🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_April_8
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 7 April 9 >

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 redirect. --ais523 10:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Day/Night ODI

[edit]
Day/Night ODI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - useless superfluous item which repeats in brief form the content of other articles particularly limited overs cricket BlackJack | talk page 15:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does "superfluous" mean? The information is included in other articles particularly limited overs cricket. This article is a pointless replication in very poor form of information that is more readily available elsewhere. --BlackJack | talk page 16:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected. Sorry, I think I must have misunderstood you before. --BlackJack | talk page 17:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. 
--ais523 10:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tera Williams

[edit]
Tera Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability in question. Appears to be a reporter of only local importance. ghits NMChico24 00:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: When there are no local reporter articles that don't come close to satisfying WP:BIO, is my guess. Whether the Burlington Industries implosion is a notable story is one issue -- buildings get imploded all the time -- whether that makes one of (no doubt many) reporters who had on-air time commenting on it is quite another entirely. Only 36 Google hits for "Tera Williams" + "Fox" [1], almost all of which are blogs, her TV station's website and her own website. There may be some spam issues involved; almost the sole Wikipedia activity of the article's creator is putting up articles on various local reporters of Fox-affiliated stations.  RGTraynor  04:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Covering a notable a story does not make one notable, unless it involves getting some sort of major "scoop" that other reporters on that same story don't get. And if that happenes, there'll be secondary sources which make mention of it that could be cited to establish that notability. Mwelch 06:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, While some local reporters, print and electronic, may satisfy the demands of WP:BIO this one does not. JBEvans 10:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete- for failing to meet WP:BIO. Retiono Virginian 16:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and other similar articles. Johnbod 19:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created the article. I didn't intentionally create it as spam, I created it because I work at WGHP-TV and am familiar with some of the talent who have also worked there. Tera has since moved on to FOX Chicago. While she was at our station she was one of the better-known personalities on the air. She is also very popular in the Chicago TV market. My station and WFLD-TV are both owned by News Corp, which in turn, owns FOX News. It is likely that Tera will go on to work for FOX in New York, much like Erik Liljegren. As for the picture, I thought since it was a publicity still released by the station it qualified under fair use. If I'm wrong, feel free to delete it. Jwr0721 00:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Which elements do you believe she fulfills, and (as is required per WP:ATT) what reliable, independent sources do you have for such an assertion? This certainly violates WP:COI now, where "you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when (1) editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with; (2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors ..."  RGTraynor  06:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (withdrawn nomination). Orderinchaos 08:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia Bakery

[edit]

:Magnolia Bakery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) Non-notable per WP:CORP. Media mentions seems trivial, and a couple of appearances in New York-based television shows don't make it notable, IMHO.RJASE1 Talk 00:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC) I'm withdrawing the nom and am trying to figure out what is wrong with my reference-searching technique... RJASE1 Talk 03:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 19:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Leighton

[edit]
Brett Leighton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability not established. Also, the talk page assertion that the subject won the "Paul Hoffheimer prize in Innsbruck" does not appear to be easily verifiable: [2] & [3] &[4] & [5]. Other ghits: [6] & [7] NMChico24 00:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Claim to notability is unverified. Abeg92contribs 02:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not sourced at all. Tohru Honda13 04:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article doesn't specify how this person is notable--$UIT 05:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I see no sources or specifications of being notable.--Joebengo 06:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep A quick Google of the name Brett Leighton shows numerous links to a wide variety of sites which confirm notability. He is a classical musician and an academic, thus he does not have the kind of bombastic site and fan club that some musicians have. The article is desperate for a cleanup and needs additional references cited. I have added three and there are more. Someone who can speak German is probably needed for some of the key sites As of April 8, 2007. I urge my fellow editors not to pull the trigger too fast on this one. JBEvans 11:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I think he passes WP:PROF although maybe not WP:MUSIC. The full professorship (could someone who knows german check this here?) plus the work on the world's oldest organ and his role as top judge in major organ competitions passes the bar for me. Music profs are hard to judge as they don't typically write for journals indexed by google scholar, and their performance/composition work stays below the radar of the major media. RookwoodDept. of Mysteries 14:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Needs a major clean-up. Ganfon 15:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- strong notability, references included. Meets WP:BIO. Retiono Virginian 16:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 19:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Evidence of notability present. Mukadderat 16:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Does not meet WP:PROF nor WP:MUSIC. Nothing stated in the article asserts notability, except the opening line "artist of some notability", a phrase that should be absolutely banned on Wikipedia. Making CD's which do not chart, being a judge in a contest, working as a Professor who has not written notable works, all not notable. As for the reasoning above that he is in a profession that does not normally get press coverage, so he must be notable... that is just whacky. My neighbor's cat could be notable under such logic. Delete to avoid setting a very bad precedent. Jerry 21:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep it's a cleanup candidate at this stage, notability is established.--Buridan 09:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I ran a Google news search (results now included in article) and found articles on him in five different European newspapers in three different languages, one calling him (in Spanish) "one of the great specialists of the baroque repertoire". I think with that material added (and with the evaluative content in the concert announcements being sufficient to make them nontrivial) it's a clear pass for WP:MUSIC. —David Eppstein 16:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel Bryant 08:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straight, Incorporated

[edit]
Straight, Incorporated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article has some severe WP:BLP problems - some very serious accusations and allegations are made with some very flimsy sourcing - said sourcing being self-published or of dubious reliability.RJASE1 Talk 00:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • While please by all means prove it. Please provide some information to prove otherwise. Here's plenty of proof for you backing what is stated in the article and then some. What proof have you given that the allegations are false other then your opinion.

*Speedy delete and template attached. The sources support a critical article but do not support some of the important statements in the article. There is no balancing text or attempt to obtain a NPOV. As it stands it has to be considered an attack article. Once deleted a new article, more closely tailored to those sources considered reliable, could be written. Bridgeplayer 02:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the only alternative would be stubbing the article and clearing the history. RJASE1 Talk 03:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, conditionally: Folks, take a look at the edit history of the article. You'll see that at various points this actually had a balanced POV that took into account the various controversies about this place without doing an obvious hatchet job. This wasn't designed as an attack article; it's been vandalized to become one. That isn't necessarily the province of AfD to solve unless the problem's endemic and unfixable.  RGTraynor  03:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I have just this minute removed a totally unwarranted speedy tag. The circumstances allerged in the articles are supported by the sources. DGG 05:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but much better sources, like those listed here (Fox News rather than Cannibis Culture), need to be added. I would try a NPOV rewrite but I'm too pissed off. Thousand points of light my ass!
  • Keep Serious charges to be sure but that alone does not indicate a delete. Keep it and keep it well sourced. JBEvans 11:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep As long as it gets some better sources and a little cleaning it's fine, definitely notable. Ganfon 15:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - listed on the BLP noticeboard here. I agree that the organization is notable and that the WP:BLP concerns can be handled in a method other than deletion. RJASE1 Talk 16:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep - I have cleaned the article up removing unsupported accusations (just because accusations are fringe sourced doesn't mean that they are accurate or that we should record them). The article can be re-expanded from the Fox source. Bridgeplayer 17:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dakota 03:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Stango

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

Non notable visual artist. Bus stop 22:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improperly listed debate. It is listed now. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 00:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 11:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead!

[edit]
Dead! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

As much as I love MCR, this article was already voted upon to be deleted. It's 99% unverified MCRcruft, which is not ok. mcr616 Speak! 00:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 01:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rpoints

[edit]
Rpoints (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability not established or sourced per WP:WEB.RJASE1 Talk 01:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTABILITY. Otherwise, under your reasoning, my cat could have her own article. --Mary quite contrary (hai?) 18:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 19:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quidco

[edit]
Quidco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable webiste per WP:WEB.RJASE1 Talk 01:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, many thanks. I was worried about bias slipping into the article and removed an earlier edit to the talk page. Supposed 20:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That article is in The Independent, the other The Guardian. So, two articles but more if you count those listed in this link referred to below by IdentzSupposed 11:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It is an important site. In the UK Cashback Websites are a growing phenomenon. Quidco is one of the biggest and most respected (Depending on who you believe it may be the biggest, but if not it is at least in the top three). If you go to any site or forum that discusses Cashback Websites then Quidco is mentioned more than any other. The reason I say weak is because the article is poor and although Quidco is the leader in its field, it is not special enough to be on its own here without having articles about other leading Cashback Websites. I'd rather see this article improved, and more articles about similar sites, than this one go. Identz 15:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Quidco has a page where it highlights where it has been discussed in the news here. It has been in the news several times. Identz 15:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The main difficulity is with notability. I personally think sites like quidco and topcashback are notable because they currently offer the best deal for consumers, i.e. 100% cashback on purchases, unlike those like rpoints which give 100%less. I'm troubled because some notability appears due to bias in the media. For example Martin Lewis, recommends rpoints over quidco giving a very dubious example of how rpoints apparently offers more savings, most cashback users I'm sure would disagree! Another example of terrible bias is the BBCs touting of MrsCashback which if you read this article is a terrible deal for consumers. Note that quidco is mentioned and given barely any coverage, it's advantages are not mentioned. Do you think it is right to create an article on Mrs Cashback if there were enough of these biased articles, because it would be notable? What would have been achieved? The notability of a company in the media seems determined by factors which do not have the interests of the consumer (in this case to moneysaving) in mind. I know what wikipedia is NOT, but is it NOT a good source of information for consumers? Supposed 15:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where on the internet are there attempts to wite articles on these companies and cashback sites in general in an objective and unbiased manner? very few notable places, apart from wikipedia. Again this is why I'm eager to keep this article. Also why should a large company which offers poor value for the consumer be given more notability on wikipedia than a tiny one which offers amazing value? Supposed 16:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note, Supposed, that as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, meaning it integrates information derived from secondary sources. What you seem to be proposing is that this Wikipedia article integrate information from primary sources, but this is original research and synthesis, and is against our rules. If as you suggest there are no attempts to write articles on these companies, then they lack secondary sources altogether and fail notability guidelines. Finally, notability has nothing to do with the merits of the financial transactions offered. --Dhartung | Talk 19:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice, its merits therefore do make it notable as those merits are worthy of being noted, as per WP:CORP and the change it has caused in other incentivised companies.Supposed 13:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia is about the only place on the internet you will find a NPOV on a company, to avoid making biased purchasing decisions I would consult wikipedia. However with this article gone, wikipedia is infact biased against the interests of the consumer. Wikipedia lists information on companies, therefore it will always be used as a consumer resource, if it doesn't list details on every company then it's biased. Supposed 10:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that every single company that exists should have its own WP article? --Mary quite contrary (hai?) 17:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry I was a little hasty. The reason I say no is you can list the advantages of companies like Quidco on one page, toegether. The benefit of listing every company is you have a fairly reliable unbiased source of information on companies, information that exists in a biased form elsewhere. So merge the articles, but accept that the merged article will be used as a consumer resource, as will wikipedia. It is a better resource, than the cashback businesses which censor any mention of companies like quidco, an attempt to protect their large profits. That's perhaps something else which should be added to the article. :-) Supposed 03:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would most definitely be against a Merge. When you have separate articles on different pages, there is a control mechanism on what Cashback Sites gets listed. This AfD discussion is such a control. But when you start listing details of the websites on the Cashback Websites article, it is going to be extremely difficult to make sure only the most notable sites are listed.
On the Cashback Websites article, I tried to make a qualification for what sites should be on the example sites listed at the bottom of the page by referring to a chart that lists the sites by alexa ranking. As I said in the talk page I was trying to make sure that only the most popular sites were listed. I'd rather see no individual Cashback Sites at all listed than have to aruge about which of the 50+ sites are notable enough. Those of us who follow cashback sites know almost immediately what sites should be included, but explaining to other editors who aren't familiar with them is much more difficult. Identz 15:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To some extent I agree with you, and would definately rather keep the articles. It's almost academic anyway as Quidco definately passes WP:Corp and WP:WEB. I feel this AfD, draws attention to the flaw in the notability criteria of companies. The notability of companies is being made so through the bias of the media! Therefore, wikipedia, displays this slant, wikipedia is slanted toward the bias of the media. In this case the media have focused their reports on companies that offer poor value for the consumer whilst neglecting consumer conscience alternatives. Even the self proclaimed Moneysavingexpert himself has done this with his slanted report on the benefits of rpoints over quidco.. What the motives of the media are in these moves, you can only guess but wikipedia rather perversely, gives them coverage too.Supposed 11:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Quidco, were the first cashback website to introduce 100% cashback, most cashback websites at the time offered 50%. On purchases such as mobile phones[[9]] this was a considerate saving. This created a trend, as rivals, most notably, rpoints tried to compete by offering a 'Highest Cashback Promise, and FreeFivers who created a new website, The Cashback Junction. The effect quidco had is also reflected in Alexa rankings, who now report quidco as recieving more traffic [10] than rpoints. So even without the biased media on the company, it is notable because of the effect it had on companies and on an industry which is notable, per guidelines on WP:CORP Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice ... Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations. Supposed 12:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article from The Times is here. Note that when it refers to rpoints it specifically mentions the 'Highest Cashback Promise', showing the trend which quidco set has been noticed by the media. Almost a year earlier The Times wrote their first article on cashback, however that time the article was dedicated to large cashback websites, with only a brief reference to the smaller sites. They ignored the benefits offered by quidco[11]. This demonstrates bias in the media again toward larger sites. Bias that wikipedia, per WP:CORP are trying to avoid. Supposed 13:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must have a different copy of WP:CORP than you. My copy says nothing about trying to right the inequity in coverage of smaller companies caused by media bias. It just states that multiple non-trivial sources are required, and then uses a variety of examples to explain that. Jerry 21:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It says, "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice ... Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.. And in this case, quidco was notable before the articles (some you missed) on it were published because it was an incentivised site worthy of note. It is worthy of note not just due to its popularity, it has always been worthy of note because it ""attracts notice" due to its alternative business model etc Supposed 22:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Mukadderat 16:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Among the three provided sources, only one can be considered as a source to determine notability. One is a press release by the company, and the other is the company website. Since an extensive search does not yield additional sources, nor are any asserted by the article, it fails WP:CORP/WP:WEB, as lacking "multiple" non-trivial independant sources. Jerry 21:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The website meets WP:CORP, it has "multiple non-trivial independent sources", it features in The Guardian, The Independent, The BBC and twice in The Times [12] [13]. It also has been referred to, by Reuters, Moneyweek, Motley Fool and moneysavingexpert. Supposed 22:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOFIXIT Jerry 01:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I've updated the article accordingly. Do you still object to its inclusion? Supposed 03:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 01:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoonbender

[edit]
Spoonbender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable artist that has been tagged as being of "questionable notability" since October 2006. I see nothing that hints at notability - the Spoonbender news site hasn't been updated since April 2006, and no major performances or releases have been listed. I've never nominated an article for deletion before, but I think the bottom line is that notability has to be proven and it hasn't been proven since the page was created nearly a year ago. Davemcarlson 02:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 08:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marry Me

[edit]
Marry Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Contested prod. MER-C 03:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 08:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeta sigma alpha

[edit]
Zeta sigma alpha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 03:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unorthodox (doom band)

[edit]
Unorthodox (doom band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band, no reliable source, myspace doesn't count. WooyiTalk, Editor review 03:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 19:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skyblazer

[edit]
Skyblazer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software. The majority of the article is game guide material. Of the two references provided, one has no text - hence is not admissible. Prod was contested via email. MER-C 03:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just got your message, and noticed the articles for deletion thing a little while before. Sorry about the game guide (I'm new when it comes to the more specific Wiki rules, although I admit I had basically thrown a few sentences on I could think of.) I'll definitely remove the textless link and try to post more specifics. What specifically do you mean by "you've convinced me that it needs some wider attention," when you also note that it is "non-notable software?" I will try to make it conform to a style similar to that of any other game wiki when I have the chance in the next day or two (taxes and lots of other work have kept my busy.) -Thermal0xidizer

  • Keep, a Sony SNES game that had a worldwide release. [14]. Online sources for mediocre flops from the pre-Internet age aren't always easy to find, but there are certain to be reviews in the print magazines of the time. WP:SOFTWARE is not policy and nothing in the article is really game guide material.--Nydas(Talk) 11:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Nydas. Article needs so rearranging and rewrite, but seems notable enough. Few more reputable sources would be ideal, but indisputably was a worldwide NSES release. Goodnightmush 16:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Just did a considerable overhaul. How much closer to a keep? --Thermal0xidizer
  • deleteper MER-C. The article does not assert notability. It also is something akin to a gameplayers user guide. If we delete the parts that don't belong, the article is just the context lead, and then it still has no qualifying sources. Jerry 22:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Goodnightmush's finding. Sony game with wide release. In response to the last comment, just being a SNES game asserts "notability." --Oakshade 06:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dakota 03:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Rains

[edit]
Clay Rains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced vanispamcruftisement. Has already had two speedy deletions. Contested prod. MER-C 03:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete and salt the earth, then. This bloke fails WP:MUSIC by a country mile. His sole claimed album has ONE Google hit other than this article [15], and only 85 hits (almost all Wiki mirrors or blog posts) for Rains himself [16]. Allmusic.com has never heard of him, and neither has Amazon.com. Perhaps this fellow really exists, but as a musician, I strongly suspect WP:HOAX.  Ravenswing  04:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Strongly smells of hoax (The list of influences on his MySpace starts "Johnny Cash, Corrosion of Conformity, Duran Duran..."). The MySpace is a new page and the other links merely get you a 403 or 404 error. EliminatorJR Talk 14:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete and agreed. Salt the Earth. Goodnightmush 16:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- No reliable assertian of notablity.--Joebengo 18:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- looks like a self-aggrandizing advertisement; definitely not NPOV and definitely not notable (infamous perhaps?); information presented is not reliable or verifiable. There was no Missouri Country Music Hall of Fame in 2001 (1st yr is 2003) & Rains isn't in it in 2003-2007. His recording studio seems to not exist legitimately (and he is highlighted on Waylon Jennings web site for creating it as an illegal studio to put out Jennings songs illegally). Midwest Country is a community-based weekly tv show out of Sandstone, Minnesota on RFD-TV (rural tv) -- if they've ever awarded an artist of the year, there is no evidence of it. It's nice he participates in community theatre, but that doesn't make him either professional or notable. Cyg-nifier 20:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Hollins

[edit]
Paul Hollins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO as there are insufficient third party sources for this article. Unsourced. Contested prod. MER-C 03:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Kota Kinabalu

[edit]
Hotel Kota Kinabalu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Copied exactly from wikitravel, and the content is uncyclopedic Zack2007 03:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was a lack of consensus. --  Denelson83  07:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Microsoft Vista game compatibility

