within the next five years or so may make sentiments favoring secessionist movements more prevalent. In addition, the science fiction book by Geordi LaForge and the 2001 TV movie shows that others are thinking along these lines (the TV movie and the science fiction book even showed the United States breaking up into White, Black, and Hispanic republics, just like Chittum's book). There are no cited sources because nobody wants to address an unpopular viewpoint that is so pessimistic, but it is a viewpoint that should be heard and that people should be aware of. Keraunos 04:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That the topic of the book is an important subject is no reason to have an article on the book. Where are the reliable secondary sources we can use to verify commentary on the subject? JulesH 20:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [Editor has five edits, all to this page] The book Civil War Two: The Coming Breakup of America is a major landmark on the American Right. As such, it is simply too important to lack Wikipedia coverage. It boldly picked up where certain other works left off such as "The Fallacy of the Multiethnic State: The Case of Yugoslavia," by Tomislav Sunic that appeared in a 1990 edition of the Conservative Review, and ""Militant Musings: From Nightmare 1995 to My Utopian 2050" by William S. Lind that appeared in the April 30, 1995 Sunday Washington Post. I was so impressed with this work that in the summer of 2006 I went out of my way to meet the author. Later that fall I spent over a week of my time personally crafting the new ebook version for America First Books. I also explained in the Preface that I wrote for this new edition why I view it as very timely and relevant even though it is now over a decade since its first publication in 1996. Please note the very positive reviews for the out-of-print soft cover version at amazon.com. It has five reviews with the maximum five-star ratings each, and one review with four stars. Also, on right wing talk shows I have heard listeners spontaneously bring up Mr. Chittum's work to talk show hosts many times. This happened four different times in the spring and summer of 2006 on Michael Collins Piper's talk show on Republic Broadcasting Network, which helped inspire Mike Piper to have Tom Chittum on his show twice in the fall. In fact, illegal immigration control activist Frosty Wooldridge, who now has his own talk show on the Republic Broadcasting Network, wrote a two-part feature article series about Civil War Two posted online in December 2006 at freedomsphoenix.com (see Part Oneand Part Two). Earlier, when Mr. Wooldridge was being interviewed by John Stadtmiller on his National Intel Report show, a person called in and stimulated a lengthy discussion about this book. Between Mike Piper, John Stadtmiller, and Frosty Wooldridge, the tone was fairly similar to my own in the Preface that I wrote for the ebook, namely that the issues that Tom Chittum has addressed burn even hotter today than ten years ago. Therefore, one might fear that any efforts to delete Civil War Two: The Coming Breakup of America from Wikipedia could be construed as a form of thought police suppression. After all, "secessionism" and "seperatism" are both regarded by many Americans as the ultimate "thought crime." All of this is actually a strong argument to not only keep the Civil War Two: The Coming Breakup of America article, but to also expand it out with more discussion. We need to confront our worst fears, not hide from them. Wikipedia also needs to avoid a taint of partisan censorship. As soon as I get through submitting this input, I am sending emails to Frosty Wooldridge and Mike Piper. I think the mere idea that folks involved with Wikipedia might entertain booting out the Civil War Two article would make a good topic for an open public forum discussion on their talk shows. And finally, in regard to comments that this work may be "pessimistic" or "depressing," although I dislike violence as opposed to peaceful means for achieving political objectives, I personally find the highly centralized, de facto bankrupt, arrogant, restrictive, and over-taxing Federal government that we have today more depressing than the possibility that North America might some day return back towards decentralized political structures closer to what the anti-Federalists contemplated in the 1780's, when they represented the majority opinion in America. User:William B. Fox
    • Comment note that the above contributor has a conflict of interest as the publisher of the current edition of this book. Furthermore, there is nothing here that argues within established wikipedia policy for keeping the article: the suggestion that the book is a "major landmark" is merely Mr. Fox's opinion; the two published articles whose themes it continues are irrelevant; Amazon reviews (other than editorial reviews, of which there are none for this book) are not reliable sources, so cannot be used to determine notability; callers to phone-in radio shows are not reliable sources; freedomsphoenix.com is a questionable source per the definition at WP:ATT.
    • Rebuttal Comment I have worked in brokerage businesses in real estate and Wall Street where it is perfectly legal and ethical to have potential conflicts of interests (which are in fact unavoidable as a broker) as long as they are openly disclosed. I have openly disclosed my background, purpose, and potential conflicts of interests. Often people who are closest to a topic and who can provide some of the most insightful inputs also suffer potential conflicts of interest, therefore if everyone is screened out who might have a conflict of interest, Wikipedia could lose some very valuable input. I think that evidence of popular grass roots support can be a form of "free market place of ideas" citation for Mr. Chittum's works, even if his self-taught background and blunt style may not be particularly stylish for many academic journals supported by government-funded institutions. I can point to nationally prominent authors and academics who have given talks and published papers that have strong similarities to many points that Mr. Chittum makes, even though they might not openly cite him specifically. For example, the prominent maverick liberal Gore Vidal gave his Nov 4, 1994 talk to the National Press Club titled "Confederacy of States" which described desirable aspects of future fragmentation of the U.S. and devolution of the U.S. Government. The prominent anarcho-libertarian scholar Dr. Murray Rothbard defended secessionism and separatism in his archived lectures at Mises.org. See "Nations By Consent: Decomposing the Nation State" (PDF file) by Dr. Murray Rothbard. Journal of Libertarian Studies, Fall 1994. See also: "Secession Reconsidered" (PDF file), Robert W. McGee, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Fall 1994. User:William B. Fox
    • Furthermore, "Wikipedia also needs to avoid a taint of partisan censorship" is not a valid reason not to delete the article. Wikipedia has clear rules, most importantly WP:NOT and its subsidiary guideline WP:N that require evidence be presented (usually in the form of secondary sources in reliable publications, by which we mean those that have strict editorial controls and no blatant extremist political bias) that the subject of its articles is generally considered important. This evidence is lacking in the case of this book. JulesH 20:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rebuttal Comment Who are the real extremists? In his book The Age of Uncertainty, the late Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith observed that most Americans are stunned when they first read the Communist Manifesto and see how many items on Marx's platform have become a reality in America today. Similarly in a late 1980's Forbes magazine interview, Nobel laureate Milton Friedman observed that virtually every item on the 1928 Socialist plank has become a reality in America today. Conservative columnist Joseph Sobran has observed that today "modern liberalism" is almost the exact opposite on key issues compared to "classical liberalism" of the early 19th century. Therefore, if one believes that history is cyclical, from a very long term historical perspective it is current U.S. Government policy, the bias of America's national media, and the leftism of our government-funded educational institutions that is "extreme," and not the views of traditional American conservatives such as Thomas Chittum who were driven underground in the pre-Internet late 20th century. Mr. Chittum is largely self-taught and has described himself as a "hillbilly." I think it shows discrimination against innately intelligent working class Americans to delete an article about one of his works because his style and socioeconomic background may not appeal to leftist extremist Establishment institutions. Dr. Murray Rothbard observed in his lectures that in the 1780's the anti-Federalists reflected majority opinion in America, which was much more in line with Mr. Chittum's views than what libertarians such as Dr. Paul Craig Roberts refer to today as the modern liberal philosophy of "the Neo-Jacobin welfare-warfare global superstate that wages perpetual war for perpetual peace." User:William B. Fox
    • And: "in regard to comments that this work may be "pessimistic" or "depressing," [...]" -- I see no such comments in this debate. This is some kind of strawman argument. JulesH 20:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added a reference to Samuel P. Huntington's magazine article in Foreign Policy called "The Hispanic Challenge to America". Keraunos 06:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added three references to books and articles by people who have predicted that the United States will break up--one of the world's leading military historians and military theorists, Martin van Creveld, as well as commentators Gore Vidal and Charles Krauthammer to help improve the article. Keraunos 06:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As important as the subject might be, the book is not notable. --FateClub 21:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. [Anon IP, pretending to be logged-in editor] The planned break up of America either by invasion of millions of illegal immigrants, some of which have dedicated themselves to the destruction of white people (La Raza), or by the use of the Hegelian didactic to create enough enemies who eventually attack America; or by financial destruction by involving America in foreign wars endlessly for this entire century is a real issue. Mik 22:26, 21 March 2007 PDT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.73.14 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 22 March 2007
  • Keep. [Anon IP (from which first edit was 23 March 2007)] It has some truth, such as New Afrika and New Vermont, but it's alarmist tone must be reduced. --86.29.250.83 04:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Minor book of no notability; the article's existence is PoV in itself... --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The references added to the article substantiate that secessionism and Secessionism in the United States are notable topics. They do not, however, establish the notability of this book. I generally like reading through articles on books, but until secondary sources about the book are added, it fails the notability guideline. -- Black Falcon 04:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delphonse the Frowny Clown