[edit]
List of Microsoft Vista game compatibility (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per WP:NOT and a lot of precedence, Wikipedia doesn't do arbitrary, uncompletable lists of software. -/- Warren 03:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While uncompletable, the lead clearly outlines how this is not an arbitrary list. Vista compatibility is a very notable topic. Please clarify pertinent section of WP:NOT, I just spent my night compiling this list, be specific or don't bother referring to a policy. - RoyBoy 800 03:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC) Forgot to mention I wrote the List. - RoyBoy 800 00:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The related sections of WP:NOT arte "not an indiscriminate list of information" and "not a directory". In the past, several other articles like lists of 64-bit Windows applications, list of applications compatible with Vista, and others have been deleted because they're basically unmaintainable and uncompletable. I'd dig them up but Wikipedia makes it difficult to search the list of deleted articles.
After you get bored of copying information from a couple of gaming sites, who's going to take care of this list? The information is going to change pretty rapidly (indeed, you've got a source there that says Simcity 4 crashes after the starting movie, but the 200,000+ sims living in my copy of the game running on Vista would strongly disagree with that assertion!), or is going to be based on forum postings or other conditions that can't be authoritatively stated with a high degree of accuracy. There are many factors involved: Vendor patches, appcompat patches from Microsoft, video driver updates, audio driver updates, otherwise unfound problems that are exposed by how Vista handles hardware, and the million-plus combinations thereof.
Wikipedia:Listcruft notes that a list article should only be made if the subject of the list is worthy of an article. This guideline exists because it helps prevent us from going off and making a list about something that it isn't really clear that Wikipedia actually needs to cover. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; we should be focusing on the subject of Windows Vista game compatibility as a topic, with quotes from notable people on the subject and information on what, if anything, is being done about it. It's perfectly fine to do this, then link to a notable gaming web site which devotes itself more thoroughly to the subject.
As to the long-term usefulness of such a list, assuming that compatibility improves, won't it become irrelevant with time? Can this list really pass the "ten-year test" suggested by Wikipedia:Recentism? Will anybody care? We want to focus on information that has lasting value. If we keep this list, Wikipedia might as well get into the business of publishing lists of road closures.
Finally, I recommend looking at Wikipedia:Featured lists, which is the pinnacle of what a list article should achieve. If a list article on Wikipedia can never meet those requirements (and this one certainly won't), then we shouldn't put our time into it. -/- Warren 04:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've made a detailed case and somewhat thoughtful case. I'll answer as best I can in reverse order.
I used to do the Features and Admins beat for WP:SIGN and I helped a great deal on List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes (not featured, but it should be), so I'm familiar with featured content. Point taken with irrelevance with time, but that is an entirely irrelevant point at this time; don't get into a habit of using it.
An article on Vista game compatibility (and its history through the beta process, and on how DirectX 9.0L differs from DirectX 9.0C) is sorely needed, but I wanted to get summary information to people and provide a space where others can readily add their problems and experiences with games. An article is great, but most people would be interested in a listing of issues for the immediate future... hence I'd consider a list more immediately relevant than an article. An article can be grown organically from this list (which then can be deleted if not needed); nothing says it has to be the other way around.
Who's going to take care of this list??? Did I become an admin by putting crap onto Wikipedia? No. I will take care of this list and I intend, time permitting, to oversee the growth of a Game article and increased coverage in the Vista series of DirectX 9.0L and legacy support issues. As to Simcity 4, I recognized beforehand my first source was based on Vista Beta 2 and I had started to remove references I knew were wrong, so I missed Simcity 4 (partly because I had two S sections), I want to ignore the relevant newbie computer advice; the List has a disclaimer for godsake. I'm not new to this, and specific setup incompatibilities are to be expected and make this list more relevant, not less.
As to WP:NOT, you are mistaken as to its applicability. - RoyBoy 800 14:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I wanted to get summary information to people and provide a space where others can readily add their problems and experiences with games." If you're an administrator and you don't understand that what you are proposing here is for people to contribute original research to the encyclopedia, then someone needs to take your mop away. Wikipedia is absolutely not a place for people to comment on, discuss, or write articles about their personal issues or experiences with software. I should not have to remind you of this. There is also a fundamental difference between this list and a list of ST:TNG episodes: The latter is a well-defined, unchanging, finite list that is certainly attributable to good sources, whereas the former is highly subjective, requires ongoing editor judgement as to what belongs, and honestly sounds more like a pet project than an attempt to create an article that brings lasting value to the project. -/- Warren 17:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to imply the article space, rather the talk space. But hey, I guess I'm a schizophrenic moron with a mop and you're a mind reader. *eye roll* RoyBoy 800 01:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Talk space is absolutely not a place for discussion about personal experiences related to an article's topic. You don't have to look any further than the second sentence of WP:TALK for a clear statement on this. If you're looking to create a discussion forum or web site where people can share information about Vista game compatibility, by all means, contact Wikia and get the project started. That's what it's there for. -/- Warren 11:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nor did I mean to imply "discussion about personal experiences" would be encouraged. Rather a listing of issues from people can/would happen and that would help flesh out the article as reliable sources are found for said issues. If someone says on the talk page, "I have a problem with Pac-Man 2000, anyone know the solution", they can be redirected to the solution or a forum to carry that issue forward. However, their mentioning the problem in the first place on the talk page assists the editors of the list in their research for the list. Making such comments on Talk pages acceptable; carrying forward discussion on the issue on the talk page would be discouraged. - RoyBoy 800 17:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I dunno, it's heavily sourced, it has information beyond mere lists of games. What exactly is "arbitrary" about this list, and what makes it uncompletable?  RGTraynor  04:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't know, but this looks uncompletable, even in principle. It aims to outline the compatibility of every game on Windows vista, and known issues for each - apparently with a fix, for some. This is an impossible, and massive list that cannot possibly be completed - even if it currently well-sourced.--Haemo
  • Weak keep as compatability issues are of interest. However if I had my way I'd retool this article to be more a list of software that is not compatable with Vista. Granted it would make for a longer list, so some sort of criteria would be necessary. 23skidoo 06:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought that would be a good idea as well, especially since I think it would make the shorter for the immediate future. The problem is you get the inevitable situation of people wanting to know if X or Y game is compatible. - RoyBoy 800 14:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not IGN. --Cloveious 15:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Haemo. Ganfon 15:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But I argued for deletion? --Haemo 20:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what this means - "needs some work". In what sense? Does he need to add more articles? Does he need to source it more? It's already decently sourced, but it's still an uncompletable list! -Haemo 20:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After further thought on 23skidoo suggestion and looking at this link; the list could indeed be made manageable by moving it to List of Microsoft Vista game issues and listing only games with known issues/fixes. As Vista compatibility becomes the standard for games, the number of inclusions would drop off, yet we can keep the list to point people to fixes for older games. - RoyBoy 800 23:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP is not a free web host for what-have-you. Gazpacho 20:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and work on it. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 22:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there are thousands (probably more like millions, depending on criteria) of games for MS-DOS and Windows (ie: what would be expected to run on Windows Vista), creating a list of every single one of them and if they work with Windows Vista would be pretty much impossible to complete. I don't really like the idea of a cut down list just about games with issues either, at what point do you start including a game (one of the entries on the current list says it may be down to NVidia's drivers rather than Windows itself, and another couple are ones that just want to run as an administrator), plus I'd guess the shorter list would be impossible to be verifiably complete unless you knew the longer list was complete and accurate as well. FredOrAlive 18:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unmaintainable and impossible to complete list, even when using the arbitrary criteria in the lead paragraph - e.g. "also games designed under the Games for Windows program should not be listed here" - fchd 16:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly temporary issue. Everyone will scramble to be compatible. Mukadderat 16:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How well that is accomplished, especially for older games, is measured by the list. I fail to see the rationale in assuming everything will work fine; as it clearly is not. - RoyBoy 800 17:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an article about what something is not or can not do is silly. How about "fuels that can not be used in a jeep"? Impossible to maintain and provides no encyclopedic value. If the lack of support for a particular game becomes notable by press coverage (I just can't imagine that hapenning), then the article can be revisited at that time, but until then, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Jerry 22:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a useful analogy insofar as games are expected to run on a Windows platform and may not; whereas alternative fuels working depend on the engine of a vehicle. This list does not mean to predict anything... as game compatibility is an issue here and now. - RoyBoy 800 00:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zinkplaat

[edit]
Zinkplaat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject of the article does ot meet the guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 03:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Dakota 03:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edsel D Rivera

[edit]
Edsel D Rivera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:BIO Nv8200p talk 03:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Wizardman 04:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don G. Giunta Middle School

[edit]
Don G. Giunta Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable middle school, one of over a hundred middle and elementary school stubs put up by the editor over 14 months ago, very few of which have ever been improved. There have been zero substantive edits (other than mentioning that the fellow after whom the school was named was now deceased) since February 2006 save for repeated and frequent vandalism, which has become endemic in the last two weeks. Article was prodded three days ago, but prod was removed by an anon IP without comment or reasoning. Fails WP:ATT and WP:NN, no real prospect of the article ever being sourced or improved.  Ravenswing  03:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Delete No assertion of notability, stub for over a year (and a 2 sentence stub at that). Should be speedy delete, but people seem to complain when a speedy tag is put on any school article. TJ Spyke 03:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we'd save even more time by putting together a policy that might prevent these articles from being created in the first place. That way the creators would know they should be putting their energies elsewhere. Noroton 23:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If DGG will suggest a school district, I'll help out with it. Will anyone else join us? Noroton 17:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 01:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo Chips

[edit]
Buffalo Chips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable college a cappella group. No sources. Written from the memory of the group's members and from the group's website. Savidan 04:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De Minimis

[edit]
De Minimis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable a cappella group. No sources. No claim to notability. Savidan 04:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fluid Dynamics (music)

[edit]
Fluid Dynamics (music) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

College a cappella group. No claim to notability other than "love of music" and performances in the "Southern California area" Savidan 04:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 19:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huffines Middle School

[edit]
Huffines Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

no legitimate sourced claim to notability, was included in earlier afd for another middle school in same district- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arbor Creek Middle School, but overlooked at time of deletion Chris 04:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: fails WP:ATT. I wouldn't say it doesn't make any legitimate claims to notability -- it makes several, in fact -- but nothing is sourced. If it is, my opinion may change, but it'll take some doing, given that I feel middle schools to be inherently non-notable.  RGTraynor  04:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment based on what logic? It doesn't even say what national award it may be. Chris 21:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At first glance it looked like a notable article, but upon further inspection has a couple unsourced quotes and basically violates WP:V and WP:OR. If the unsourced stuff (which isn't notable to begin with) is cut out almost nothing remains, better to just delete this one.--Wizardman 04:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have now sourced what is a significant national award. Anyone reading about this award would expect to be able to find an article on the school in WP. I have also added a local award. TerriersFan 22:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment if the award were significant it would have its own article or have a section at Channel One News. Chris 02:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a neat argument but there is still much that is notable in the world that is not in Wikipedia, perhaps why about 2,300 articles are being created a day, and absence from WP is no denial of notability :-) TerriersFan 03:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment "all schools are notable" seems not to apply to this discussion in any meaningful way. What rot. Chris 03:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment We have articles on high schools, and verifiably notable lesser schools. Chris 03:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 08:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Zane

[edit]
Eric Zane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about a DJ with no claim to notability and no independent references killing sparrows 04:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 19:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Internet brigades

[edit]
Internet brigades (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Recreation of deleted article, Original research, WP:REDFLAG, WP:FRINGE, WP:SOURCE, Misattribution, False translation, Undue weight and Weasel words, POV fork from previously deleted article, attack page Original version of previously deleted article. Essentially SoapBox WP:NOT#SOAP, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Vlad fedorov 05:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys just don't understand that WP:REDFLAG applies to all articles and not just biographies. Moreover, his conspiracy also violates WP:FRINGE. Here is relevant citation from Wikipedia policy Biophys violates: "Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement. What is more, just because a quote is accurate and verifiably attributed to a particular source does not mean that the quote must necessarily be included in an article, but neither must it necessarily be excluded from an article. The sourced contribution must simply aid in the verifiable and neutral presentation of the subject". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FRINGE#Sourcing_and_attribution Vlad fedorov 16:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Preceding events to the creation of the article

User Biophys already earlier made a personal attack against me (Vlad fedorov) due to his unstoppable edit warring see the whole matter here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive78#If_this_a_personal_attack. He was warned by administrator Alex Bakharev here and personal attack was removed.
However, Biophys has created an article which he titled Internet troll squads, which is based on single unreliable source - immigration advertisement newspaper with circulation less than 5 000. And on the talk page to this article Biophys has created section entitled "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?"
diff, where he invites everyone to his talk page entitled "Vlad" - User_talk:Biophys#Vlad. At this page user CPTGbr [alleges], that I and administrator Alex Bakharev are working for the Russian government. Considering that user Biophys entitled his section on the Internet troll squads talk page "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?", it is clear that Biophys publicly slanders and defames me and Alex Bakharev. As you could see from my IP address (which is not proxy like in Biophys case), I can't be man working for KGB.
I would like to stop this unstoppable continuing harassment by user Biophys. It seems that his only business in Wikipedia is discussion of other Wikipedians, rather than discussion of the articles. I pretty much understand his desire to republish blog La Russophobe and all other anti-russian sources in the Wikipedia, but this has nothing to do with personal attacks and with discussion of reliability of these anti-russian sources.Vlad fedorov 04:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking into this. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 04:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CPTGbr given final warning for accusations against Alex Bakharev. Biophys given a warning about civility. Internet troll squads nominated at AFD. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 05:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not only these accusations are false, but they have nothing to do with this article. Let's discuss content of this article, not people.Biophys 15:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, nothing has changed really in the article. The only thing that changed is defenition. And again it is original research. Where and who named those hoax russian teams "internet brigades"? Biophys linked originally to the Guradian article about China, but there is no any labelling of that thing in China. Guradian uses the term "army of secret comentators". Later after the article was nominated for deletion, Biophys has added a link to Polyanskaya article "Commissars of the internet". And again we see that throughout the whole text a term "brigade" is used meaning "team". Only once the term "web-brigade" is used. Looking onto other sources - we see that there is no such term which was used by Biophys. Conclusion, the term and the name for the article is an original research by Biophys which is not found in its sources.
  • Second, Biophys again publishes Sections "Behaviour" and "Tactics" - they haven't changed even and are ridiculously worded. According to them, every man in the internet who supports Putin - is a member of KGB "internet team". It is stupid... They abuse directly other users in Wikipedia.
  • Third, the article in Russian Wikipedia directly shows in its infobox that "Internet teams" are conspiracy theory and the whole thing is based on claims of few people, namely - Polyanskaya, Krivov and Lomko - authors of the article "Commissars of the Internet. The FSB at the Computer". Nowhere on this article the information about conspiracy theory is indicated.
  • Fourth, like the other article it is totally dedicated to Russia. Even adding some original research comparisons with China didn't help - the article is totally about Russia. For example. original research is all that Biophys published in the Section "Recent developments" nothing is said in the sources about the subject of the article - internet teams.
  • Fifth, the defenition of internet teams is totally original research. Nowhere you coud find that "intenet teams" are waging state-sponcored information warfare. Indeed, the word "warfare" is totally POV, except original research. Nowhere in sources you find that this is a warfare, and is against "blogs" or "political bloggers" - I have already pointed many times that nowhere in Russian sources you could find a word "Blog".
  • Sixth, false translation and original research in that "internet brigades" are working against blogs.
  • Seventh, this article is a POV fork of the deleted article Internet Troll Squads which was twice deleted: AfD and deletion review. Here you could find the original version of the article Internet troll squads.
  • Eighth, Tygodnik Powszechny actually writes that "We don’t know it for certain (tracing a source of the attack failed). Only questions and assumptions remain and we are unable to verify them". Then it writes "According to Polish specialists in Russian affairs", the names of these are not disclosed, so it may be just Polish KGB disinformation and an act of Poland aggresion against Russia. Moreover, the first voting at AfD was rigged by Biophys and his Polish friends canvassing outside the Wikipedia. Vlad fedorov 04:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ninth, Biophys had made an original research when he added that Internet brigades use "active measures" methods. No any links are given.
  • Tenth, Biophys hides real sources of allegations. The source of the information about creation teams of Livejournal fighters is not The New Times newspaper, but allegations of national-bolshevik Roman Sadykhov. Conmsidering that this party uses fascist symbols, calls its regional commanders gauliaghters, like fascist were calling their leaders. The source of Polish allegations is not Tygodnik Powsechny, but anonymous Polish Experts on Russian Affairs. All this could be easily ascertained by looking at links.Vlad fedorov 03:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply here: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Internet_brigades_(2nd_nomination)#Reply_to_AfD_nominator_arguments Biophys 18:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You actually haven't replied to anything posted here. I just added more questions for you here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Internet_brigades#Biophys_keeps_his_falsifications_and_original_research_in_the_article. I have added more falsifications and original research cases for which you are in response.Vlad fedorov 18:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to note that Biophys failed to give his sources:
  1. ) Falsification of "group of investigative journalists" which are journalist, historian and programmer in reality.
  2. ) Deletions of proper identification of the real sources of information for allegations by Tygodnik Powszechny -- anonymous "Polish specialists on Russian affairs".
  3. ) Falsifications of Usupov citation - intentioanly false translation.
  4. ) Original research on "active measures" - not sourced to any source despite my requests. Vlad fedorov 17:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys has also falsified the following translation, he wrote in the article: "It is important not only to protect authorities - that is needed for sure, but attract young people who can work creatively in the internet.<ref name="Surkov"/>

Please see the original of Russian text http://www.newtimes.ru/index.php?page=journal&issue=6&article=231: "Важно найти такой поворот темы, не защищать власти — это само собой, надо привлекать ребят, которые умеют творчески работать в интернете".

Its real translation is: "It is important to find such a turn of topic, not to protect the authorities - this is understood, we need to attract youth who could work creatively in the internet".