Delphonse the Frowny Clown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unverifiable/non-notable children's book. One single solitary hit on Google search for an Amazon page which gives little info. Delete Spondoolicks 11:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Stibbs

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

Bio article with no real assertion of notability. Drat (Talk) 11:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in external sources to meet the notability requirements of WP:PROF; currently reads like a vanity page. Borderline for speedy A7 (no assertion of notability), but better to give the author time to improve the article. Delete unless sourced by the end of this AfD. Walton Vivat Regina! 13:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel Bryant 02:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oshvision

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

This article deals with a minor company, Oshvision, that no longer exists. During its existence, it produced a few computer games, and was run by two teenagers. Previous versions of the article (over eight months ago) were incoherent, there were issues with copyright (see my comment below) and I speedily deleted some of them back then. However, as I recently found out, the creator of the article perceived this as censorship and still thinks Wikipedia should have an article about Oshvision. I told him I'd restore it, and properly nominate it for deletion, so the whole community could have a say in it and he could contribute to the discussion himself. Last year, it didn't meet our company inclusion criteria, and these days there are still no secondary sources that could ever serve as a source for the article. JoanneB 11:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources to establish notability per WP:CORP. Although I sympathise with the author's opposition to censorship, the burden of proof is on the author to show that the company meets Wikipedia notability criteria. Delete unless appropriately sourced by the end of this AfD. Walton Vivat Regina! 13:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reciently updated the artical, and I dont really understand why certain copyrights were mentioned??? as all the content belongs to me anyway? and if I the owner wish to distribute my images of my companys logos on wiki, like other major companies then its oK??? Contact me how i can upload images which wont get deleted because they got copyright on them?

Oshvision 13:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I remembered something about copyright issues with your images, but I looking through the history of the images you used, it seems to be that at first it just wasn't clear what the correct licenses were for the images you provided. Even if you've made certain images yourself, without the correct tagging, they can't be used. However, I think that I was wrong in including that in this nomination, it has nothing to do with the current discussion. --JoanneB 14:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proximity bias

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

This article has been transwikied to Wikitonary and no longer belongs in Wikipedia. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 11:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel Bryant 02:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amapedia

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

40 unique Googles, none of which appear to be non-trivial external sources. No sources cited. Possible smerge to Amazon, but probably better to wait until it's out of beta. Guy (Help!) 12:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - only source cited is Amapedia itself; no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources to establish notability per WP:WEB. Delete unless sourced by the end of this AfD. Walton Vivat Regina! 13:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no references, and reads similar to advertisements. --Sigma 7 14:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Guy is right on - it fails WP:WEB. YechielMan 16:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as inevitable. This does, I admit, fail WP:WEB, but it is surely only a matter of weeks or months before an amazon-run project meets that criteria. Yes, to make that argument smacks of WP:CRYSTALballism. But if we delete this now, it's going to reappear on a weekly basis until it finally sticks. Surely we could invoke WP:IAR to save ourselves the trouble. Let's just allow this article to grow incrementally with the website. semper fictilis 18:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, found at least one instance of reliable media coverage at money.cnn.com, and considering it is part of the hugely popular Amazon.com, its notability is likely going to increase dramatically. — Krimpet (talk/review)
  • Keep. The site's been covered on CNN Money, O'Reilly Radar, LifeHacker, WebProNews, and around 340 blogs. These links and its place within Amazon.Com sufficiently justify an entry here. Also, where are you getting the "40 unique Googles" claim? Google reports 212,000 pages for the query "amapedia -site:amazon.com" Rcade
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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(d) and redirect. Thanks to Black Falcon for actually doing the merge; it was the consensus from here (hence my close), so cheers for that. Daniel Bryant 07:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xtreme Football League

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

A football league that never actually existed? Warrants a one-line mention in af2 at most, but does it even warrant that? EliminatorJR Talk 12:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wikipedia is indeed about knowledge, but it's about knowledge which is encyclopedic. Once the cited criteria are passed (and the site is no longer "arguably the best" but is in fact said to be such by someone), this is the kind of article which can be re-created. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CC-Comp

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

I don't think it passes WP:WEB. Traffic Rank for cc-comp.org: 393,862 from alexa.com, I went there and it said "9 user(s) active in the past 15 minutes" which isn't much. The Negotiator 13:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is CC-DucK. The CC-Comp page is still under construction from several members of CC-Comp. It is a private project that only several people know atm. We intend to finish it up asap, before letting the members of CC-Comp Forum know about this Wikipedia page. With 7k+ Members on our forums, I am certain that this Wikipedia page would be able to generate hits. CC-Comp IS an extremely active forum, and perhaps you went to check the 'hits' at the wrong time. So, please be patient, this Wikipedia page would be done soon. CC-DucK 21:51, 18 March 2007 (GMT+8)

So you have created the page in order to advertise your website? Wikipedia is to provide free information, not a free advertisement service.--The Negotiator 14:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, we just felt that since we are arguably the best trading site of our game for that particular realm, we should have a Wikipedia page. I believe I mistook your 'hits' thingy, as I thought you meant that this page should be closed as no one was reading it. --CC-DucK 22:19, 18 March 2007 (GMT+8)