And Biophys has written that he claimed "to protect authorities" which is both false translation and falsification!!!! Later he inserts english word "only" to right translation which changes things again to false translation - "not only to protect" as opposite to "not to protect" Vlad fedorov 18:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per abovementioned. Vlad fedorov 05:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the allegations are supported by the sources. I do not remember the prev. article, but I see that this is not devoted to any one country. I have been canvassed to oppose this article, as I believe have a number of others. I have never been in contact with biophys. Entirely on my own account, I judge it honest reporting, appropriate for WP. I can understand the POV that would wish to pretend that the methods of the KGB have not continued to the present. The very attempt to suppress this article might perhaps be taken to indicated otherwise.DGG 05:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you cite where the term "internet brigades" is taken from? Please give me the reference.Vlad fedorov 06:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How your vote corresponds to Fringe Theories guideline of Wikipedia? Please explain. Vlad fedorov 09:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
English translation of reference 2 (first publication on this subject) say: "web-brigades". "Internet brigades" is a better wording in my opinion. But this can be easily corrected and not a reason for deletion. Russian version also calls them "web-brigades" or "forum brigades". Biophys 07:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong!!! Reference 2 uses term "brigades", only once it says "web brigade". So you have confirmed that you've done original research, because you cited no sources for your "internet brigades". Thank you so much. Moreover reference 2 is published on blog, so it is violation of Wikipedia policies to use blog entries.Vlad fedorov 08:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original Russian article is a reliable source. Providing English translation is not neccessary, although desiarable. So everything is consistent with WP policies.Biophys 14:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the whole article doesn't correspond to the Russian text of the original russian article. You have done a lot of original research.Vlad fedorov 14:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original Russian article is an immigrant advertising newpaper with low circulation. English translation is from blog and falsifies Russian text. Moreover, you, Biophys has added to the original research a lot of texts not relevant.Vlad fedorov 15:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Czesc Piotrus. Could you cite where the term "internet brigades" is taken from? Please give me the reference. How your vote corresponds to Fringe Theories guideline of Wikipedia? Vlad fedorov 06:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are telling this is a hoax. Among all cited sources, there is only one (Usupovsky) that claims this to be a "conspiracy theory" (not a hoax). So, this is small minority opion, and it was described as such. I agree that originally submitted stub was not good. So, I worked a lot to improve the article. Now it is significantly bigger, well-referenced, less POV, etc. This is exactly what WP rules ask us to do: create interesting articles supported by multiple reliable sources. Of course, it can be improved further.Biophys 14:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rules say: verifiability, not truth. No one is proving anything here. There are many complicated phenomena and controversial subjects described in WP. How to deal with them? Do not invent or research anything yourself. Simply follow reliable sources whatever they say. It is exactly what I did. Your are talking about "absense of any research". Yes, I did not do any original research of my own. And I am not suppose to judge research of others. I only have to make sure that the sources are reliable, and their content is properly described in this artice. If you can provide any reliable sources which say: this particular reserach and claims made by Polyanskaya, Svirsky, journalists from Guardian and reports by New Times and grani.ru are wrong - such sources can be cited in the article. I found only one such source: claims by Usupovsky (with regard to only publication by Polyanskaya), and it is included. Biophys 14:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not truth? Thank you. I do not have to reject nonsense. There are no names in sourced articles, no direct evidences. All is easy. Economic growth => spread of internet => internet hooligans. Journalists — liberal democratic journalists — encountered them and wrote article about internet brigades. Fun? Not really. Fair? Not at all. ellol 20:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (I am creator of this article). I will answer to AfD nominator's claims at the talk page.Biophys 14:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The article still has bad title and requires massive cleanup: I have to agree that it dangerously close to original research by mixing/matching different phenomena into one text: Russia + China + CyberArmy. Nevertheless the organized intereference into internet opinion flow is an observable and non-surprizing fact or opinion. `'mikka 18:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Referenced. But possibly bad title. --Lysytalk 18:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you cite where the term "internet brigades" is taken from? Please give me the reference.Vlad fedorov 03:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should be renamed. Bad title as I already mentioned above. Any suggestions for a better one ? --Lysytalk 08:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - once again, this article is still about as good as it was before. I'm still not convinced this is at all a notable phenomenon, since the key sources are very slim, and it smells like WP:OR, and the creating editor seems to have some kind of argument to be made using the pages. However, none of that really matters, since there's no coherent reason presented to remove it. --Haemo 20:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Internet disinformation. Good article, nicely sourced, but potentially flamebait title. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blast san (talk • contribs) 21:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Could you cite where the term "internet brigades" is taken from? Please give me the reference.Vlad fedorov 03:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The article makes for a good read and provides a fair collection of references by usual Wiki standards. Even though the subject might be perceived as controversial by some, the article, as is stands now falls far beyond the scope of AfD injunction. It is equally important in my view to keep the title as it is because it’s a loan-word from an already established term coined in another language. --Poeticbent  talk  00:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you cite where the term "internet brigades" is taken from? Please give me the reference. And additionaly could you cite me source on Russian where the loan word is used? Vlad fedorov 03:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my answer above (references 2 and 3) and article in Russian Wikipedia. Of course, there is a question of best translation. I want to ask native speakers: is "Web-brigades" a better translation than "Internet brigades"? Biophys 14:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Web search is not as difficult as it sounds, Vlad fedorov. I suggest you do it yourself next time, but here are but a few search results for everybody else to take a note of:
Google Results: 59 for Веб-бригады (English: Internet brigades) [18] And please don't spam this page with repeated questions under each and every positive vote, because it won't make your voice sound louder and personally I don't particularly enjoy it. --Poeticbent  talk  06:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed. How many of these links are related to our subject and how many of them are not forums, blogs, wikis and other unreliable sources which use is prohibited by Wikipedia policies? Perhaps instead of making personal attacks on me and voicing your personal dislikeness of me, you should read these sources and present us reliable link which names these legendary KGB fellas "internet brigades"? You was so quick to state that the article is referenced, but you don't give us links? How many articles in Wikipedia are referenced to Google? Why you are unable to show us one normal link to reliable source which uses the term "internet brigades" and states that Russian Security Service has such "internet brigades"? You Google spamming is of no use here in Wikipedia. May I translate sources on the first page of your Google search for the word "веб-бригада"? The first - link to Russian Wikipedia, where is no source is shown to the term "web brigades" (and different term is used from "internet brigade" also, the term used by Russian Wikipedia is "web-brigades" and also there are no any sources on where it was taken), second link is to Occult Library (nice place if you are satanist), third link is to forum on crime rate (nothing related to our subject), fourth link is to the forums of Uzbekistan immigrants, fifth link is to the forum of GZT.ru, sixth link is to the forum of Ukrainian president, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth links are to German Russian forum. Why you couldn't cite reliable source? By the way, Google search for "польша страна идиотов" (English - poland, a land of idiots) shows 285,000 results. Should we create such an article in Wikipedia by your line of logic and your own standarts? You won't believe, but search shows even some articles from Rzeczpospolita newspaper and even Gazeta Wyborcza!!! Ja personalnie uwielbiam czytac Wyborcza! Search for "USA a land of idiots" - 1,110,000 results. Search for "russia a land of idiots" is 936,000 results. I think you have a lot of work to do here in Wikipedia. Perhaps you could "google" your opponents. I wish you good luck. Vlad fedorov 08:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the discussion that was here to the talk page (here), as it was not dealing with the article, but with user conduct. Regards, ---Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Petri Krohn, I respectfully disagree. First, only one source claims this to be a "conspiracy theory". So, this is small minority opinion. Second, there is no single mentioning of KGB in this article. This organization officially does not exist any more. But anyone is free to make any boxes and put them to his/her user page.Biophys 15:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. What claim was not supported? Every claim in this article is supported by sources that satisfy WP:SOURCE in my opinion.Biophys 02:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Haemo. The sources could be more diverse, but on the whole this is a decent enough start for an article on this supposed phenomenon. Articles relating to intel ops will often have to rely on sources that are of a somewhat speculative nature; maybe the text should make that clearer. Sandstein 12:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man! What you speak about? The aim of those Troll Squads is intimidation and disinformation. How this relates to the intelligence? And why USA support of terrorism is constantly being censured in English Wikipedia?Vlad fedorov 12:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because I am getting the impression this is more a content dispute than anything else (e.g. the remark And why USA support of terrorism is constantly being censured in English Wikipedia? just above me). The subject is real and deserves coverage in an encyclopedia, although it required rigourous cleanup and perhaps a merge with Information warfare should be considered. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove from mainspace but move to the author's userspace rather than delete in order to give him a chance to use his work by adding to the existing articles or starting, finally, a proper article (proper both by name and by scope) on his pet project. This article, however, is as unencyclopedic as the deleted one and is even very close to it. --Irpen 01:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. You disputed the title of the article. Can you suggest anything better? Of course, the article could be called "state-sponsored on-line information warfare teams" (or "Russian information warfare teams" if to exclude materials about China). But the current title seems to be more concise and clear...Biophys 02:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't offer you a title until the article has a clear scope. Is is about the conspiracy theory? Is it about the Putin regime's underground effort to affect the world through an internet? Is it about the broader than Russia phenomenon? Current addition of China looks totally artificial and WP:POINTy. Where is the current title from? Once this all becomes clear, I could offer you a title. I can see many possible scopes coming out of this topic and currently the article does not have any clarity on what its scope is. Therefore, I don't see it in mainspace. --Irpen 17:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


A request. May I ask AfD nominator (Vlad Fedorov) do not edit this article during the deletion discussion?! Everyone else is welcome. Vlad transforms this article to a garbage in order to "prove" that article is bad and facilitate its deletion. This is not fair. Biophys

The answer is no. Because you falsify information from the sources. You add a lot of original research. And by the way, it is not your userpage in your namespace. This deletion by you of the text from the source you cite demonstrates your Anti-Russian bias and falsification of sources. Good luck.Vlad fedorov 04:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is remarkable that AfD nominator can not wait until the end of the AfD discussion, but immediately edits the article to make it worse and prove his point. This is uncivil.Biophys 16:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is remarkable that author of this article Biophys - reverts corrections of his falsifications, misattributions, original research to push his article through AfD. We could add these methods to the methods of Internet brigades!!! Vlad fedorov 16:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your accusations are false. Vladislav Surkov was involved. The text about him was in the in the cited source: О работе в «Живом журнале»: «Я считаю, что это очень важный сектор работы», said Surkov.Biophys 16:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not accuse, just state facts. Vladislav Surkov is involved according to allegations of [[19]] Roman Sadykhov, who claimed that he heard a "secret speech" of Vladislav Surkov. We have to believe to the representative of political party currently banned for inciting ethnic hatred, exploiting nazist methods in its work and wearing fascist symbolics. You also misstaributed allegations as facts. You presented interview with [[20]] Roman Sadykhov as facts. No one has ever established the existence of internet brigades.Vlad fedorov 06:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. And, yes, some of the reactions on this page remind me of the line "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" from Hamlet (III, ii, 239). — Turgidson 14:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Article is well sourced and relates to an interesting subject. From some reactions I can read on this page, I would rather think that this article is closer to the truth than some here claim. I am even considering to translate in into French within the next weeks. --Lebob-BE 07:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't agree with the people who call it well-sourced. It isn't, it's still full of speculation and such. And the counter-reactions here are no indication of its merit. But! It does also contain some true, sourced information, and yes, it is definitely in the middle of a dispute. So, it's a start. Let's have at it and see where it winds up, maybe consider a merge at that point, and keep the disputed tags on in the meantime. Do not delete sourced information. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 17:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstract thought. Do you, Biophys, want to say us, that people in FSB, instead of performing their direct duties, are having fun in internet blogs and forums?! It's disgraceful and very revolting! I think, we should write an open collective letter or something to the President and director of FSB. We are fair taxpayers, and we have the right to know, that FSB doesn't have fun at internet forums in the working time, but really works to safeguard the Homeland! ellol 19:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's act immediately, friends! While the bastartds are relaxing at the working place, Homeland is defenseless! Vlad Fedorov! I have already composed the draft of the letter, I need your help to make it legally correct! Biophys! The land of your ancestors is defenseless! We'll give you parabellum, and you'll protect its borders! Hurry! Every minute may become the last for the country! ellol 19:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since your question is about FSB, let's discuss it here: Talk:Federal_Security_Service_of_the_Russian_Federation#What_is_the_purpose_of_FSB.3F. In short, NKVD, KGB and FSB never worked to "safeguard the Homeland", but to control the entire Russian population, and importantly the public opinion abroad (!) (two $ billions were spent only for funding foreign anti-war movements). They work and always worked against civilian populations of their own country and other countries. Hence, the disinformation and propaganda is their primary goal.Biophys 20:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's very good you have appeared here! I already wanted to leave. You can take parabellum in the room 237, campus building N5. The code is A43HF4. And one more thing. The mayor appointed you the rank of junior sergeant. Now, really hurry. Your sector for tonight is the Far East and Syberia. Then, put the parabellum backwards. Damnit! I'll find somebody who will substitute you. Guys! who want to patrol area from Kaliningrad to the Ural mountains for tonight? Sign here! ellol 21:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete poorly sourced with unreliable sources, recreation of deleted material, POV fork of a twice deleted article, original research, neologism, conspiracy theory and about a million other reasons for deletion. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 21:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note May I note respectfully that The Washington Post, The Guardian and Reuters sources are related to a tiny section on China? No such sources are about Russia. The world has nothing about internet brigades in Russia. Vlad fedorov 06:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It had already come to wide-scale propagandist campaign against Russia. But you do not notice it, because you have no solid knowledge about Russia. If WP writes Russians are eating christian babies for breakfast you'll trust even that. ellol 05:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for the reasons listed above, additionally the sources come from credible organizations including the Guardian. At the very least the popular media is reporting on it. --BuddyJesus 02:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note May I note respectfully that The Washington Post, The Guardian and Reuters sources are related to a tiny section on China? No such sources are about Russia. The world has nothing about internet brigades in Russia. Vlad fedorov 06:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clarify language that it is a belief held by a number of people, and possibly a conspiracy theory, and that the existence of said brigades is controversial. However, I think it meets the criteria under fringe theories, and furthermore from reading the discussion I have come to suspect that many of the objections to the article have to do with the content and not bona fide research or POV concerns, and may be political in nature. As long as the article presents itself as documentation of a social phenomenon, I think we should err on the side of retaining it. --Kadin2048 02:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I've seen several sources of media referencing this type of behavior in several formats, not to mention having witnessed it myself (yes, yes, original research). I look forward to working on this page a bit once I find more information in the American media about it, because this clearly is not localized phenomena - it's happening in many places. Besides -- I'm always up for a good conspiracy. Kuroji 02:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a very well-sourced article. Even if the "internet brigades" do not exist, it has been referenced enough by outside media to warrant notation. ASBands 05:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--This page was linked to from /.slashdot at about this time. Expect many more votes as a result. Paladinwannabe2 16:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but if it overlaps with any similar articles on Internet censorship merge it . Sources need to be improved. Even if such brigades are a conspiracy theory it is worth documenting the theory (and labelling it as such). Maybe it could be extended to a general examination of sockpuppets and astroturfing for the purpose of censorship, removing the emphasis on only one or two countries?
  • Keep., but I should point out that similar teams can be found in Chinese (網特, which means government agent on network), and it should not be Russian-only issue. Once information is available, I hope this page can be generalized to contain both Russian and Chinese context, not just Russian context. User:csmth 13:50 11 April 2007 (HKT)
  • Delete. An article seems to be nothing more than a hearsay, with an effort to legitimize it by citing "sources". The list of sources contains Reuters and Washinton Post, which is misleading, since both of them support a tiny "Miscellaneous" section of the article, not the bulk of the article which describes Internet brigades in Russia. Other sources are extremely unreliable. The "meaty" parts of the article, that is, the Behavior and Tactics sections are so generic as to be useless. -- Peter malenkov (talk 06:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong keep when it comes to contentious articles, the things that are contended should be removed, cleaned up, sourced, and attributed. The article on the whole discusses a matter which has definitely received major media attention and does have verifiable sources available. Notability is established and sourced. The article needs cleanup, but it's far from a lost cause. This article has much higher quality than a great deal on wikipedia. So with regards to policy, it's a keeper. With regards to my own opinion on the matter, there's something ammusing about deleting an article about internet censorship. i kan reed 07:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed there. Not to mention I find it funny when a portion of the people suggesting deletion have been created in the last three months or less, with one created not very long at all before this AFD came about. Kuroji 08:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know who else you might be referring to, but if you are talking about me, then I confirm that I have registered upon seeing the article to cast my vote against it without being anonymous. With that taken out of the way, I do not think you can deny what I said, that is, that the content of the Behavior and Tactics sections is way too generic, and that the few sources that actually carry some weight support not the alleged operations of "Internet brigades" of Russian origin (the description of which make for the bulk of the article), but rather something that happened in the Western world or in China. I say either delete the article or split it into two, separating international stuff from stuff specific to Russia (and then probably kill the bits specific to Russia since none of them are supported by a credible source), or, well, try cleaning up the article one more time (not likely to help, given that this would be attempt #3 already). Peter malenkov 07:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Original research etc., assuming it applies here at all (I can't say either way) is not a reason to delete an article: it's a reason to clean up an article. Deletion should really only concern itself with whether a topic is itself encyclopaedic and noteworthy, or whether, if it is, the article is so bad that it can't possibly be salvaged and that it's better to start over from scratch. I don't see why either of these criteria would apply here, though. -- Schneelocke 08:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep with preferably a rename. Well-sourced, the issue is too similar to already well-known techniques of astroturfing to be dismissed as a conspiracy theory. KiloByte 10:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speculative and basing on original research rather then encyclopedic article. The main definition of article already have problems, so how his article can be equaled to encyclopedic article, then the basic foundation of it lacks support? Important claims of this article relays only on one online source rather then established academic sources, making it as one author speculation. Quite many sources are used for secondary points only rather then main topic. Article name – another problem of this article, btw probably his is the main base of these brigades.M.K. 11:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a vast amount of scholarly literature on Russian propaganda and disinformation (see here) that shows the Russians have an infrastructure for setting up such attacks (see Godson and Schultz 'Dezinformatsia: The strategy of Soviet Disinformation'. The times have changed. The Internet is the new media and they have evolved with the technology. The Russians still have a considerable intelligence collection effort and it is quite reasonable that they have a propaganda and disinformation framework in action as well.Evud 12:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked into your sources and found nothing in support of existence of Internet brigades. These sources even don't use this term "internet brigades". Moreover you just jam two different things "intelligence collection" and "disinformation through the internet". As for "intelligence collection" Wikipedia itself is used as Intelligence Tool article. Citation:

"Wikipedia "has steadily grown in popularity, credibility, and influence to the point that it is now used and referenced in U.S. Government intelligence products," explained Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, a group that monitors government information policy, in a recent blog post".

But there is no information in your sources confirming the existence of Russian Internet brigades. So please don't post links leading readers to nowhere. It is not quite polite to force us to spend a lot of time searching through this rubbish in order to end up with nothing.Vlad fedorov 07:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Russians have had a very successful propaganda and disinformation campaign in action for over 70 years. This historial trend of using propaganda and disinformation has been in use since by Russian before the second world war (source: koch, s. 'double lives: stalin, willi munzenberg and the seduction of the intellectuals') and that framework existed up into the late 80's and into the early 90's (source: 'Soviet Active Measures in the "Post-Cold War" Era 1988-1991' A Report Prepared at the Request of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations by the United States Information Agency June 1992). Bureaucracies like that don't change over night. There is a strong possibility that the infrastructure is still there especially considering the Russians found such operations very successful (source: Anastasi, P. Chapter 11 'Soviet Disinformation in Greece: A quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Ethnos' in 'The New Image Makers'). Essentially, Vlad, you are denying factual history, you are denying the nature of bureaucracies, and you are denying the fact that a nation state would just 'drop' a useful method of intelligence.
You said: "Moreover you just jam two different things "intelligence collection" and "disinformation through the internet". No I didn't jam them together. I guess you missed the part where I put "still have a considerable intelligence collection effort" "AND" (written in capital letters for your reading comprehension skills) "it is quite reasonable that they have a propaganda and disinformation framework in action as well". It is quite reasonable to assume that, considering the above historial trends. Not only that, but there is multiple intelligence functions used by state and non-state actors. The four functions of intelligence being: collection, analysis, counter-intelligence and covert action (with propaganda and disinfo being subsets of covert action programs)(Sources: Sherman, M. 'Intelligence Power in Peace and War' and Godson, R. 'Dirty Tricks and Trump Cards'). For an intelligence community to gather, and act on, complete information they have to be utilizing all four functions. The fact that the Russians still have a widespread intelligence collection effort directed towards the west (sourced above in my first entry) is enough for me to make the analytical leap that other intelligence functions like counter-intelligence and covert action are still in wide spread use.
You then state "I have looked into your sources and found nothing in support of existence of Internet brigades." Again that wasn't the point. The above paragraphs extrapolate on the historical issue. Secondly, there is a reason why there is limited information on this phenomenon. Penetrating a states secrets (and that's what we are talking about here, a secret network for online disinformation that has possibly been unravelled) should be beyond the capability of a bunch of wikipedia and Internet users. We are only ever going to see bits and pieces, and even then, the network is going to be like onion layers with security and deception spread between layers. That's the nature of intelligence. The fact that the person who created this article has done an excellent job at synthesizing the sources, to create a more illuminating picture of a phenomenon we know little about, is actually an outstanding achievement in open source intelligence gathering.
It is also telling that you are more caught up in the validity of the term 'Internet Brigades'. The word is never the thing. Perhaps someone will come up with a better term to describe what is happening. It's arguing over semantics and a waste of time. But perhaps wasting our time is your MO? Which brings me to the topic of you Vlad, I'm curious about you (and some of the others on here). I'm curious about your relentless pursuit and near obsession with this article. In finishing, what is your motivation here?Evud 02:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, possibly rename and keep up the good job sourcing it. //Halibutt 15:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC) (see my comment below)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. There's a lot of flaming going on around this article, but it looks like the article has shaped up as a result of the criticism and attention. What started as a nutjob conspiracy article is now barely worth reading. This could shape up to be a good article with some more work. I agree that it may need remaing or be merged with another section. Paladinwannabe2 16:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although I think it should be renamed and perhaps have parts of it discussed in Internet Censorship. I'll have my Russian friend read the article to make sure that it's correct. Keep the factual dispute tag until we can make sure that this is a real phenomenon. As an aside, I'm not sure why there is even a vote about this article. If it's a conspiracy theory then feel free to make the article such, but deleting it completely is blatant censorship. If, for example, there's an article up that criticizes Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, are we going to have a vote about it? And if the majority of votes are from Turkish contributers that are against it, are we going to take it down? The same applies for an article critical of Islam, or anything else. This vote seems to be along those lines as well, with Russian contributers against it (I'm Russia though, just don't read well). I'm not even sure why the last one was taken down... it should have been marked as a conspiracy theory, not taken down. Codingmonkey 19:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The author of this article - Biophys - refuses to name it conspiracy theory. Please see his definition of "internet brigades". Vlad fedorov 19:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. This article does not criticize Russia at all! It describes a phenomenon that may be related to activities of secret services and PR department of the current Putin's administration. They are not Russia.Biophys 15:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Biophys is also an author of deleted article on blog "La Russophobe". Biophys also republishes a lot of material from blog "La Russophobe". The English translation of an article given as a source to the current AfD article is taken from this blog. It also differs from the original article on Russian, because author of the blog added to the translations his comments. Biophys also publishes materials from blog La Russophobe to Boris Stomakhin article.Vlad fedorov 07:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that user Halibutt repeatedly inserts here his votes, supposedly to advance his POV. I think this should be addressed.Vlad fedorov 10:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be accidental. I've notified Halibutt and I'm sure he'll be here to remove his second vote shortly. In the meantime, I advise you to review WP:AGF. By the way, your liberal use of boldface (on this page and elsewhere) makes it look like you're always yelling, so go easy on it. Appleseed (Talk) 12:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another Pole covering other Pole by coming short of WP:NPA? Look, you seem to be quite well contented with the same use of boldface by Biophys. SHOUTING is quite something different. You are too imaginative. And by the way, I also advise you to visit WP:AGF, especially when something "look like" for you. Vlad fedorov 13:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my bad. I knew I already voted on this article, but thought my previous vote was in the previous voting. BTW, in addition to AGF, you might want to read the notification on top of this very page. Particularly the remark that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors. I did not come here to advance my POV, but to propose a solution. And this has nothing to do with mine nationality - or yours for that matter. I bet you wouldn't like to be judged by your nationality rather than by your words and beliefs. If so, please be so kind as to extend the same rule to others. //Halibutt 14:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Final comment. As a creator of this article, I must partially agree with arguments of User:Codingmonkey (see his arguments). There are no any reasons for this article even to be considered for AfD. It should be clear from this discussion for an outside viewer that some users here simply do not like each other. Whatever their problems are, they have nothing to do with this article.Biophys 15:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you Biophys agree to mark this article as conspiracy theory if you agree with User:Codingmonkey? Vlad fedorov 16:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And is this your reply for all the reasons for deletion put at the top of the page? This is ridiculous. You haven't responded for hell number of questions about WP:REDFLAG, WP:FRINGE, WP:OR, WP:ATTRIBUTION and consider this ok? Please, give us sources for your insertion of active measures term in the defenition of Internet brigades?Vlad fedorov 15:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my answer in all detail here: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Internet_brigades_(2nd_nomination)#Reply_to_AfD_nominator_arguments.Biophys 15:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my objections there too. I doubt that you have details indeed. Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Internet_brigades_(2nd_nomination)#Reply_to_AfD_nominator_arguments. Vlad fedorov 16:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, these very detailed answers and suggestions on such a long list of articles violations of Wikipedia policies is very ridiculous. It seems that people coming just to make the visibility of support.Vlad fedorov 17:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 08:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Producer Joe

[edit]
Producer Joe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is about the producer of a radio show. It makes no claim of credible claim of notability for the person or the show and has no independent references killing sparrows 05:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free Beer

[edit]
Free Beer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Yet another radio host article with no claim to credible notability and no indy references killing sparrows 05:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 08:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Wings

[edit]
Hot Wings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

4th in a series of DJ's with no credible claim to notability and no independent references killing sparrows 05:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 08:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garth Westbrook

[edit]
Garth Westbrook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

False NFL player, never played in the NFL, never recorded his stats, trust me, I have Madden 2001.Garth Westbrook

Garth Westbrook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was del `'mikka 17:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free Beer & Hot Wings Morning Show

[edit]
Free Beer & Hot Wings Morning Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A morning radio show with no claim of notability, no ratings listed and no independent references killing sparrows 05:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have added the following related page as it is the only one in the below category not currently under AfD;
Freebeer & Hotwings Morning Show Glossary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) EliminatorJR Talk 14:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nominator. There is also a category 'Free Beer & Hot Wings Morning Show' that should be deleted but I don't know how to nominate that.--killing sparrows 06:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response. That goes on WP:CFD. I'll see if I can take care of it. YechielMan 07:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Follow-up After checking the guidelines, I realize that it doesn't make sense to delete the category so long as the category contains some articles. I recommend that all the articles in the category be deleted, and then the category itself can be speedied. The closing admin should take note of this. YechielMan 07:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Note the related AFD on Eric Zane. YechielMan 07:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is the third or so in a number of related articles that need to be deleted.--Joebengo 18:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking any sources to show notability.-- danntm T C 23:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Lacks notability. --Masterpedia 04:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The show is syndicated in 9 different states. They interview top line celebs such as Jeff Goldblum, Billy Bob Thorton, Dick Vitale, and many others. This is way more notable than most of the morning shows you have here. The glssary is a side article from the main page. The only source you can really go by is the official site. Assassin Haiku 12:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The show is your typical morning show garbage with the same predictable pattern of guests and inane banter. I knew nothing about the show until this morning when driving through Nashville. I wanted to know who greenlighted this sludge and found it on Wikipedia. If not for Wikipedia's entry, all I would have read was the slanted nature of their own website instead of the Wiki's neutral coverage. There should be more information, like reviews and ratings though. I'll see what I can find.
  • deleteGman124 22:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Well first of all I was not aware of any type of rule infringement in notifying people who have previously worked on an article of thier interest to give them a fair say in the topic they put time in on. I thought that would only be fare for anyone who belives in what the wrote. secondly if this comment "Above unsigned !vote is from single edit (this one) IP :)--killing sparrows 19:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)" is supposed to insinuate that it was me who wrote that you are completley wrong. I mean yeah I think this is an article worth keeping on here because I have been a fan of the show since they were only on one station, but this would not be worth pulling a stupid stunt like that. If I could prove it to you I would but there is no way unless you would like to try to ask the people who run this site. And lastly if you feel that passionate about getting rid of something that others take enjoyment in then go ahead there is more to life to me than this entry. I have had one entry of mine taken out of here and it was for just cause, I did not know the rules. I personally feel this whole rampage to get this deleted is senseless especally considering the fact that this has been up for almost a full year and there was no problem up until now. In general this whole thing kind of kills the whole Wiki experience for anyone who has dedicated time in writing something about what they and others deem as worth spending time on. So whatever will happen will just happen. Assassin Haiku 23:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I would also like to add in defense of myself after reading on canvasing. What i did was no where near votesacking, and more along the lines of friendly notice. The people I posted to had not voted before because there was never a vote on this topic before. I apologise for the defensive put out yesterday but there were what I felt like a lot of accusations in my direction. I do not like being accused of things especally when you try to make me look even worse by stating I would do something like votesacking. Assassin Haiku 14:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I said it was canvassing and possibly votestacking ("Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view." from WP:CANVASS) and I stand by that - if an article passes Wikipedia guidelines it won't be deleted and therefore shouldn't need other people to come and "defend" it. EliminatorJR Talk 14:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentI understand that, the way you stated I was doing so it made it seem like I was doing something against the rules when it states a friendly notice is acceptable. If the guidelines are all it takes to go about deletion and not a concern of what is written in here and had I known it I would not have even contacted anyone dealing with it.Assassin Haiku 23:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Provides a NPOV on the show with much more information than the official site provides. Helps new listeners figure out what it is all about. Show itself is a source of information, including the podcast (subscription only). Does need more sources, including ratings. Keep it and allow users to add information from more sources. The glossary should go, though. 216.120.133.202 20:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a good show. People need to know about it. They have solutions for world peace. It needs to be syndicated in Iran/Iraq/and the United Arab Emirates.
  • Delete nn. Mukadderat 17:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article provides a nice background of the show. With new affiliates being added all the time, it helps new listeners of the show get an idea of what they are all about. Jerome12 17:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spectrobes

[edit]
List of Spectrobes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am nominating this page for deletion for a few reasons. First, it violates WP:NOT, specifically Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a game guide. Second, it somewhat violates Wikipedia:Copyrights in that all the information is straight from the game, not paraphrased, sourced, etc. It's almost as if the editor went through the game, looked at all his Spectrobes, and just copied their info word for word! (Doesn't that kind of count as Original Research?) Lastly, it somewhat violates WP:NOTE in that the Spectrobes themselves are not all that notable; apart from this game and a few webisodes, they have not made any public appearances, been in any other games, caused some riots, etc. SuperDT 06:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It says at the top of the page: "All of the descriptions provided are from the respective Spectrobe's Database Entry in the game." Sincerely, Thrashmeister {U|T|C} 23:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 08:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LeaseTrade.com

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

Appears to fail WP:WEB. Also largely reads like an advertisement. ghits: [21] NMChico24 06:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is not meant as an advertisement, rather a notation about a related website and a definition of lease assumptions. Please note, an article specifically defining "lease assumptions" will be authored shortly. mattmcg
    • The issue is not so much it sounding like an advertisement, that was just a secondary comment. The main problem is conforming to WP:WEB. To be acceptable, the article needs to cite sources that establish how the site is notable to make it clear why an article should exist. You can also read WP:NOT for more information about what is inappropriate for Wikipedia. --NMChico24 07:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will be updating this again tomorrow. There are credible second sources that cite LeaseTrade.com as notable for a number of reasons (e.g. one of the original websites that pioneered the concept). mattmcg
  • Delete. I'm not only working with WP:WEB, I'm hedging on WP:CORP - doesn't appear to be very notable here. --Dennisthe2 16:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Would be nice to keep but its not a notable company and also I think it fails WP:WEB] --PrincessBrat 18:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails to explain notability. Corvus cornix 19:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - another wonderful, self written advert. Rgds, - Trident13 20:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Locale of Muscat, Oman

[edit]
Locale of Muscat, Oman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apparently an article about a church in Oman. No claim of notability and no references killing sparrows 07:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless notability can be asserted. Thanks, Navou banter / contribs 07:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cautious keep. There can't be that many churches in Oman. Though to be sure, the ministry of information site says that there are. StAnselm 12:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ORG. This article appears to be about a local church in an international denomination, yet I can't find any article about the international denomination in Wikipedia. The only source provided is to a web site about the denomination, which doesn't appear to show a directory of its local churches, so it doesn't help confirm the existence of this local church. There is no clear claim to notability in this article, and merely being a church in a mostly Muslim country is not an inherent claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 17:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I definitly do not see how this church claims notability.--Joebengo 18:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Mukadderat 17:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If enough attributable information exists about the subject to write a full and comprehensive article about it, it may make sense for the subject to have its own article. If some source material is available, but is insufficient for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the subject under the article for its parent locality. If no source material, or only directory-type information (location, function, name, address) can be provided, the subject may not merit mention yet at all. Jerry 22:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted. -- Longhair\talk 07:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teamsports

[edit]
Teamsports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is about a MySpace forum that doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB. The article is being used as an attack page (the version before I trimmed it). I tagged it for references and sources last month, but none have been provided till now. I would have speedied it, but there is assertion of notability ("popular sub-forum"). No use of prodding either, as it will certainly be removed by the users who've been adding personal attacks to the article. utcursch | talk 07:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 19:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sullenearth

[edit]
Sullenearth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable comic publisher. I'm pretty sure the subject doesn't meet WP:N, but that's what AfD is for... Possible WP:COI with the authors of the article. The Bleak content was in another article (speedy deleted for copyvio twice). -- Ben 04:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 07:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

° Why is this being contested? This is clearly a legitimate company with published works that are verified. What is the reason for any article on this website if not for sparking the interest of a specific subject? Seriously though, what would be the point Teri7 15:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

° This a legit. company why is this being contested? How many more ref. do we need to provide? http://shirts.meetees.com/jeffs.html http://www.whois.ws/whois-com/ip-address/sullenearth.com/ http://savage-comedy.com/_Sullenearth 15:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)~

° Is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Comics promotional?

° What constitutes promotional years of service? Hibbs8 22:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 08:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RPGds

[edit]
RPGds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software. I'm unable to find any secondary, reliable sources to verify any of the content in the article, and, as the article has remained tagged {{primarysources}} since November 2006, neither has anyone else. —Cryptic 10:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete another recreation of the same article as previously speedied.--Alf melmac

The Graham Roff Experience

[edit]
The Graham Roff Experience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not satisfy WP:MUSIC, prod contested with no explanation. -SpuriousQ (talk) 08:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely non-notable. Orderinchaos 08:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanised Convulsions

[edit]
Mechanised Convulsions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 10:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not satisfy the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC. No hits, tours or awards and no 3rd-party commentary. EdJohnston 22:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 08:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, can't find any reliable sources (looked on a couple of subscription engines too). Orderinchaos 08:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 08:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double-Standards and Human Rights Protection

[edit]
Double-Standards and Human Rights Protection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Basically it's a short rant about human rights protection and alleged Western hypocrisy. Some interesting points but not at all relevant for an encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos 08:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep Arkyan &#149; (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Batchelor

[edit]
Roy Batchelor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable professor with some consultancy work on the side. Pleclech 12:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 08:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Named chair at the 2nd-best business-school in the UK, strong research record, stronger record of industry and government panel involvement. Seems a clear pass for WP:PROF to me. I wikified the article but didn't change the content much; there's a lot more that could be added from his web page. —David Eppstein 16:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Added later): I ran a Google news archive search and included some results. Now has multiple independent sources per WP:N. —David Eppstein 19:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Grice

[edit]
Lara Grice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Bit part and extras actress, no major roles. Does not meet wikipedia notability guidelines (WP:N) Madmedea 15:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 08:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean McKinsley

[edit]
Sean McKinsley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article makes several claims which just barely meet A7 threshold -- nevertheless, is orphanned, unsourced, and resume-like. Unless someone comes forward with sources, delete. Xoloz 15:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 08:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 01:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Avner

[edit]
Amit Avner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Vanity article from non-notable web developer. His company, BWitty, appears to have done little of substantive value. Any coverage of him/his company relates to the foundation of the company by him at a young age (14) in 1999. TreveXtalk 17:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 01:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BWitty

[edit]
BWitty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails notability. The sole output of this company appears to be an online noteboard service that carries no advertising. Vanity article as per Amit Avner. TreveXtalk 17:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 08:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Chipp

[edit]
Terry Chipp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An artist with no real claims of notability that I can see. May be a member of some artistic organisations, but this is not attributed. Has an official website. Other than that, there are no references.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 08:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 19:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Chancey