The article appears to fail every criteria of WP:WEB, which is why I listed it here. If it does not pass any of the three, then it is not notable enough for Wikipedia.--The Negotiator 14:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand what you mean now. Give us some time, we'll discuss and let you know asap. --CC-DucK 22:42, 18 March 2007 (GMT+8)

Don't worry, you have 5 full days to show that the site is notable enough. :) --The Negotiator 14:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we just wanted a place to put the history of CC-Comp (Which is being worked on regardless). A lot of people ask about it. I thought wikipedia was about information, I didn't realize that only certain information about websites are allowed. And we get about 10k unique visits a month or so. --TheCaptainJS 8:57, 23 March 2007 (GMT+5)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Love. Angel. Music. Baby. I'm deleting the hoax revisions. Grandmasterka 10:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serious (Gwen Stefani song)

Serious (Gwen Stefani song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I tagged this article as unreferenced, hoping that there might be some reliable sources. It looks like the references there now are copied from Wind It Up (Gwen Stefani song) since I don't see any mention of "Serious" in them. In fact one of them, SwedishCharts.com, lists the song as only being on the album and doesn't have it as a single. The single cover is also unsourced, so no proof of the single's existence there. ShadowHalo 01:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe Serious was ever released as a single. Nukleoptra 16:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect - I was bot-notified of this AFD for creating this article, but I didn't write it, just moved content that User:Gwenboy had pasted over the then-existing article at Serious (now moved to Serious (Duran Duran song) and replaced with a disambigation page). Gwenboy's a brand new user who needs some tutoring in our guidelines (particularly image policies, going by his talk page). Without evidence that this was a notable single (or even an officially released single), I don't know that this needs its own article. — Catherine\talk 03:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on recent events, it seems very likely that this is a hoax. Gwenboy (talk · contribs · logs) was indefinitely blocked for what I can only describe as bizarre, often disruptive edits. He started a page for another Gwen Stefani single, "Naughty In The Bed", which was never listed on an album, nobody has heard of, and was apparently certified as a gold single with a music video based on The Simpsons. It included the text "before she took out the single 'Naughty In the Bed' she already had release the singles global so all the music store chucked out the CD's and gave them back to Gwen, which he kept them just incase she wants to release it again." Considering a Youtube search turns up the same one-minute previews of the video but not the video itself, it's probably safe to say that this is a hoax. ShadowHalo 04:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or redirect - Shrub of power 09:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - It was meant to be a single, but I think "Luxurious" was chosen over it. Some people might look up "Serious (Gwen Stefani song)", and it would be better if it just redirected it to Love. Angel. Music. Baby..

--Andrew4793 t c 13:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/Redirect - this was never relased as a single anywhere, Gwen filmed the video for it as a possible future single but her pregnancy prevented her from releasing it. No single was sent out, no promo was sent out. Tracklisting fake and details of video fake. The story of how the song was written alos fake, Gwen has never been hospitilized for a broken arm. The whole concept of video is also wrong, no body knows the details behind it, only rumors, Gwen has never even talked about the video, their has only been a one minute preview from teh choreographer.

Leesamio 02:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru 08:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trausti Valsson

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

Autobio. by subject User:TraustiV - self promotional, only edits are this and promotion of his book. He may be notable, but that should be determined by others. Vsmith 13:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mars Bar