[edit]
Tina Chancey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion or evidence of notability whatsoever, other than a tenuous "was in a band with a guy from Deep Purple" which would be better suited to that band's entry. However, seeing that as it's been up a year with multiple editors, bringing it here instead of speedying or merging. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The early music world is understated in the Wkikipedia and Tina Chancey is well know in this field. I feel the comment about her being in the band with a guy from Deep Purple is both potentally insulting to her and to Ritchie Blackmore who is that guy. I would hope that the comment is not coming from the point of view of a Deep Purple fan which I happen to be but from someone who is trying to be both constructive and extending the entry on Tina Chancey. I am looking for her academic details as she is an academic working in the field of music that she is credited for here. I think a look at the Hesperus website would provide us useful information which will allow us to keep this entry. At this time I object to deletion. Paulw99 20:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I feel the comment about her being in the band with a guy from Deep Purple is both potentally insulting to her and to Ritchie Blackmore who is that guy" - what? She was in a band with a guy from Deep Purple. It's not a value judgement! - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You totally miss the fact that she was in her own right able to achieve two National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) awards for which you have to be of a extremely high standard as a musician. To have picked up on her performing with Ritchie Blackmore seems to be a little like a lack of other reason to object. I didn't mean to be insulting to you, I am sorry if that came accross that way, but she has done much more than that. I still object to deletion can we please look at giving me sometime to research more imformation on her and make this entry up to the standard required?. Paulw99 20:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment So far I have added an additional discography section and will be adding further information. Will someone comment on the additions please? I am also preparing a section on her academic work and the papers she has written but these are proving a little harder to understand as I don't have a doctorate in musicology.Paulw99 09:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 08:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She appears notable after following her ghits, but it's a stretch to say National Endowment for the Arts and extremely high standards are a given.--killing sparrows 00:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've expanded and cited the article a bit since this nomination. I think she's probably more notable for her work with Hesperus, which is a pretty successful early music group, as well as with other artists. Also note that her stage-name is "Tudor Rose" in that band with that guy from Deep Purple. Passes WP:music pretty clearly. Mak (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On doing more research on Tina Chancey I am beginning to find evidence of her academic work and her work as an editor of book reviews on the subject of music for a Society magazine related to her work. Unfortutanately this research is slow due to me not holding access or experience on where to find Tina's academic work. Living in the UK I am finding it hard to follow the routes to access academic papers in the USA.Paulw99 21:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I also challenge the comment made about the National Endowment Fund for the Arts Tina recieved twice, there are clear and high standards you have to achieve to be awarded funds from the NEA and their are clearly stated in their website.Paulw99 21:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete nn. Mukadderat 17:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I nominated this I think it now warrants a weak keep following the expanding - although that new discography reads like an advert - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 19:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electro-gravitic propulsion

[edit]

Unsourced weasel-speak. --Pjacobi 20:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 08:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitively an improvement, but what should be done with science fiction and ufology aspects? Remove categories and navbox from from outer space or include these aspects. Keepable now but I very mucg assume it will drift away from sane version if not closely watched. --Pjacobi 13:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It just don't worl out in the current state of Wikipedia. Uncle G's version was keepable but the article now has started its transformation into bullshit-land again. --Pjacobi 16:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While the present version of the article is indeed about twice the length it should be and contains dubious claims in the first half or so, it does add additional, apparently-valid historical information that was missing in the last Uncle G version. A rewrite, rather than a revert, would seem to be in order.
Also, as a relatively minor point, having most of the last 100 edits be incremental changes by Reddi spaced a minute apart makes the "history" tab far more annoying to use than necessary. Preview, rather than incremental saving, is the way to go.--Christopher Thomas 17:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA people. Please keep it civil and stick to arguments about the page. Ad hominem comments are not welcome here - perfectblue 17:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, but clean up and divide the science and hypothesis from the pseudoscience: People obviously aren't doing their research I suggest that they stop using Google.com and start using a slightly better tuned method instead. Like a library, or at least a less commercially orientated search engine. There is plenty of evidence to show that electrogravitics is more than notable to be included here. There is a lot of scientific hypothesis (and more than enough pseudoscience) to make it verifiable and notable. for example
  • Aviation Studies (International) Ltd (1956) "Electro-gravitics Systems: An examination of electrostatic motion, dynamic counterbary and barycentric control."
  • Loder Theodore C. (2002), "Outside the box: Space and terrestrial transportation energy technologies for the 21st century", American Institute of Aeronautics Astronautics
  • Valone Thomas (1995), "Electrogravitics Systems: Reports on a New Propulsion Methodology", Integrity Research Institute, ISBN 0964107007.
Electrogravitics were also included in a report put before Congress in 2003.
"Innovative Environmental Technologies: Field hearing before the Committee on Environment and Public Works", United States Senate, 107th Congress", US Government Printing Office ISBN 0160697042.
Remember, Wikipedia isn't just about proven science, it's also about hypothetical science too. Something doesn't have to be on the shelves at walmart to be in Wikipedia - perfectblue 17:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has to be "on the shelves at walmart" to be called _science_, or otherwise presented as scientific _fact_, though. That is one of the main problems with the article at present (the other being that it goes on a tangent mentioning many other phenomena involving electrostatics that aren't related to "electrogravitation"). --Christopher Thomas 17:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be sure to tell that to the boys over at Dark matter, Superstring theory, and Flyby anomaly, as well as the guys over at Urban Myths etc. Besides, there's more than enough pseudo science alone on this topic to do a full article in itself. - perfectblue 18:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adventure Games

[edit]
Adventure Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page has little indication of notability and seems to be mainly an advert for the store Amaccormack 09:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Rlevse 19:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcasting of The Simpsons

[edit]
Broadcasting of The Simpsons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of program syndication or a TV Guide. The Simpsons does not gain notability by being syndicated and individual stations do not gain notability based on syndicating it. Also oppose merging any of this information into the featured article The Simpsons. Otto4711 22:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 09:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still fail to see why it is relevant to have a list of the foreign language voice actors. The draft you presented is good, it would be better without all the lists of voice actors. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Also note: poorly sourced article on living person & WP:AUTO problems. —Centrx→talk • 20:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abe Tran

[edit]
Abe Tran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable reality show contestant. Who cares what fan clubs he is a member of? Corvus cornix 23:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, new sources have been added to further verify information. Sentences concerning fan clubs and nicknames should be deleted User:TKDchampXI

  • KEEP - I created this article originally. Considering Abe Tran was just on the cover of ATA World Magazine and wikipedia lists the American Taekwondo Association as one of the largest martial arts organizations in the US and worldwide, Abe Tran is at least a celebrity within that large circle of martial arts practicioners. Furthermore, he is a Head Coach of the Rutgers University Taekwondo Team. - Brett Yates - bay8s— User:bay8s (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 09:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless better claims of notability are produced. At the moment there is nothing much here that many other talented martial artists can claim. The ATA cover, incidentally, was based on his appearance in Final Fu. (Without invoking some sort of reverse WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, not even the winners of that show have articles). EliminatorJR Talk 14:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentTo me this hinges on the validity of the world championship claim as competing at the highest level is notable. There appears to be some thought that ATA is bogus in some respects, which lessens the importance of the championship title. I know nothing about TKD and so cannot say but it seems the real question that needs to be answered, without that, not notable. Please don't bother disputing my statement about ATA here, unless you can point to some other independent body that validates their reputation. This is just a comment FWIW. --killing sparrows 01:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article has been extensively vandalised and badly reverted - I think I've fixed it now. EliminatorJR Talk 14:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Mukadderat 17:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 19:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Titane laurent

[edit]

References have now been added giving publication names and locations. Please email j@stirlingmusic.biz to explain why this is still for deletion.Jdm21 17:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)jdm21[reply]

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

Unreferenced biography claiming half a million readers for a webcomic. A previous prod was removed with additions to the article. Delete unless sourced. gadfium 09:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 19:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill still

[edit]
Bill still (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable bio / promotion for someone trying to push some highly original ideas for monetary reform. -- RHaworth 02:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: He seems to have many google hits, although its hard to sort out which are specific for him. If it is kept it should be redirected to Bill Still.--Dcooper 14:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 09:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Stubbify and Rename to William T. Still. He does seem to be a notable conspiracy theorist, writing on other topics as well [24][25][26]. Most of the claims in here are unreferenced, however. Having poorly referenced biographies is a bad idea for anybody, but particularly for conspiracy theorists or other individuals holding controvercial or unpopular views. RookwoodDept. of Mysteries 14:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Also, how do we know that the TMJ/Hormone author Bill Still is the same person as William T. Still? RookwoodDept. of Mysteries 14:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but on account of lack of attribution. --Dennisthe2 16:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete yet. Since there are not a lot of information on the web, I think the authors probably should reference more printed documents. I would suggest cutting out the non-referenced pieces, and leave what could be verified. I had to search for some related information today, and found this article. Though not perfect, I suggest not totally removing it, but just editing it down to some verifiable content. Boerseun 02:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I confirmed with Mr. Still that he is the author of the TMJ book. Those were his days as a freelance writer in the medical field. Regarding other issues surrounding this article, I've done my best to deal with them. Most of the people I told about the article put comments in its discussion tab. So if you could, also review that before deletion, as there are some points in there. Senatorj777 13:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete nn. Mukadderat 17:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 13:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Akisha Samia

[edit]
Akisha Samia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page has been tagged three times with a PROD and at least once with a speedy, all because someone thought the article is a hoax. At least twice an IP has tried to create the AfD but of course could not finish the process. I am completing this AfD as I think based on a small amount of research is either a hoax or non notable. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I can't say that this woman isnt notable, at least in the world of wrestling, but there are no sources which do not help support a claim of notibility.--Joebengo 18:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This woman certainly is not notable because this woman does not exist. A quick "Google" search yields no results for an "Akisha Samia" besides sites that link to this one. This would not be a big issue if the contributor did not also provide fictional accounts of other real people or events (i.e. Trish Stratus, Traci Brooks, the results of the WXW Super 8 Cup tournament). Her discussion page now includes an accusation from an employee of WXW who testifies that this "Akisha Samia" character has never appeared at a WXW show. As this article is about a fictional character who has no relevance to anyone besides the person who wrote it up, it MUST be deleted. Wow, that all sounded very spiteful, eh? But you get my point. 74.12.134.225 05:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 19:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zhu Xiao Di

[edit]
Zhu Xiao Di (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Reads like advertising and does not really show notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 09:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 19:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winner Winner Chicken Dinner

[edit]
Winner Winner Chicken Dinner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced slang Vegaswikian 06:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete but only because of lack of sources. 14,000 G-hits for such an odd(unlikely to be assembled at random) phrase indicates a reasonable probability that there are sources out there, and given the small region it is specific to, a fairly large number as well. I'd be quick to switch my delete to a keep if reliable sources could be found. i kan reed 07:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to source it, the place I learned about it was an online forum [28] so I don't know if that's a valid source. I'll add it anyway, just in case. By the way how can you tell it's gotten 14,000 hits? --MrCalifornia 22:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for details. Vegaswikian 05:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm afraid that's not a valid source. Typically a source is someone or something with a reputation for presenting factual information. i kan reed 06:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 09:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Transwiki. Even if relevant sources are dug up, this is little more than a dicdef, and would not belong on wikipedia in any case. If sources are found and noteability asserted, a transwiki to wictionary might be the solution. Otherwise, delete.Dr bab 10:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. I'm worried about the apparent folk etymology behind it, but if it's on Wikt, then it'll work itself out. --Dennisthe2 15:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 08:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Priestley

[edit]
Gavin Priestley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A mere potential candidate for election into the Australian House of Representatives. The article makes unsupported claims and reads more like a campaign pitch. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 06:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 09:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No real claim of notability, could just be a campaign pitch.--Joebengo 18:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article makes no claim for his notability outside his candidature. Google News [29] comes up with nothing although there are some sources through Google News Archive [30]. However, these sources do not establish current notability. If he is elected later this year, it will be a different story. Capitalistroadster 01:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it is unlikely that Priestly will get himself elected, and he's not notable otherwise. MichelleG 04:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per nom. thewinchester 04:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the Andren-supported candidate in a long-term independent seat, and as the co-founder of ICAN (which may need mention in the article) with the three independent federal MPs, this guy is notable. It doesn't help that the guy's name is misspelt - I have fixed both this AfD and the original article. Orderinchaos 05:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The old article quite frankly was missing everything a good article needs. With about 5 minutes work I have improved it, referenced it and removed one irrelevant claim, and put it in cats. Orderinchaos 05:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While the changes have greatly improved the standard of the article, I am still of the opinion that Priestley is not notable. At this stage he is a former telco middle manager who is considering standing for parliament. He is not a preselected candidate of a major party (obviously) and as the nominations for the Federal election have not opened (I believe), he is not a candidate at this stage, merely a proposed one. I don't see him as any more notable than the hundreds of union reps, local councillors and party staffers considering a run at a parliamentary seat.--Mattinbgn/ talk 07:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, being good mates with an independent member of parliament doesn't make you notable. I see no other real notability factors coming into play with this chap at this time. Lankiveil 09:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • May be argued, however, that as he has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by two or more published works (ABC and Central Western Daily, editorial Newcastle Herald 5 March 2007 p.9) he has become notable. It has yet to be elaborated whether Lake Macquarie and Goulburn independents - one who won, one who drove a star candidate to a 10-day result lag - were assisted by ICAN. If so he would be in a similar position to Warren Mundine Orderinchaos 03:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Calare will be a very closely contested seat by the major parties Labor and National / Liberal. Priestly may well be the 'cat among the pigeons', and as the election comes closer the profile of Priestly will only increase. It would be premature to delete the article now with this impending election activity. Better to be ahead of the game now and get all the information out there. Ajayvius 11:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Potential notability in the future is not a sufficient reason to retain the article. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article is probably an early precursor of many future articles on election candidates as the 2007 Australian federal election draws nearer. Each of these articles will have a subject who is the subject of non-trivial coverage by two or more published works, mainly regional newspaper and radio reports and therefore meet WP:NOTE, however the vast majority of them will be defeated and then forgotten a week later. While the argument that other crap exists is not a valid one, expect this article to be pointed to when those articles are nominated for deletion.--Mattinbgn/ talk 11:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While it is well sourced - I think the articles cited are about the election campaign, not about Priestly. The last is pretty much primary sourced so it doesn't lend weight to his notability. Garrie 04:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Garrie and Capitalistroadster. Sorry guys but I can't see the notability here. Sarah 07:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Mattinbgn. Calare has never seen an independent hand over to another independent, if Priestly wins then he will need an article but until then he's just some guy in Bathurst. Euryalus 02:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy A7 by Rebelguys2. Navou banter / contribs 02:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Hill Hornets

[edit]
Chester Hill Hornets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A Junior sports club and as such non notable Mattinbgn/ talk 07:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 09:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vienna Cricket Club

[edit]

A social cricket club in Austria, 30 years old. Organises a few social matches between expats from Commonwalth countries etc. The tours mentioned are not between semi-proffessional teams, they are games against other social teams. They play in matches of 10 overs per side, which is much less than Test cricket (5 days and total of 450 overs) or ODI cricket (50 overs each) Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 09:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge No noteability is asserted apart from being the first cricket club in Austria. A non-professional cricket club is not in itself noteable. As it is the first cricket club in Austria, a merge of the relevant historical information into a history section in Austrian Cricket Association might be appropriate. Dr bab 11:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This looks to have major verifiability issues as well. As it stands there are no sources or references and the entire text stands as Original Research. Being listed doesn't seem to have provoked any improvement in this so I suspect no one cares enough to fix the problems. Can we include the image Image:Viennacricketclub.gif with this nomination? Spartaz Humbug! 21:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dante Salvatierra

[edit]
Dante Salvatierra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I came accross this one whilst doing some cleanup work. A previous discussion in the summer of 2005 ended without consensus. Since then, there has been little development to the article text. Earlier this year, an editor redirected the page to United States House elections, 2004 (subject was an unsuccessful candidate in Nebraska), which seems to be a particularly bad solution as the reader (in this case, me doing cleanup) has no idea as to why they find themselves there (and no hope of skimming such a huge page). The article is obviously not speediable, but the subject still seems unnotable to me. Hence, I am bringing the discussion here, with an opinion of delete, to see what other users think. Physchim62 (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Soltero III

[edit]
Abraham Soltero III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be an autobiography that doesn't meet WP:N, probably created for self-promotion. Article doesn't provide independent published references to support inclusion and it looks unlikely to do so. Dugwiki 18:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO and, apparently, WP:AUTO. Deor 19:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electromagnetic brain animation

[edit]
Electromagnetic brain animation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable product from a non-notable company. 14 unique google hits (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Electromagnetic+brain+animation%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N) not counting wikipeda and its mirrors. No article links to this page, no categories for this article. FateClub 17:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 09:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn and does not pass google test.--Joebengo 18:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wouldn't the notability of this type of procedure be established in medical journals, which are usually not archived for free on the web? Also, there is now a category for this article. It was just tagged in February and we at project uncategorized are just getting to February due to a big backlog. I say hold on to this one. Scarykitty 05:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm part of the categorization project and whenever I see an article that is not categorized but is not notable I tag it. Some of these are not categorized because people do not care much about them. And in some cases it is because the subject is simply not notable. Like this one. That's why I say it should be deleted. --FateClub 05:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In response to scarykitty's comment above (and related request on the neuroimaging talk page for outside opinions here), there is no discussion of "Electromagnetic Brain Animation" in the medical literature. Furthermore, the proposed mechanism of therapeutic action presented here and on the associated webpage is not credible. For future reference, abstracts to medical articles can be viewed freely by the public on PUBMED at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/. sallison 02:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. . Mukadderat 17:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Citation format could be better though. - Mailer Diablo 15:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Jacks

[edit]
Joe Jacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable artist - zero non-wikipedia Google hits for "Silver and Spiders" OR "Silver & Spiders"; no relevant hits for "Joe Jacks"+artist or "Benjamin Jacks"+artist. Prod removed by author with comment: Hello. I would like the article to stay. While i admit that i haven't encountered him outside my college art books, i think he is relevant enough and i will search my textbooks more better information. Nothing has been added since then (almost a month ago). Delete due to lack of evidence of notability. ... discospinster talk 12:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 10:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be unverifiable through any source but the book source stated in the article, and that appears to be a simple mention, rather than substantive treatment. I also searched Google with both names and "abstract", as well as Google books, and since he is stated to be from New York, the New York Times archive [31], [32] under both his real name and his assumed name with no relevant results.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have found more information in a school text, by Anna Moszynska, a book called "Abstract Art". It's mostly summary details ,(exact date of birth and other pieces attributed to him) but it enhances the quality of the article for a reader. I think that's as good as i can do, he's not a famous man i am the first to admit, i just feel an abstract artist from that formative period deserves a name check and brief bio, especially on a website such as this. We have a very large college library of art texts and i will continue the labour of love if the article can remain. Thanks for your time Stuedgar 01:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)stuedgar[reply]
  • Keep based on stuedgar's improvement. We've kept stubs worse than this one. It has a reference now. YechielMan 15:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 01:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KOPT_Kent_Open_Poker_Tour

[edit]
KOPT_Kent_Open_Poker_Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Vanity. Zilch notability, only online references are this article, their site and some youtube-like video things. 2005 10:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
List of books and references on sentencing, law, and related matters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Listcruft, unencyclopedic, probably unsalvageable, copyright violation in places, seems to be a general list and synopsis. WP:NOT applies. Delete. – Chacor 12:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep as its been cleanup, I withdraw this AfD nomination, consensus is in favour of keep anyway. Tellyaddict 19:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Haslett

[edit]
Alexander Haslett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable person, Google search results were minimal, No references (failing WP:V), it was either {{PROD}} or AFD, I deemed AFD be more appropriate as it a politician which some may wish to keep. Tellyaddict 12:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a bad faith nomination, I deemed it more appropriate to bring it here other than using {{prod}}, this has since been cleanup up a little since my nomination, assume good faith. Thanks - Tellyaddict 19:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. No offense was intended, hopefully none was taken. Dr bab 20:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
No offence was taken, happy editing! Tellyaddict 21:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 19:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London_Titans

[edit]
London_Titans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Reads more like an advertisement Rangemean 12:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bias Vineyards

[edit]
Bias Vineyards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable winery that fails WP:CORP. Article was prod'd on March 23rd with the prod removed by the article's creator who has edited very little else apart from this article and may have a conflict of interest with the subject matter. Despite repeated request on the article's Talk Page and the deprodder's talk page to provide sources and establish the article's notability in accordance to Wikipedia guidelines, the article still sits in its sorry state. That's probably because there is no grounds for notability to begin with. Bias Vineyards is a very small production winery whose wines are hard to get even within in Missouri and are available only at the wineries own shop and at a handful few "Missouri wine" stores. The average Wikipedia reader will never see or even hear about this wine, There is scarce mention of non-trivial writes ups or sources about the winery-819 ghits for "Bias Vineyards" with no g-news hits and 79 ghits for "Gruhlke Microbrewery" which the article claims makes this establishment unique as "Missouri's first vineyard-microbrewery". However, outside of the Wikipedia article, there is no reliable sources to back up that claim. The "regional awards" that the creator mentions in his edit summaries are essentially non-notable county fairs and even that is lacking reliable sources to back up those claims. AgneCheese/Wine 12:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - Reads like advertising, and is unsourced, hence no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources to establish notability per WP:CORP. The regional awards might be evidence of notability, but these claims need to be sourced by the end of this AfD; otherwise delete. Walton Vivat Regina! 14:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wineries that don't sell much of their production outside of their wineries tend not to get the coverage that's needed to meet WP:CORP, and I don't really see that this article is any different. Regional awards are really not as impressive as they sound. In many cases these medals represent nothing more than a few critics giving the wine a reasonable score. Dozens of wines can win Bronze,Silver or Gold medals in any category. It's similar to winning a ribbon at a state science fair. --- The Bethling(Talk) 08:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. . Mukadderat 17:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was that this article will be kept as a valid subarticle of EVE Online. --  Denelson83  07:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceships of EVE Online

[edit]
Spaceships of EVE Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a game guide. Ample precedent exists for the deletion of this article, see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vehicles in Unreal Tournament 2004, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in Battlefield 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in the Halo universe and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warcraft III units and structures. MER-C 13:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I agree with Wikipedia is not a game guide, however, the ships in the game are the primary focus of this very popular game, so in this case I think its a useful and worthwhile article. Where as a list of minor componants one can add to a ship I think would be extending out of the realm of an ecyclopedia and into a game guide. Russeasby
  • Keep This article is too large to effectively merge with Eve Online and maintain the depth the current article has. The subject is notable enough, and the article too well written to be considered for outright deletion. As said before, if you delete this article, then you have many other articles to delete as well. --User:anonymous 4:46pm, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep If this encyclopedia is to act as a general reference for a variety of users, it should provide the information that those users consider most useful. The monthly cost of MMORPGs is not trivial, and neutral sources of information help them assess the value of the purchase. Wikipedia's ease of navigation also makes it a handy reference during the initial learning phase of these complex games, as long as the article is well-written. Tshiggins (talk • contribs) 23:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Shiptypes are integral to who you are or what your abilities are, the same as a "class" in other games. I agree with other voters on this interpretation. If some wikipedians feel there is a need to remove these kinds of pages then that should be discussed and specified on the policy pages in the wikipedia namespace. ChronoSphere 12:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 01:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tupalo

[edit]
Tupalo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Low Alexa rank Computerjoe's talk 09:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB, makes no assertion of notability and has no references. Tried poking around on Google and all I could find were blogs that brought it up - many of which pointed out the fact that the service was "Too new to have much info". Interesting concept but lacks reliable sourcing at this time. Come back with it after it's gotten some reviews or such. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rlevse 13:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete, no assertion of notability. -- zzuuzz(talk) 14:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Body Image

[edit]
Body Image (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is entirely unreferenced, concerns an apparently non-notable company, and is written in a somewhat promotional manner. John254 13:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Move to template namespace (Template:Snowball Earth/Infobox) and then later TfD if necessary. Cbrown1023 talk 19:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Earth/Infobox

[edit]
Snowball Earth/Infobox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A template but using main article's namespace. Included only by an article called Snowball Earth. Should be subst'd to “Snowball Earth” and delete this stub. Please also remove Snowball earth/Infobox which is a redirect. --✉Hello World! 14:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete No consensus (but cleanup). Cbrown1023 talk 19:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific acupuncture

[edit]
Scientific acupuncture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The incredible claim in the article that "This is an objective review from more than 10,000 scientific research studies published on acupuncture" is prima facie evidence that this article is Original Research, and should therefore be deleted, not merged. It is also a POV fork of Acupuncture, and is therefore not neutral, despite claiming to be so. greenrd 15:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an obvious POV fork. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 15:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Strong Cleanup I agree it appears to be a noticeable POV fork seeming to defend the scientific basis of acupuncture, but it has a degree of citation rarely found in a POV fork and addresses a common topic that is brought up in acupuncture discussions. I'd say rename to something like "Scientific Theories Regarding Acupuncture", link it from the main article, and clean this up toward NPOV...including some commentary regarding scientific theories that debunk acupuncture. Keep in mind AfD is not generally meant for articles for POV problems. -Markeer 15:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Very much to my surprise , it seems the article is very much worth keeping. Personally, I think that there is probably more actual scientific basis for at least some components of acupuncture than of almost anything else in alternative medicine. But in any case, the references and the detailed discussion of mechanism is very good to have, and it would overbalance the main article. A content related page, not a POV fork. Good work.DGG 08:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Agree on science and acupuncture generally, but per below, this article is too badly flawed both on process and content to keep. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 23:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The comment below was written by an editor whose participation in this AFD discussion was solicited on his talk page:

I contacted Jim because he had interacted with Coladie earlier (as he mentions), he knows more about the subject than I, I value his opinion, and Coladie created this article as an orphan - ie users involved in acupuncture articles had no way of noticing (and fixing, deleting, etc.) the new article. Hopefully you recognize this as a friendly notice, and not canvassing. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a vote anyway. -- Fyslee/talk 20:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
Considering the substantial publicity this discussion has received at WikiProject Rational Skepticism [33], I certainly hope that this article isn't deleted as a result of vote counting. John254 00:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete but merge sourced stuff with acupuncture, for the following reasons:
  • Acupuncture includes plenty of scientific stuff as is, and can always use more, if it's adequately sourced and sticks close to those sources. There's the rub.
  • There is a great deal here not worth keeping, at least in its current form, i.e. the large amount of material asserting hypotheses with little external sourcing (abundant wikilinking isn't sufficient; see WP:SYN).
  • This is obviously an inappropriate fork; cf. the article's talk page, Special:Contributions/Coladie and Talk:Acupuncture (esp. this subsection), as well as the fact that it was not mentioned at the latter or wikilinked from the main article, which it obviously should have been. The intention and effect were evidently to create an article bypassing content and input from other editors at acupuncture. Coladie, the editor who created the page previously, tried to add a lot of this material at acupuncture.
  • Whatever is worth keeping should be merged with acupuncture, perhaps on the talk page, and only with adequate consensus should articles then be spun off.
Final comment: speaking as both a trained scientist and acupuncturist, I've found it tremendously time-consuming and frustrating to separate out the baby from the bathwater in Coladie's contributions[34]. Coladie can obviously be a tremendous asset to WP, but forking in lieu of collaborating is just not cool. Perhaps Coladie might request a scientifically-minded mentor to help with consensus and original research-type issues. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 06:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Sorry to repeat Jim, but my opinion is quite similar. I suspected that this was a fork, and that it wasn't discussed at acupuncture, as Jim confirms (full disclosure, I asked Jim to comment at the AfD). DGG is right, there is a surprising amount of sourced material here. At the same time, much of it seems to be synt. The acupuncture article is pretty large and stable, and to me it seems that if a spin-off article such as this should exist, it should come out of a consensus of editors there, not out of frustration by one editor. If you look at Talk:Acupuncture, it doesn't seem that Coladie engaged the community much, and it does seem that the community was ready to consider the new material Coladie offered. Once this material is sifted through, a fork may be appropriate (a better title is probably possible), but a consensus can figure that out. As Jim said, hopefully Coladie can see this as constructive criticism, and take the time to help other editors sort through what of this can be merged, and how any future fork might be organized. Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 03:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the following reasons:

(1) A review of existing research which has been published in peer reviewed journals is manifestly not original research. The nominator's claim that the article constitutes original research on the basis of the number of references consulted is therefore incorrect: an article, or material therein, constitutes original research only if it does one or more of the following: (a) it presents new experimental results or other data which have not previously been published in a reliable source, (b) it argues for a novel interpretation of existing published data -- that is, the interpretation has not itself been published in a reliable source, or (c) it promotes new ideas, terms, theories, etc which have not been published in reliable sources. An article does not acquire the character of original research merely because it reviews of conclusions of existing studies, duly published in peer reviewed journals, regardless of how large the number of studies reviewed is.

Does the term "Scientific acupuncture" itself constitute original research? Perhaps, unless a reliable source for this term is provided; however, deletion of an article is not a proper remedy for concerns that could be resolved by editing. In this case, the introduction could be rewritten without reference to the term "Scientific acupuncture", and the page moved to a new location; "Scientific Theories Regarding Acupuncture" has been suggested as a possible new location. Most of the article would remain intact.

(2) Much of the unreferenced information in this article is simply background information on human physiology; reliable sources for this information could easily be found. Any actual original research can be removed through normal editing. Deletion on WP:NOR grounds is only justified where all or most of an article constitutes original research, such that, if all of the original research were removed, the remaining material would not constitute a viable article. Since it is clear that much of the article does not constitute original research, and since many of the theories for the mechanisms by which acupuncture operates are clearly not original research, as reliable sources have been provided as references for the theories, cleanup, not deletion, is the proper remedy for WP:NOR concerns.

(3) WP:NPOV concerns are properly addressed through editing, not deletion, unless (a) the article is an attack page, (b) the article is an advertisement, or (c) the article inherently cannot be written from a neutral point of view due to the choice of topic. Neither (a) nor (b) apply to this article; treating the topic of the article as "Scientific Theories Regarding Acupuncture", it is clearly possible to rewrite the article from a neutral point of view, presenting evidence which is unfavorable to acupuncture as well as that which is favorable to it.

(4) The article is not a POV fork, since it is not a fork, but rather a subtopic of acupuncture. John254 04:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responses:
(1)A review is at Wikipedia considered independent research when it represents a novel synthesis rather than a standard synthesis. For example, if I review the literature on new religious movements, that is a perfectly acceptable synthesis because the topic is recognized by third parties exterior to Wikipedia. However, if I review the literature on new religious movements based on science, such a topic would be original research because there is no third-party recognition that such a topic exists. The problem of original research is either an original idea/program reported or an original synthesis of material. This article represents the latter.
(2)The entire article represents original research per above. One can have exquisitely referenced facts and properly attributed opinions in an article and still have an article based mostly on original research. The key to understanding whether something is original or not are reliable secondary sources. This article uses mostly primary sources which makes it very problematic per Wikipedia policies and guidelines on verifiability and reliability as well.
(3)NPOV concerns are addressed through deletion when an article is created for the express purpose for promoting a particular point-of-view. This article is obviously promoting the point of view that acupuncture has scientific aspects. It is not the place of Wikipedia to judge whether or not this is true (personally, I think there are aspects of acupuncture therapy that are scientifically validated, but that's beside the point). The very title of the article "scientific acupuncture" elevates it to the level of a POV-fork by demanding an acceptance that such a subject exists.
(4)You may wish to read about content forking. Subtopics in new articles are, by definition, forks. Forking isn't a bad thing unless it is done specifically to promote a POV. In my estimation, that's what this article is doing.
-ScienceApologist 12:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concerns over the name "scientific acupuncture" can be addressed by moving the article. The solution to an imbalanced article is to edit it for balance. The relevant question here seems to be: Does this article contain substantial usable content which could be employed as part of a fair and balanced article on this topic? Based on the substantial amount of information on theories regarding the mechanisms by which acupuncture operates contained in this article, much of which is attributed to articles in peer reviewed journals which have introduced these theories, the answer is clearly yes. If this article were deleted, any article which incorporated substantial portions of this material might be subject to speedy deletion under CSD G4; consequently, the article could not be recreated in a neutral form after deletion. If this article were a genuine POV fork, it would, of course, be unsalvageable, since it would duplicate an existing article (that is, it would constitute a genuine fork). Subtopics, however, really are not forks. A simple example should illustrate this phenomenon. Suppose that we had an article about biology, but no article on eukaryotic cells. If a contributor created an article about eukaryotic cells which contained much verifiable information concerning them, but was not written from a neutral point of view, editors here would hardly be clamoring for the deletion of the article as a "POV fork".
    • Much of this discussion concerns whether the review of published research contained in this article is itself "original research". ScienceApologist claims that "The key to understanding whether something is original or not are reliable secondary sources. This article uses mostly primary sources..." The claim that articles published in peer reviewed journals are "primary sources" is a significant mischaracterization of WP:NOR. WP:NOR specifically describes "written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations" as primary sources. As a matter of common knowledge, studies published in peer reviewed journals don't merely publish raw experimental data; they also analyze and interpret the data, and draw conclusions. WP:NOR defines sources which "draw on primary sources in order to make generalizations or original interpretive, analytical, synthetic, or explanatory claims" as secondary sources. Therefore, the portions of articles in peer reviewed journals which analyze and interpret the experimental data are secondary sources. Now it is, of course, possible to use published research to conduct original research, if an article draws upon experimental conclusions to support a novel claim. However, merely reporting the results of published research is not original research. Thus, if study X found that acupuncture operates by mechanism A, it is not original research for a Wikipedia article to note that mechanism A is a possible explanation for the effects of acupuncture, citing study X as an authority. Much of the material in this article is referenced in this manner, citing published research which appears to specifically support the theories described. Any material which is inadequately referenced, and might constitute original research, can be removed without deletion of the entire article. John254 00:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The following comments were written after a link to this AFD discussion was posted in the "Urgent attention needed here" section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism [35].

  • Mostly delete, check content for mergeability. Checking citation indices vs. all out Googling esayily shows, that "Scientific Acupuncture" is predominantly a marketing term. Yes, of course, there is scientific research in acupuncture, with mixed results, and this belongs into Acupuncture. The current article Scientific acupuncture is a prime example, that an article with more than 50 in line cites can nevertheless be POV, OR and borderline essay. The vast amount of research papers published allow by selection alone to "prove" a vast array of claims. That's the reason why this sort of references is rather low in the hierarchy of sources for articles in science (the rehashing of them in popular press are of course even worse). We are advised to find sources which are more secondary in nature: review articles, textbooks, statements of professional societies. --Pjacobi 08:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article meets the definition of a POV-fork. The editor(s) creating it obviously want to separate themselves from criticism of acupuncture and elevate it to a science despite it plainly having a status as an alternative medicine. If there was a single scientific research department at a mainstream medical institution devoted to "scienctific acupuncture", then I could see this article existing. As it is, what we have is a tactic of avoidance of critique that is done to avoid NPOV conditions. It's also pretty clear that the article represents an original synthesis of material which makes it plainly original research. Too many damning points in favor of deletion. We can stick to the acupuncture article as the main source for information on the subject. --ScienceApologist 12:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. nothing to merge. Mukadderat 17:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing more than a POV fork. If there's any sourced and NPOV info not already in the main acupuncture article I'd have no objection to merging it over. --Minderbinder 19:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete author admits is a "joke", hoax. Dakota 03:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Rahman Husseini

[edit]
Abdul Rahman Husseini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a prank from looking through the history. Several people tried to correct the prank by blanking, but it got reverted every time. The embassy's web page makes no mention of this person, and the current ambassador, Mr. Suwit Saicheua, has been in place since 2003[36]. Google hits only seem to show wikipedia mirrors. Bkkbrad 15:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, no prejudice against recreation should notability be confirmed by reliable third party sources. WjBscribe 01:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Ramirez

[edit]
Ken Ramirez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Resumé-like article. No sign of significant, reliable third-party coverage. Sure he gives interviews about things happening at his aquarium but he has not been the main subject of significant work. Pascal.Tesson 15:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, no sources provided activate the conditional deletes below. Daniel Bryant 09:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avant coast

[edit]
Avant coast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organization. Google for <"Avant Coast"> (with quotes) gets 55 Google hits, mostly brief mentions of the name, and no detailed write-ups in reliable sources. [37] Of the external links provided, 2 are non-references: 1 is to the main page of a related group, 1 is to Avant coast's own website, and the only reference provided is to [38] whose only mention of Avant coast basically says that the organisation exists, and not much else: "After February, Keith and Webb formed a group called Avant Coast, which tries to move creative, improvisational music into the public eye and encourages collaboration between local musicians. The group presented a show in Kittery last fall, and on Feb. 23, they are starting a new music series in the Lotus Rising dance studio at the Mills at Salmon Falls in Rollinsford." Resurgent insurgent 15:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • from the author

The assertion that the Wire magazine is associated with Avant Coast is incorrect. This is a small, worthwhile organization in my area that I felt was interesting and important within the realm of creative improvised music. Their model is very close to that of the AACM, and I thought that would be enough of a reason to create an entry. I'm confused; is the assumption that my entry was a shill for the organization? I also made contributions in the form an entry for Dick Griffin, a valuable musician in American music. Most of my source material came from Griffin's site, but that was not questioned. I'm just confused about the process. There are a great many topics which will not produce much in a google search, but does that necessarily make them unworthy? Please understand, I'm not questioning the rules, but my goal in creating my account was to contribute information which is absent. As a life-long student of Jazz music, I have a great deal of information to offer, but it seems like much of it will be questioned by the current posting criteria. I'd like to know that before I expend more time (this first page was roughly 4 hours of research). Please bear with me, this is a learning process and I'm trying to do right by Wikipedia. Im not the guy 15:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Is there any step that will save this entry? The organization is doing some very important, artist-centered work in New England and if there is some way to get this done, I'll do it. I'll lobby some newspapers and TV shows to cover it if need be. I'm an enthusiast of this type of music and this organization, IMHO, deserves to be here.Im not the guy 22:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't... newspaper editors evaluate their subjects' notability quite well without people lobbying them. If in due time anyone outside of Wikipedia writes about Avant Coast, we can have an article on them; until then, no. Resurgent insurgent 00:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 01:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Padnos

[edit]
Ben Padnos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced resumé for non-notable entrepreneur. Google for <"Ben Padnos" Yahoo!> gets 69 hits, none in reliable sources. [39] Factiva gives only 2 hits, and both of them are passing mentions of the name only. Resurgent insurgent 15:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 02:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krewe of Atlas

[edit]
Krewe of Atlas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable Mardi Gras krewe. 56 unique Ghits show only listing-type info (i.e. the krewe does exist and does parade) but no sign of significant third-party coverage. Pascal.Tesson 15:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 02:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Narahara

[edit]
Narahara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Uncited. Google comes with nothing. Appears to be original research. --Infrangible 15:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 19:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Elvis Presley songs covered by other artists

[edit]
List of Elvis Presley songs covered by other artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - prod removed stating there have been previous prods and AFDs but there are none linked to the article's talk page. This is an indiscriminate list and directory of cover songs with no relation to one another other than a particular artist initially recorded them. Otto4711 15:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Deleted. IrishGuy talk 17:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David J Searle

[edit]
David J Searle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Recreated vanity page from a previously blocked user Cloveious 15:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Scullion

[edit]
Brandon Scullion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails notability criterion Madcoverboy 15:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judi Cohen

[edit]

Not sure whether this meets WP:BIO or not. Comments appreciated. BlackBear 16:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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


Keep I think she passes the so-called test, but getting a few references of the web will really help. The Evil Clown my contributions 16:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green transportation hierarchy

[edit]
Green transportation hierarchy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original Research, POV SpookyPig 16:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 02:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twisted mods

[edit]
Twisted mods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not a significant website as far as I can tell and the whole thing reads as an advertisement. It's been tagged for a while for notability and lack of sources. Contributors to the article are all single-purpose accounts which doesn't really help to dispel the feeling of WP:COI or WP:SPAM issues. Of course, I might be wrong but I don't see how this meets WP:WEB. Pascal.Tesson 16:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 02:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Korom

[edit]
Bobby Korom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article originally contained some spammy hero worship/crystal ballism. However, I removed that, and Googled it- one page on the 'net mentions him, and it is this. Delete unless some decent sources can be found. J Milburn 16:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete, criterion G11 (blatant irretrievable advertisement). Guy (Help!) 22:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Construct Deep Linking

[edit]
Construct Deep Linking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Speedy deletion criteria 11: Blatant advertising. Google for "Construct Deep Linking" -wikipedia returns precisely one (unrelated) hit. Article's prose is horrible, too.