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

Appears to be a non-notable venue incapable of independent verification. It was listed for speedy deletion by a new pages patroller, but as that has been disputed, I have brought it here for a broader discussion. Orderinchaos78 14:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:N is quite clear on notability not being established by fame or importance but by independent coverage. i usually check google, factiva and the state library of whatever state it's in and if i find enough to justify it, i then vote support... but in this case that has not happened. DanielT5 14:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Right now I do not think that WP:N is clear about anything since its very existance is being disputed on its talk page. There is quite clearly no consensus about that page; whether it is a guideline or whether it should exist. Your point is one of the points in dispute. --Bduke 22:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would caution you to be aware of the Canvassing guideline per [17] [18] [19]. It has already been posted both on the daily log and I also listed it at the Australian deletions log so it will appear at the portal. Orderinchaos78 14:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not Adelaides only gay bar and I never claimed that. Timeshift 14:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Are you commenting to me, or to yourself above me? I never said anything to do with being Adelaide's only gay bar... The link I provided is hardly media coverage. It's more like an ad. -- Longhair\talk 14:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You. I thought you pasted the link there because it said it was one of Adelaides most popular gay bars, therefore debunking my point about it being Adelaide's only gay nightclub. I was making the point/distinction. If you werent making that point, never mind. Timeshift 14:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I used to live in Adelaide. I vaguely remember The Mars Bar, and still don't think it anything worth writing home about in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a nightclub guide. -- Longhair\talk 14:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So much for the categories "LGBT nightclubs" and "Nightclubs in Australia" then and all the pages in them. Either theres a conflict between what you say and what wikipedia allows, or wikipedia administrators are *extremely* slack in not finding the rest of the pages in those catagories. Timeshift 14:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are 1.5 nearly 1.7 million pages and growing every day on Wikipedia. See What about article X? Orderinchaos78 14:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So it's the latter and not the former then. Cheers for the clarification. Timeshift 14:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it doesn't seem to be very notable :/ no books or independent literature have been written about it. 3 mentions on factiva, one which only mentions it in passing and the other two look like advertorials. In the library at slsa.sa.gov.au I can't see anything that could establish its notability. Sorry DanielT5 14:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or you could go to http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22the+mars+bar%22+adelaide and see all the pages associated with the nightclub. Timeshift 14:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
all of which are ads or at best use information totally supplied by the subject of the articles/pages? DanielT5 14:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are not ads, they are "at best" as well as peoples own independent reviews and a sleuth of other info. It's not all taken from their homepage, not by far. Timeshift 14:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no proof here of notablility. Just as a further note, when I used the google test there were only 149 unique hits for the search specified by Timeshift9, many of which were, surprsingly considering the precise search terms, related to the candy bar. I also note a further problem, where is a independant secondary source to satisfy WP:V? --Wildnox(talk) 14:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see a strong case for this entry, but at least two The Advertiser articles refer to the subject as Adelaide's "premier gay disco" or "premier gay dance-bar", while another (Peter Wood, "Adelaide's best bars: Party Planet", The Advertiser, 22 September 2005) offers a more substantial review.--cj | talk 14:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. No references or indicators outside the subject. YechielMan 16:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not appear to be notable as per WP:CORP. Also, appears to fail WP:ATT. Unless the article can be significantly sourced with an independent source, delete. Mack. 16:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertisement. If this is notable, we need references and detail (and not its address and hours of operation) semper fictilis 17:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no assertion of notability other than existence, no verification, no article. Moreschi Request a recording? 17:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems to be Adelaide's leading gay bar judging by a Google News Archive see [20]

However, it seems that may not be enough to justify an article. Capitalistroadster 00:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirectto more notable Mars Bar. EnsRedShirt 02:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this was notable, there would be more to the article than its address and opening hours. Being "The Only Gay Nightclub in the Village" or even the best does not make it notable, nor do minor reviews or trivial mentions. The murder mentioned in the Advertiser (and on the ABC) is a bit more like it, but it's still too tenuous a link to confer notability. The creator's lack of civility ("Wiki-nazis" and suggestions of homophobia) aren't helping much either. "Tasty" in Melbourne, now that was notable! --Canley 11:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and arguably as attack page. All right: Nuklear is the only author of the article, they now request its deletion, and that is probably for the better. Given the weird nonsense they are now posting here and in the article ("The founder of Hochemicals© is the overall master of the totalitarian dictatorship regime"), the content is probably not exactly reliable. Someone else may of course write a new article about this topic. Sandstein 17:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohmefentanyl

Delete it. The generalized totalitarian dictator leader, the Führer himself) is creating his own webdomain. Such classified topics should not be available on a *public* website.--Nuklear 14:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Infact I was on a secure line with the ambassador to the U.S. thismorning and he suggested this to me.[reply]

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

This page is mostly the result of one editors work having first been built 13:38, 6 October 2006 by user:Nuklear, who has now made 984 of the users total 1118 [21] edits to this article. At first glance it looks like a well referenced article on a topic that you know nothing about. Further reading brings statements like *The founder of Hochemicals is the generalized master of the totalitarian dictaorship regime. which the just yesterday was changed to *The founder of Hochemicals is the generalized master of the totalitarian dictatorship regime. by user:Nuklear [22] the article does contain some information that is correct and can be validated easily in Google as Ohmefentanyl really is a synthetic opioid [23] Some Google results on (totally synthetic opioid Ohmefentanyl) are "interesting" to say the least. I placed a {{subst:uw-vandalism3}} on the editors talk page yesterday [24] I could not find a proper place in Wikipedia:Vandalism to bring this, and the article would appear to be a candidate for WP:AfD so I bring it here. Jeepday 14:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Eep. OK, it's clearly a real chemical, discussed (e.g.) here. We therefore should have an article on it. My suggestion: protect the article ASAP, and keep. It seems to be undergoing current vandalism. JulesH 14:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think that there is currently vandalism underway per se, it seems to me that the author is writing an article with a slight slant against the Chinese. It deserves an article, but I do not think it should be protected. mrholybrain's talk 14:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Slant against the chinese, insertions of absolute incoherent nonsense [25] ("hochemicals", by the way, seems to be a British "herbal medicine" distributor, interested in opioids for their potential application as pain killers, or so they claim[26]). I don't deny that there's stuff going on that doesn't look, on its face, as if it's vandalism. But I don't know enough about the subject to be sure. And I see stuff that does look vandalism mixed in with it. Much of the information being added seems to be related to experimental use of the substance as a narcotic and is in some cases clearly original research ("The author has personally bioassayed (±)-OMF2 but is disappointed that not more physical data was made available"). I think User:Nuklear needs to be prevented from editing this page while it is sorted out, but whether that should be by protecting the page or blocking the user, I don't know. Anyway, changing my !vote to speedy keep. Wikipedia should clearly have an article on this topic, and here isn't the place to discuss what is & isn't going on in the editing of it. Thus, I will now go and suggest an adminsitrator looks into it over at WP:AN/I. JulesH 16:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are u talking about dummy, I own this page. I invented it. Furthermore I have done ALL of the contributions, I just wasnt logged in like 20% of the time that I wasnt ULing images. Trace my IP & u will see ;-) Also if you want to make a generous capital donation to his lordship, please do through my paypal account on ebay.--Nuklear 17:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Bobet 17:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Pants

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

Unverifiable, no sources cited, no evidence there is even a book out in 2008 with this title, surely it's a hoax, I'm probably wrong, but hey. Anyhow, I doubt that such a book would even exist! SambaDiJaneiro2314 15:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - frivolous nomination Newyorkbrad 16:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Brown's Schooldays

Spamvertisement, not notable. Olxahorno 15:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How the World will Change - with Global Warming

How the World will Change - with Global Warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Blatant promotion by author. Too new for notability criteria, pub.date Apr 30, 2007. Vsmith 15:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a reference has been added -- however, the unsourced version of the article, which leveled very serious accusations against its subject without any references whatsoever, should indeed have been speedily deleted. John254 17:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Djamel Zitouni

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

This article is comprised entirely of unreferenced negative information, and thus qualifies for speedy deletion under CSD G10 and WP:BLP. However, the speedy deletion request was removed by an administrator. John254 15:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was revert to disambigation version and redirect Just Like You (disambiguation) to Just Like You. Pan Dan 16:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just Like You

Just Like You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Already an article for Keyshia Cole's sophomore album. Dj Rapmasta 16:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments for deletion presented, including the nomination. Discussion re: merging can proceed at the article talk page. Shimeru 08:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force Honor Guard Badge

Air Force Honor Guard Badge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Merge with United States Air Force SU182 16:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kameron Evans

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

Non neutral mini-biography, with no indication given as to notability and no details of alleged works Iridescenti 16:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Lenz

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

One line biography of apparently obscure individual, no indication as to notability - possible speedy delete Iridescenti 16:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, deletion rationale invalid per deletion policy. Guy (Help!) 17:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bircham International University

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

According to the text in the article, the institution is involved in immoral activity. If it is true, it does not deserve to be an article under any category of educational institution in any standard encyclopedia. Plus I think, a bunch of ill information about anything is not a very nice article for an encyclopedia, it destroys the overall usual expectation for the readers. I think proving someone innocent or guilty is not wikipedia's responsibility. So the article should be deleted to avoid any controvertial content Pointchair 15:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Wikipedia must not shirk from controversy, and the article doesn't say anyone is being immoral. The question here should be, "are the cited sources reliable?" Xiner (talk, email) 15:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep an immoral activity is not a reason to delete this. Plently of sources for this article. One from Dr. John Bear's book, a newspaper mention by a former FBI agent involved in DipScam, 4 separate government agencies, and one mention at Quackwatch. The article is informative for employers or people looking for information about this "school." Arbustoo 17:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Genuine institution, this is not Conservapedia. Iridescenti 17:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per Arbustoo et al. semper fictilis 17:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Above comments are rational, but not necessarily true. One can start editing with any article. The thing that dragged my attention is the note it had as mentioning it Imballaced. Plus something that is informative should be careful enough while criticizing, cause may be the information we have already in the article are not rootless, but there may be some other information about it that we don't know or we haven't prove wrong. We can only ensure a negative image after we abandone all the positive claims. As far as I have known, the institute is authorized to produce non-formal education according to Spanish law and also the information about the Spanish law mentioning its authority other than the ministry of education is also correct. If anyone can help by any correction to this information, that will be a solution too. Otherwise it might be unjust to keep the article that way. Ofcourse I felt sympathetic after I read the letter complaing about the article in its discussion page.Pointchair 17:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a "correction" contact Michigan, Oregon, Maine, and Texas' agencies to remove Bircham off the lists and allow that Bircham's degrees are valid. Also contact the other organizations including UNESCO. The article is not imbalanced because it is either accredited or not. The government sources as NPOV as possible. It is illegal for people in many places (Germany, US states, etc) to attempt to use unaccredited degrees. It is vital to make the unaccredited status clear.
Pointchair is a role account trying to remove WP:RS that show Bircham is a questionable institution. Arbustoo 17:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Llama mantalkcontribs 18:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