Related policy question: I attempted to speedy this twice, but due to the administrative backlog no one looked at it and User:Weggie (not an administrator) removed it twice without rationale aside from "because I can." While obviously anyone can remove speedy requests that are clearly vandalism (suggesting Judaism be speedy deleted, for example), my impression was that good-faith speedy requests shouldn't be removed except by an administrator examining the case. Unlike the prod process, the speedy tag can be repeatedly re-added if removed. If it's just a free-for-all in removing speedy tags as well, wouldn't this lead to dumb edit wars? SnowFire 17:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I dont understand why this is raising a SPAM issue?
There is no external links pointing or and to the article. This is a brand new technique of taking "rich user experience" and "organic search" and combining the two by using the CDL implementation. It has never been done and will change the way a lot of developers will create their sites. I shared all the technical specifications in order to assist the general public with this knowledge. If there is any way I can improve the article, I am open to suggestions. Is not benefiting any organisation nor is it promoting any product, CDL is just a name that was given to it.
Regards,
n.
--Coetzeen 19:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment. First, I took the liberty of moving your comment to the bottom, where new comments go. Hope you don't mind. Secondly - your article lacks sources and seems to be talking about how this new technique is awesome and will help out websites and so on. If it wasn't done for advertising purposes than I apologize, but in that case this is original research, which Wikipedia doesn't allow (see Wikipedia:No original research). You said on my talk page that "It has never been done and will change the way a lot of developers will create their sites." Well, that's fine, but there's nothing stopping you from getting your own website and bringing this to other's attention. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or a free webhost, so if this technique becomes famous and notable, THEN it can have an article. SnowFire 19:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed any reference of any names in the article. Google does return a lot of hits about deep linking in flash:

[41] --Coetzeen 20:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The problem isn't that you said who invented the technique - that's valuable information- but rather that it was just you who did it, and there are no sources that aren't from you. Again, Wikipedia is not a free webhost. And there does in fact exist an article on deep linking; that's not under debate. (....though this is not an invitation to simply move your ideas over to the Deep Linking article, where they would likely also be deleted as not appropriate. But feel free to help improve it with verifiable information from elsewhere, though.). SnowFire 20:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • SO, if I had to provide links of references, people talk about "deep linking" within flash this would be fine? The point I am making is that this is a fairly new technique that people are starting to use. Nowhere on wikipedia does it reference this technique. How do we get this on there then? Thank you,--Coetzeen 20:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately, that is simply not part of Wikipedia's stated goals. Again, please read Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia doesn't cover new techniques. And no, links to simply people talking about deep linking in general only support the deep linking article, not the CDL article. If you'd like for this information to be on the internet, then get your own website and post your ideas there; nothing is stopping you. Once CNet starts publishing an article about Construct Deep Linking and O'Reilly mentions it in a chapter in their latest book on Flash, then the article can be remade. SnowFire 21:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete OR + it's an advert. --Fredrick day 20:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge any reliably sourced information relevant to an encyclopedic article on Nitro Girls (otherwise delete). —Centrx→talk • 21:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Crawford (Nitro Girl)

[edit]
Amy Crawford (Nitro Girl) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Fails WP:BIO and WP:A. has been tagged for failing WP:A since August '06. If merger is supported by consensus (as appears to be) will support that rather than delete. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 10:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

#1-sign your posts like this: ~~~~ . #2 The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments (WP:AFD). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 11:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Nitro Girls sounds like the best idea. Govvy 20:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Nitro Girls. Subject isn't notable enough for her own article. Jeff Silvers 13:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Leave it be -- Would not delete as other NG's have articles & to merge all the individual girls articles into the main article would make a mumbo jumbo mess. Keep the Nitro Girls article as a history of the group while keeping the Bios of the girls on thier respective pages. (Please forgive me if I am formatting this properly as this is the first time I have ever edited/contributed on Wiki. Thanks for your Patience & Understanding) Joe 08:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not all Nitro Girls have their own articles. Even if they did, that wouldn't justify keeping this one; the article should be judged on its own merits, not whether a similar article already exists. Jeff Silvers 06:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 19:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kay

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

Contested prod. Completely non-notable referee. Fails WP:BIO and WP:A ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 17:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO, no cites. HornandsoccerTalk 04:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WWE removed the referees section of its website. If we do delete, suggest creating a "Minor WWE referees" article. Ken S. 14:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What has he achieved to deserve inclusion? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 15:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From what I remember of his WWE profile, he has replaced Earl Hebner twice, once when Hebner was out for surgery and again when Hebner was fired. He also replaced Hebner's son. Anyway, his article needs to be updated with the Boogeyman attack and his recent disappearing acts. Ken S. 17:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll quote the WP:BIO guidelines he fails
A credible independent biography.
Significant recognized awards or honors.
Wide name recognition
A widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record
Multiple features in credible news media.
Commercial endorsements of notable products
Significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.
A large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 18:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 19:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Patton

[edit]
Chad Patton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Completely non-notable wrestling referee. Fails WP:BIO and WP:A ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 17:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say only if they'd done other notable things (e.g. Bill Alfonso's managerial career, Earl Hebner's part in the Montreal Screwjob) or simply had achieved fame over a long, storied career. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 04:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be worth merging this information into an article encompassing referees? On second thoughts no. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 21:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 19:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arnob

[edit]
Arnob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:V mostly, and WP:MUSIC. References were asked for in January, but have not been forthcoming. Bubba hotep 09:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page – album by above non-notable:

Hok Kolorob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Bubba hotep 09:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both unless both articles are satisfactorily referenced under the terms of WP:Music before the end of this debate. A1octopus 23:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC),[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Splash - tk 17:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was NO CONSENSUS. The pseudo-argument related to the EU and its predecessors is, as Iridiscenti correctly identifies, totally spurious, since the subject of the article is not mentioned as having anything whatever to do with any of them. Mukadderat, a raw vote is useless this not being a vote. That leaves a balance between arguments that he is "not notable as a school headteacher" and "he is headteacher of a notable school". Having already relisted this once in search of consensus, I'm left finding that there is none. DGG's suggestion is probably the useful outcome here. -Splash - tk 22:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Ditter

[edit]
Robert_Ditter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
  • Keep the unknown I.P. gives no reason for deleting the article. Pinus pinea 20:16 1.4.2007 (CET)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Splash - tk 17:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't seem to establish notability, fails WP:BIO. Montco 02:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep it would appear that this is a famous gymnasium, but perhaps the article should be about the school, since there seem to be reliable refs.Size isn't the point--this is a very selective European school.DGG
  • delete. . Mukadderat 17:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep in the 1960 to promote school partnership between a German High School and High Schools in France and Belgium was a courageous task. One should remember that in 1944 not far away from Hirson and Charleroi (Marcinelle) the two towns twinned with Schramberg there was a huge battle (battle of the bulge, Battle of Bastogne, etc), and the massacres of the SS were not forgotten. When Ditter and Dr. Hank (the mayor of Schramberg) went to France and Belgium in the beginning 1960 they sometimes needed police protection. To promote friendship between people by twinning schools 15 years after world war II seems to be a memorably task, because men like Ditter and Hank founded the grass roots basics, for what is called the EU we know today. Pinus pinea 20:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 22:11 13.4.2007 (CEST)[reply]
That's a spurious argument - the EEC (now EU) was founded in 1957 (and the ECSC in 1951), whilst Ditter wasn't appointed to the post in question until 1964. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
not as spurious as it migth seem, because the EEC was as first a economic community "The European Economic Community (EEC) was an organization established by the Treaty of Rome (25 March 1957) between the ECSC countries Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and West Germany, known informally as the Common Market (the Six). The EEC was the most significant of the three treaty organizations that were consolidated in 1967 to form the European Community (EC; known since the ratification 1993 of the Maastricht treaty as the European Union, EU). The EEC had as its aim the eventual economic union of its member nations, ultimately leading to political union. It worked for the free movement of goods, service, labour and capital, the abolition of trusts and cartels, and the development of joint and reciprocal policies on labour, social welfare, agriculture, transport, and foreign trade." (Source: EEC) and without people like Ditter working on the grass roots it would never had the political succsess it has now. Ditter was appointed 64, the political considilation of the EEC was in 1967, ((and the UK just for information) was still outside the club), - so i am still for Keep Pinus pinea 11:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 14.4.2007 (CEST)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cordlife

[edit]
Cordlife (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

While the company may be notable, this article reads like a press release and appears to be self-authored. Mattinbgn/ talk 22:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Splash - tk 17:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was REDIRECT to Overboard (1987 film). I'm just going to redirect and one of the enthusiasts can merge if they want to. Matthew, that kind of argumentation is completely unhelpful, particularly when you don't return to address the reply to the question you asked, and especially when it demolishes the keep argument quite forensically. -Splash - tk 22:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elk Cove (Overboard)

[edit]
Elk Cove (Overboard) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A fictional location in a minor 1980s comedy. Not in any way notable. -Branddobbe 17:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Agree this isn't worthy of redirect per maclean, and "Elk Cove, Oregon" redirects to the dab page, which will serve enlighten anyone trying to find out if this is a real place. Katr67 03:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to be notable town, WP:NOT#PAPER. Matthew 22:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to be rude, but on what grounds is this notable? -Branddobbe 03:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • On what grounds isn't it? Matthew 07:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • From Wikipedia:Notability: A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject. From what I can gather, there has been no discussion of this fictional town whatsoever in outside sources; certainly not enough to warrant its own article outside of the article for the movie itself. And unlike, say, Hill Valley, the fictional town of Elk Cove has no cultural impact at all. It isn't a rich, detailed town with a hundred years of backstory, used in a movie trilogy, a TV series, and a theme park ride. It is a name attached to a place in a single 1980s Goldie Hawn comedy and has made no impact on the culture or the world. -Branddobbe 12:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. Better refed than film article. - Peregrine Fisher 22:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are three references in the article. The first says "Principal photography was in various California locations" (with no citations thereto). The second is to a table of average Oregon coastal water temperatures. The third is apparently intended to be a link to an article about hypothermia, but is in fact broken. Even a sole IMDb link in the film article would make it a better referenced article than Elk Cove. -Branddobbe 12:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect + merge: it will never be a notable town and is very unlikely to ever enter social consciousness. —EncMstr 22:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "notable town"? How is this notable? I'll reconsider if notability can be establish (ie. a secondary source). None of the sources in the so-called references mention the subject. I don't see the usefulness of a redirect (only the disamgbig links there, and "Elk Cove (Overboard)" is an unlikely search term). --maclean 02:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was revert to redirects, or in some cases, revert to/create disambiguation pages. Daniel Bryant 08:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2101

[edit]
2101 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page is too far in the future to have a page of its own. Only anniversaries on at the moment. Philip Stevens 18:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

2102 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2103 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2104 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2105 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2106 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2107 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2108 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2109 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2110 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2111 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2112 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2113 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2114 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2115 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2116 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2117 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2118 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2119 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2120 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2121 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2122 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2123 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2124 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2125 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2126 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2127 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2128 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2129 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G12 by Alison Arkyan &#149; (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Healing Project

[edit]
The Healing Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable per WP:ORG, WP:WEB. WP:SPAM may also be applicable here, and portions of the article seem to be copyvio from the website which is the subject of the article.RJASE1 Talk 18:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS. Deleters: we do not delete articles as a result of failing WP:A, we fix them, unless they are unfixable. This debate does not determine unfixability and so deletion would have little basis. Mukadderat, raw votes are deprecated and useless. (Editorial note: this seems crufty to me, so I shall redirect it). -Splash - tk 22:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Raines

[edit]
Beth Raines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I cant see the notability for this article, missing references but every single fact is unreferenced, does not meet WP:BIO. Tellyaddict 18:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as violation of WP:A. HornandsoccerTalk 04:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, longtime recurring character on a major soap, meets notability for fictional characters. Restored an external link which apparently served as the source of information. --Groggy Dice T | C 17:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 02:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kittendo

[edit]
Kittendo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Kittendo does not exist, and does not need an article. --Xnuala (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The only place this game exists is in internet forums. "Wouldn't it be cool if they made a cat version of nintedogs?" Let it remain at that. Dr bab 18:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - No assertion of notability in the article. This article reads like a non-subject. I'm toying with the idea of afd-ing Nintencats. It would have been nice if the two had been lumped together in one nom. -- Ben 19:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I originally was going to AFD Nintencats, but noticed that it had already been AFD'd so I db-reposted it. --Xnuala (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The author, Toa Mario (talk · contribs), keeps removing the CSD tag from that article ... I think it's time to get an admin involved for a time-out. --68.239.79.97 19:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. I think you can go ahead with the db-repost if you think it's the right thing. -- Ben 23:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Toa Mario is currently blocked for one week after disruptive editing and suspected sockpuppetry in a content dispute on Collis Potter Huntington. Slambo (Speak) 21:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional nom

[edit]

I am adding Nintencats to this nomination, as it is an exact duplicate of the current page under another title. It is not subject to speedy as a recreation, because it is not substantially similar to the previously deleted article. DES (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shouldn't we give the article its own AfD? I mean, we're already well into this one. --Dennisthe2 20:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am unsure about the correct WP policy, but it makes perfect sense to take these two as one, as they are basically the same thing: Fan-created name suggestions for a computer game that might be released at some point. Dr bab 20:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • Concur — Identical text, same author ... same comments would apply to both ... better kept in one place. --68.239.79.97 20:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The additional nom was added in less than 2 hours after the start of this AfD, and AfDs normally run for 5 days. And the 2nd article had been mentioned in this AfD even earlier. Furthermore, the two articles are identical, and ought to be discussed together. I'll notify those who commented earleir -- the article's creator haas already been notifed. DES (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lolifox

[edit]
Lolifox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A fork of Mozilla Firefox with no evidence of notability presented. A Google search showed quite a few hits, but I didn't see any secondary sources (such as reviews); aside from the software's homepage itself, most of the links were just mirrors. Since the article has no references, this fails WP:V and WP:RS. The result of a previous AFD was to delete, but there is no evidence that this is a re-creation rather than a new article under the same title, so marking for speedy deletion is probably inappropriate. NOTE: If the consensus is to delete, then the corresponding fair-use image should also be deleted by the closing admin. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. HornandsoccerTalk 04:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you're right, but lolifox is still a legitimate branch of Firefox. Altmit Development is a real company/sole proprietorship, currently designing AGE (Altimit Game Engine) and DesktopIconStyle as well as lolifox. If Altimit really is creating their own software, then their other products might be added to Wikipedia as well...

Primetech 17:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Chopper

[edit]
Doc Chopper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Person is non-notable, article is written by User:DocChopper (not a problem in itself), notability tag deleted. Only assertion to notability is a Press Release from a charity who auctioned one of the subject's bikes after it was donated by Cindy Margolis. My Google searches have turned up no notable or reliable sources to help back up this article. My recommendation is to delete. Siobhan Hansa 18:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The catagory of Art Vehicles begs an explanation. Doc Chopper and his kind, Custom Chopper Bicycle Designers are noteworthy as current events. Multiple format changes have been made to the article, and quotes from newspaper articles that have been archived by the source, are being prepaired. The Custom Chopper Industry is in its primary stage, yet does not need to be ignored. I fought to distinguish chopper bicycles from lowrider bicycles successfully, I think current information about an associated artist is noteworthy.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Hart (Bassist)

[edit]
James Hart (Bassist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This musician appears non-notable: no other pages (other than a disambiguation page and a user page) link to it, it contains few links out, and a google search for "James A Hart Jr" produces only six results (1 is this article, another is a wikipedia mirror, and the other 4 appear to be about other people. John24601 18:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Ramos

[edit]
Tony Ramos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previously kept as no consensus in a bulk nomination. Non notable wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney303 18:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curve transformation

[edit]
Curve transformation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Described by the original author as original research. Charles Matthews 19:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tees speak

[edit]
Tees speak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I question the notability of this dialect, if it can even be called that, is factual Computerjoe's talk 19:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back F.C.

[edit]
Back F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article, about a Scottish amateur football club from the Western Isles, was originally speedied (as "Back Football Club"), but following discussion with the article creator there may be a claim to notability, so listing here instead. Oldelpaso 19:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, but I'm going to buck what I see as normal precedent and lay off the speedy - one, it was effectively overturned, and two, it actually asserts notability (while not citing it). I'm calling delete, though, largely due to semantics - as I see it, an amateur league, if they manage to cross the line into notability, pretty much has "gone pro", and in this case, they are only part of amateur tournaments in their locality. I can, of course, be wrong on this interpretation. --Dennisthe2 20:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hot Corner

[edit]
The Hot Corner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A non-notable group of college students who support their college baseball team. They have had two passing mentions in the local press, so don't meet our notability criteria. Gwernol 20:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should not be deleted per this:
"Subjective evaluations are not relevant for determining whether a topic warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability criteria do not equate to personal or biased considerations, such as: "never heard of this", "an interesting article", "topic deserves attention", "not famous enough", "very important issue", "popular", "I like it", "only of interest to [some group]", etc."
So it IS Notable. And deserves inclusion. UAbaseballbutters 23:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, we have not applied subjective criteria. You are required to show that the topic of the article "has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by two or more published works" (the primary criteria of WP:N). Neither of the sources you have provided are substantial coverage of The Hot Corners, they are passing mentions at best. No-one has said anything remotely close to "I don't like it" we have pointed out that the sources do not meet our notability requirements. Gwernol 23:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NOTE; trivial mentions are not acceptable. --Haemo 23:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non notable cheering section. Montco 02:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hot Corner, now has four sources of local press (three written newspaper articles, and one youtube video of a broadcast) I would not refer to all of them as merely passing mentions or trivial. UAbaseballbutters
  • Delete Okay... as the article stands right now... the first four external links look to be non-main-page links. So let's look at them... The first is an article about how very few people made the trip to Tucson for the game. I would call this a passing mention. It acknowledges the existence of The Hot Corner. The second article mentions The Hot Corner once. Again, the article is about who is and isn't at games. The third article is about an all-day baseball experience. It mentions two people as being part of The Hot Corner. The fourth is a 90-second video that actually offers some verification of who the president of The Hot Corner is... I don't know if I would call the video a reliable source.
    The article is a mess. Filled with unverifiable trivia, quotes, officers, etc. -- Ben 01:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. . Mukadderat 17:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia - Chapter Epsilon Lambda

[edit]
Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia - Chapter Epsilon Lambda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Although well written, it appears to be a vanity page, and doesn't meet WP:ORG. Individual chapters of Fraternitites are generally not notable in their own right. Rackabello 20:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jingle Bells parodies

[edit]
Jingle Bells parodies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page is largely a collection of a few of the many parodies of "Jingle Bells". It is unsourced. It is highly debatable if thsi is a notable topic at all. An attempt was made to propose this for deletetion last December, but the AfD page was improperly formed. This was recently tagged as a speedy, but does not fit any of the criteria. I considered WP:PROD but several editors have contributed to thsi article, so i presuem its deeltion would be contested. But as it stands, this article contributes nothing to the encyclopedia. Delete. DES (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. John254 02:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dandelife

[edit]
Dandelife (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Social networking site of dubious notability. Most likely fails WP:WEB. --Czj 20:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7 by Will Beback Arkyan &#149; (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Dorr

[edit]
Shane Dorr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completely nn high school athlete, mostly likely autobiography. This may require protection--the creating editor removed the speedy tag multiple times despite warnings on talk page and now an IP editor made their first edit the removal of the tag. Fails WP:BIO overwhelmingly. janejellyroll 20:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isai Alvarado

[edit]
Isai Alvarado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Professional video game player, with some tournament success, but I have no idea what the standards for notability are here. Meanwhile, no sources either. I leave it to AfD to evaluate, but delete unless sourced. Xoloz 20:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 14:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attention Everyone

[edit]
Attention Everyone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Extremely minor character in Disney's "Robin Hood", who is onscreen for about 2 seconds and has the one line mentioned in the article. Not notable. NawlinWiki 20:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, there's no source for this character even having a name. He is listed in the IMDB entries for Robin Hood (1973 film) and Candy Candido as "Tournament Crocodile." NawlinWiki 20:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The role of clowns in modern society

[edit]
The role of clowns in modern society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Joke. De-prodded w/ comment (in edit summary at author's talk page) "i believe that this article should be kept in wikipedias database because it is a serious account of the trouble clowns face on a daily basis and i wish to raise awareness in the debate about this." Pan Dan 21:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G11 by RyanGerbil10 Arkyan &#149; (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ergonom Microscope

[edit]
Ergonom Microscope (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nominated for speedy as an "A7, press release", but I'm not sure what that means. Is this a hoax, a product too new to include in WP, or something worth covering somewhere? Weak delete, pending AfD investigation. Xoloz 21:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Rlevse 18:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC) see copyvio here: [46][reply]

Healthy Kids Challenge organization

[edit]
Healthy Kids Challenge organization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I came across this page when looking through Special:lonelypages. This article is way of WP:MOS standards, needs cleanup, sections, wikification. no actual articles link there, seems like a copyvio, although its reasonably new it's still not notable, as well as not meeting WP:ORG. Tellyaddict 21:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (assuming copyvio isn't proven). The article was only created on April 6, and there seems to be considerable possibility for improvement. Bringing an article to AFD only two days after it was created doesn't make sense to me. Propaniac 17:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yavuz Fatal

[edit]

+ Related article:

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

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

Turkish rapper, and A7 speedy candidate. Asserts notability, but I have no idea whether any claims are valid, and lacks sources. Delete. Xoloz 21:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge. Ezeu 02:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's Not a Fashion Statement, It's a Deathwish

[edit]
It's Not a Fashion Statement, It's a Deathwish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is an article about a non-notable song from a My Chemical Romance album. The song in question wasn't even a single, and the article itself doesn't have any references and consists of original research. I believe the page should either be deleted or turned into a redirect for the album it's from (Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge). -Panser Born- (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Ezeu 02:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable LiveJournal users

[edit]
List of notable LiveJournal users (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article, started by User:Rootology, was kept no consensus before. I perceive two main problems with this article. First, there is no independent source for the notability of the LiveJournals; that is, although the list states it is a list of people whose LiveJournals are notable, there are generally no sources for those LiveJournals being considered notable, only for the people being notable and having LiveJournals. That being the case, why LiveJournal? Surely it is LiveJournal's job to have a list of its notable users, like our list of notable Wikipedians? Second, several of them - quite a number in fact - do not have Wikipedia articles. There are generally one or two web links per entry, but often no Wikipedia links, red or otherwise, violating WP:NOT a link farm. But the main problem is that of having no independent source to verify that their LiveJournal is considered notable or a particular part of their fame. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I worry about this being a non-notable criterion for inclusion in a list. What is important, or note-worthy about having a LiveJournal account such that it would be a non-trivial list? What distinguishes this from being a thinly disguised link farm, when all relevant information is already included on their personal page? ---Haemo 22:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I thought I would say delete, until ii followed some of the links. the unexpressed criterion seems to be that LiveJournal users who are notable enough for separate WP articles should be listed it. We could conceivably have a category for Live Journal users, but that would get cluttered with one who's journals were not important. I find the line of description more helpful than a category, for most are unknown to me. I recognize however the circularity: if we give them articles because they are known for LiveJournals, and then list them here because we give them articles. But the same is true for every other form of expression: We list novelists because they write notable novels, and we list novels because they are written by notable novelists. In each case we presumably use other criteria as well, and we can here too. DGG 09:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a list of notable people (they all have articles written about them). Very good tool to crossreference with LiveJournal, which is also notable. --FateClub 02:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's an indiscriminate list of famous people who happen to have a blog using this particular service -- so what? -- and it's a list of people famous for using this particular service -- which is what categories are good for. Either case spells "D-E-L-E-T-E". --Calton | Talk 07:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not indiscriminate if it is notable Livejournal users. --FateClub 17:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, perhaps deleting those entries that don't have Wikipedia articles - that would be a clear solution to the problem of determining notability. In general, I think we should be prepared to have more articles of bloggers. (Not-so-random example: I'm interested in which Australian politicians blog. It's difficult to find that information on Wikipedia.) So maybe we could delete this if we had a more general "notable bloggers" page, but until that is created, this article needs to stay. Besides, LJ is notable as a community. StAnselm 08:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepAgree with the above poster that perhaps "notable bloggers" would be more appropriate, but as LiveJournal is rather notable in itself, the way this article stands seems acceptable. Perhaps delete the entries which have no links. It's not a "list of people famous for using this particular service"...it's a list of people who are famous and also happen to use this particular service. Since it is a blogging site, the blogs of these famous people is of interest.

Summer cannibal 03:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Ezeu 02:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Graham

[edit]
Sue Graham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fictional character. Prod removed without comment Citicat 22:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor McDonnell

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

Considered prodding, but brought here just in case anyone can think of a good reason to keep it. This looks to me like a prime piece of vanispam by a single purpose account (the creator's only other edit, Craig Adair, was a verbatim copy of this article, which I've provisionally replaced with a redirect). The name's so common it's hard to check, but I can't find any independent references. A search on his full name brings up no hits other than Wikipedia mirrors and two of his own websites.

Aside from bot edits & tagging, the two pages appear to have a history of edits by multiple single purpose accounts - User:DenisonFineArt, User:Saatchicontemporary, User:Sportsfan and User:RobertHughesCritic have all worked on them, none of whom have made any other contributions other than to insert references to him into other articles. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment which, since the author claims he isn't the subject, means it's a copyvio... - iridescenti (talk to me!) 13:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 02:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Music Score Library Project

[edit]
International Music Score Library Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Speedied once as not asserting notability, now has a long list of universities that suggest it as a resource, but still no actual assertion of notability in the form of non-trivial third-party coverage. It's a small wiki, smaller than CPDL / ChoralWiki. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that the stub-like entry before was speedied because not enough effort was made to provide enough information on the notability of the wiki. Also, while it is smaller than CPDL, it is on the same order of magnitude: while CPDL has ~8500 scores, IMSLP has ~5000, so the difference is really not great. Also, to the best of my knowledge (and I do know a lot of music score archival sites), IMSLP has currently the third largest music score collection on the entire internet (soon to be second considering the speed of expansion), right behind CPDL (~8500) and free-scores.com (~5400). I welcome you to prove me wrong :)
Also, MIT has not only given coverage in the form of the blog entry, but have said that MIT profs have been using IMSLP extensively for quite a while [48] (see second to last post). It is also featured rather prominently on MIT's Lewis Music Library's front page [49]. Note that the link to IMSLP is the _only_ external link on that page. --Feldmahler 01:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability has been demonstrated. The list of universities is sufficient. They are 3rd parties independent of the project. It's exactly analogous to the way in which widely used textbooks demonstrate the notability of the author. Furthermore, an official university blog, like a university web site, is a RS. DGG 03:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment here, folks - please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:JUSTAVOTE. The fact of its colaborating with CPDL/ChoralWiki does not actually influence its notability per our notability guideline. Please please add some independent sources about the project, not just a list of backlinks. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 17:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A suggestion: It might be a good idea to read the old AfD debate about CPDL, because we seem to be going over more or less the same ground... for one thing the setup of IMSLP is extremely similar to CPDL, with the exception that IMSLP has a larger scope. Also, the CPDL article itself and the Mutopia article may help, since they are deemed notable. --Feldmahler 21:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So are the counterarguments. I think the problem here is the definition of "non-trivial". That old AfD gave university links as proof. This is why I suggested it as a precedent. There is a reason why the law system gives high importance to precedents; language by itself is almost always unclear. --Feldmahler 21:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well I suggest a good starting point for non trivial would be somewhere a long way above a link on a page personally. One Night In Hackney303 21:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is also to minimize inconsistencies within the system due to differing subjective judgments that the law gives such importance to precedents. Also, that the links on the IMSLP site are not just some random link that you make it sound like; they are from university libraries. --Feldmahler 22:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't think you have read that old AfD closely enough... and you keep using "links". How about using the more detailed description "university approved links"? --Feldmahler 01:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've read the AfD, and I'm afraid anything said there is trumped by policy, namely WP:A which states if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it, so perhaps you'd like to provide the sources? One Night In Hackney303 01:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ezeu 01:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Chatterley

[edit]
Andrew Chatterley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I prodded it and the tag was removed. Appears to fail WP:BIO, WP:BAND and WP:ATT. Only 37 Google hits and nothing looks significant. I understand being just Grammy nominated is not particularly important in itself. Tyrenius 22:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral I do think that being emmy nominated is notable enough to have an article but I dont think that this article establishes any other claim of notability.--Joebengo 23:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A previous discussion on this (sorry, haven't got link) concluded virtually anyone could get nominated on the first round. I'm no expert on the subject though. Tyrenius 23:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.150.133.182 (talk • contribs).
User's 5th edit. Others related to the article. Tyrenius 00:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  • Google hits are linked in the nom statement above. 37, I'm afraid, not thousands. This isn't an article about the Pussy Cat Dolls. You need to find material about him specifically and reference it. Tyrenius 23:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.9.52.182 (talk • contribs).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Idol Scoreboards

[edit]
American Idol Scoreboards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is a list of Amrican Idol Participants, it appears to fail WP:NOT and the content of the list is unencyclopedic. I tried adding an Unencyclopedic tag but it was promtply deleted without discussion by the primary author of the page. The extensive listing of American Idol contestants who have no further claim to notability is not useful to an encyclopedia and would not be of general interest Monty845 22:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made the article because when I visit Wikipedia it gives me a lot of info on things I never knew about, I'm pretty sure fans of American Idol would like to visit this page and see the information this page has to offer. Yes, I understand that it's not that formal, but this could be help to some people. I'm the one who put up this page and if I wasn't and found this page out it would be very helpful to me and full me with knowledge about the show that I didn't know before. There's nothing morally wrong with the page and doesn't take about bad things or even have bad things. Please do not delete this page I kinda already worked hard on it and I'm trying to do something nice for other fans of American Idol.

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

The result was that my instinct says delete, but the consensus here says keep. Ezeu 01:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veterans of the First World War who died in 1999

[edit]
Veterans of the First World War who died in 1999 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Listcruft. Not even appropriate as a category, since most of these people are not notable enough to have their own articles. Corvus cornix 22:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete DCboy 22:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- While the people in the article may not be notble enough to have thier own articles this article is well referenced and the list is very informative and is a great addition to the encyclopedia.--Joebengo 23:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's impossible to tell from the references which reference goes with which entry, and therefore the article is extremely poorly referenced. If you think the references are great, please link them to an entry. Corvus cornix 23:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The entries for the UK and Ireland are all verifiable. They are the result of a year-long project that cross-references the birth and death records of men of military age during WWI who survived into the period researched with the UK National Archives's military service records and the work of eminent historians such as Richard Van Emden and Max Arthur on WWI veterans. I am happy to go into more detail on the research undertaken if it will help.

However, much of the source material is not readily available online and referencing over 160 individual records will be a painstaking process, and not one I am prepared to undertake whilst the threat of deletion hangs over the page. Should the consensus be to keep the page, then I will be happy to put the appropriate references in place. I'd appreciate your suggestions on an efficient way of doing this.

This page should be seen in its true context, as a document that is part of and supports a much bigger body of work on the subject of the 'Surviving Veterans of World War I.'

86.141.57.30 22:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Bruce[reply]

  • Keep - Important as a refererence to the article on surviving veterans Frankwomble 12:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 13:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is an excellent reference and should remain, as nothing else like it currently exists. --Brianmccollum 17:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a fine, if incomplete, resource Czolgolz 18:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The page should be kept in context of the Suriving Veterans of WW1 page as reference material, it's clear from that discussion page that there is still questionability of when certain veterans died which were at least referenced as living, Novemeber 11th 1998 onwards (surviving WW1 veterans has been a regular 'cause celebre' for UK newspapers since this 80th anniversary). Saying that I tend to agree that many are not notable per se; but in my view the article isn't trying to commemorate the individuals on the list, it's just a concise list and it's the collective which is notable. RichyBoy 18:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. End of. (unsigned comment)
  • DELETE. Few of these are notable, and surely just numbers would do somewhere else. Besides, the information is not complete either & doesn't serve much purpose. There's enough pages devoted to the World War and this one can go. 86.132.145.164 19:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Runmaster67[reply]
  • Strong keep. As per users "Redpepper1952", "Frankwomble", "Brianmccollum", "Czolgolz" and "RichyBoy". Extremely sexy 20:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As above. Mithrandir1967 20:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This page serves as a unique reference. The First World War was the single most important event in 20th century history and its ramifications have made the world it is today. It was fought by manual workers and farmhands, clerks and students who answered their countries' call, fought, and if they survived went home again, back to their ordinary lives. Most of those listed here are not notable but their contribution to they way we all are now is greater than most of the here today, gone tomorrow pop-trash and Z-listers whose sixth-form biographies clutter this encyclopedia - Bruce
  • One could contest the notion that WW1 was the single most important event of the 20th Century, but whether it is or not is irrelevant to this discussion. That "pop-trash" or "Z-listers" have articles is also irrelevant, as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for inclusion. Otto4711 03:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To those who say that "wikipedia is not a memorial".. why don't you read the rest of the wording? This site allows mention of those who are "notable". And WW1 Veterans are most certianly that! In fact it could be said that the whole site of "surviving veterans of WW1" is really a memorial in itself. So the "not a memorial" thing is not a fixed rule. {User Redpepper1952} 22:45 April 9, 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 Merge. Ezeu 01:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkgirl (animated)

[edit]
Hawkgirl (animated) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page already exists as Hawkwoman, so this artticle should be deleted, plus it's just about the tv series version of hawkwoman DCboy 22:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect. Corvus cornix 23:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based upon examining the Hawkwoman article and seeing there are substantive differences between the two characters (not the least of which is the hero name) plus the Hawkwoman article includes a link to this article, probably in order to keep the Hawkwoman article from becoming too long. There is enough material on the television version of the character to maintain a separate article. 23skidoo 00:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*delete or Merge into Hawkgirl article because Hawkwoman is the silver age version of Hawkgirl and they created a separate article for her for some reason, and Hawkgirl (animated) article is just the animated version of Hawkgirl, so i think that eithier this article be deleted as I don't like the idea of having separate articles for animated versions, or merge it into Hawkgirl, not into Hawkwoman, since Hawkgirl seems to be the main page. Gman124 01:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MergeUDHSS 14:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 09:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patch (the band)

[edit]
Patch (the band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion, nor indication when I went searching, that this band meets the relevant notability criteria at WP:MUSIC. Contested prod. Iamunknown 23:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete, A7 - no assertion of notability. — ERcheck (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LopezFilms Ltd.

[edit]
LopezFilms Ltd. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company that scores zero google hits and has made no notable films.. Poorly written article, created as the only edit of a brand new account. Hawker Typhoon 23:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_April_8&oldid=1116721754"