College Road Trip

College Road Trip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No context, do not know what author is talking about Redconverse 17:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Oberman

Vanity page, no indication of notability Iridescenti 17:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - creator-admitted hoax. Newyorkbrad 22:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lesser spotted mule

Despite the nicely photo-shopped image (details), this article is patent nonsense. It does not even qualify to be called an hoax. -- RHaworth 17:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your process point, but I'm going ahead and speedying as blatant, now-admitted hoax/nonsense. Newyorkbrad 22:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shiur times

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

This article is a blatant advertisement for a magazine that has close to 0 Google hits and virtually no recognition. The article is completely unsourced, and has many dubious claims, including the ridiculous circulation figures. Even the magazine's own website has close to no content whatsoever. Delete quickly, please. DLandTALK 18:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Bobet 14:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew_Gower

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

This article was deleted previously (on the 1st nomination) on the basis of being non-notable. (In the interest of openness, I should mention I made that 1st nomination) It was subsequently recreated. Somebody else almost immediately nominated it for deletion a 2nd time, but the discussion seemed to focus more on if Andrew actually helped make RuneScape or not (which he did), and the nomination failed. This is therefore the 3rd nomination.

I am nominating this article for deletion, as it appears to be original research (see WP:OR), and also because I believe according to wikipedia guidelines it is 'not notable' (see WP:BIO)

Justification: With regards to the 'notability' part I don't dispute that this person helped make RuneScape which is a significant game. However reading WP-BIO it seems clear that whether something is notable enough to appear in wikipedia is more based on whether other reputable publications deemed the person notable (by writing about them). In particular read the primary criterion of WP:BIO. I believe the reason for this is because that then determines if sufficient reliable information is available about a given person to actually write the article. (without original research)

Unfortunately there is lack of solid 3rd party articles about this person. As such this page has ended up COMPLETELY unsourced, (original research). This in turn means it contains numerous factual innacuracies, and a bizarre mix of trivia as a result. It's certainly not a good biography. I can't see any verifiable facts that aren't already on the jagex article. It doesn't actually cover the key points of the persons life. (just a weird mix of things he did at 17)

I should mention that I am aware that there are articles that mention this person *in passing*, but those are articles are about Jagex or RuneScape, (which already have pages), not actually about this person. I.e they aren't biographical articles. The ONLY article I can find at all which is actually about the person (as opposed to Jagex) is the very brief paragraph in the sunday times, but that is referenced on the Jagex page anyway, and doesn't contain enough info to actually make a wikipedia page.

I therefore propose this article is redirected to Jagex, as all the verifiable facts (and their sources), are already listed on there anyway. Runefire 18:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S: Since first posting, I have reworded the above slightly, to repeat itself less, and hopefully be clearer. I have removed the comment about vandalism, as you are right that's not relevant. I hope that's allowed. Thanks

Reply to the above. I did read the entire 2nd nomination, and check every one of the sources. But as I originally stated they didn't actually seem to be about the person, and so didn't really provide facts to base the article on. (I.e they weren't biographical - With the exception of the sunday times one I already mentioned.) You mention WO:BIO#Special Cases. But the very first sentance of that section reads "The following criteria make it likely that sufficient reliable information is available about a given person". Obviously that isn't the case here. I was actually originally just going to strip out the info that wasn't verifiable, but then I realized that's the entire article. Hence the AFD instead. Thanks Runefire 18:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The standard is that it be attributable, not attributed. The fact that the article is unreferenced will hopefully be fixed someday. Given who this guy is, I assume sources exist somewhere. The fact that they are not there yet is not a justification to delete the article. (If you see mistakes, correct them.) semper fictilis 20:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sources about Gower: Guardian, December 11, 2003, Pg. 19; Western Mail,March 25, 2006, Pg. 18; Independent,July 17, 2006, Pg. 14. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Semperf (talk • contribs) 20:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. I have no idea how you're not seeing statements that aren't on the Jagex article. This discusses programs he created AT THE BEGINNING and BEFORE Jagex was created. Destruction Imminent was not mentioned on the Jagex article. Andrews original plans for DeviousMUD are not stated in the Jagex or RuneScape article. Of course DeviousMUD is vaguely stated in the RuneScape article, but not in detail. This article is technically about the man who created RuneSCape, because not much is known about him. I created this article as a hope of informing others about this very interesting man. You have to understand that the sources were originally here when I first wrote this article. It was Andrews personal site-- where I got everything I stated in this article. It was later removed from archive.orgs database... which is why there are no sources, and likely to never be any sources again. Like I said, I'm just trying to inform people about a man who could be considered interesting, and outstanding in programming. This article is basically the only information left about the man, seeing as his site was blocked on archive.org. I ask that you keep this article, for historical purposes. ~ rih29 21:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is notable and Im sure sources can be found to back this up - • The Giant Puffin • 08:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete precicely as notable as the other founders of Jagex, who have no articles about them. Also, Comment: most of the content in this article is the sort of stuff that could be said about 25% of all computer science graduates. If it is to be kept, then it should stripped down to those things that are both encyclopedic and actually unusual, which at the moment would be only the first paragraph. -- Whitepaw 21:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I will userfy this, to Wedudley or anyone else, upon request at my talk page. Daniel Bryant 07:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William E. Dudley

William E. Dudley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notablity not given, only reference is to MySpace. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Yes it is me, that has worked and invested so much into making this article a worthwhile addition to Wikipedia, having the article in the deletion process has been wonderful, and has taught me much about Wikipedia. I'm still learning, yes at the start I panicked and tried to delete the whole thing. I have not always signed on, yet I have been using one computer during the whole review process. The help I have received from people more experienced than me has been great. The article has been improved and anyone who needs the actual facts in their hands can ILL any of those journals or get them in many research libraries, if you have trouble I can help with that. Bangtale International was a small press affair, (1000 copies) I can forward to anyone if that is an issue. The part about nobility is somewhat in the range of social experiences. The various involvement in strong publications helps. I do have that MA in Information science where objectivity was drilled into me, day, after month, after year, yet I still miss things and make mistakes. . . thanks for your very useful insight. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed. (If this is detected send a comment) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wedudley (talk • contribs) 04:02, 22 March 2007.
  • Comment This small article keeps getting beat up for lack of nobility and yet it is about A person who has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject is not always big yet multiple independent reliable sources have been cited. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.167.42.14 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Bangtale International was not a zine, it was a very expensive well produced (offset) journal, with a board and many international contributors, It was not a vehicle for the publisher to showcase his own work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.167.130.10 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References to media in Dead Rising

References to media in Dead Rising (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It's a mess of original research and unnecessary/pointless trivia with absolutely no sources--SUIT양복 18:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Carabinieri 23:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Madison

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

Nothing in her article suggests that she passes WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 18:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drunkthings.com

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

19 G-hits, zero external coverage, no reliable sources. PROD contested by article creator. FCYTravis 19:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. utcursch | talk 11:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reality Check Records, Inc.

Reality Check Records, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-verified sources, Spam? Pigmandialogue 19:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no firm convictions about deleting these pages but strong suspicions. Um, I just realized perhaps I should bundle them. I guess this format could be seen as attempting to circumvent the AfD process. Not my intent but I have to go do something else right now. Tell me if this is a wrong approach. Pigmandialogue 19:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobet 14:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is a very well written article. The Evil Clown Please review me! 14:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that the article looks good and is fairly well written. However, my concern is because of the lack of third party sources and the very low G-hits for the company and the principle participants. It seemed to me that promotional materials often look good but lack depth or substantiating sources. If I had found enough info/sources to cut it back to a stub, I wouldn't have put it up for AfD. I don't think it comes close to WP:ORG. --Pigman 17:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll Kill You (The Catnip Peddlers song)

I'll Kill You (The Catnip Peddlers song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

"Band" is non-notable and does not come close to meeting any criteria of WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO as far as I can tell, so an individual song by them certainly does not need an article. 27 Google hits for "catnip peddlers" and many of them are Wikipedia mirrors. "Sources" quoted in the article are not reliable. Prod tag was removed. Big Smooth 19:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange

List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another "in popular culture" section that was split out into its own "article" instead of being pruned, as it should have been. There is nothing encyclopaedic about "references to <randomly chosen film> in popular culture", so a list of same is defintely not encyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 19:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arup Rahee

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

An article full of POV and a self-reference website quoted as source on subject of no notability. Aditya Kabir 19:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled 17th episode of Lost season 3

Untitled 17th episode of Lost season 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

unsourced, WP:CRYSTAL The artist formerly known as Sceptre 20:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_18&oldid=116081049"