Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 14

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< April 13 April 15 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. --Coredesat 01:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford Mendicants

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

Non-notable college a cappella group. Only claim to notability is an unsubstantiated claim that "membership in the group is very competitive and considered prestigious." No sources. Savidan 23:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're not talking about newspaper articles, etc. the sources alone do not demonstrate notability. Student newspapers can be used to demonstrate notability if they are being used to cite a fact which makes the group notable. Using a student newspaper to cite a anecdote does not accomplish this. 15:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Human interests pieces in local newspapers also could establish notability, but what fact from these articles makes them notable? Savidan 14:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it your assertion that these articles constitute "trivial" coverage or that the San Francisco Chronicle and San Jose Mercury News are unreliable sources? WP:MUSIC seems clear on what constitutes a trivial mention (and the articles presented don't fall under that category, in my opinion), but I suppose there is room for disagreement on that point. Nevertheless, the Chronicle article notes multiple international concert tours per item 3 here and that the group is among the first of its kind on the West Coast (which could qualify for item 6 or multiple items here). YMMV. JavaTenor 16:51, 10 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, Ezeu 00:24, 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 deleted by Alison. J Milburn 09:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gas house pizza

Gas house pizza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Restaurant that appears to be non-notable, except locally. Doesn't have any sources to support that, or anything else in the article. Currently fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS-EMP 00:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, quite non-notable. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:14, 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 keep; withdrawal came too late to stop the AfD going ahead, but the arguments are strong that this is a potentially manageable and useful list that does not necessarily require original research. Views are running that way, as well, and in all the circs I think an early "keep" closure justified. Metamagician3000 11:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of tomato cultivars

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

Indiscriminate list of no encyclopedic value. List is unmanageable, and invites own research, commercial advertising, and poor-quality content. Jerry 00:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nomination withdrawn request closure as keep by WP:SNOW. Since being shown the list for basil, which made it to featured status, and doing some more research, I realize this list has the POTENTIAL to be good. The current quality is not a valid basis for deletion. Jerry 15:28, 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. --Coredesat 01:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bubba Fangman

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

Non notable wrestler, no evidence of multiple non trivial independent sources, 13 unique Ghits, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney303 00:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Given your previous history of removing prods without improving the article, I wasn't prepared to waste my time. If sources existed, you should have created the article from them and listed them appropriately. Given the amount of content contained in the article it's reasonable enough to assume that you do not have access to multiple non trivial sources about this person, and it's unlikely they exist. One Night In Hackney303 04:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I know he regularly appeared on GWF television, although I don't know of any online sources aside from tape trading websites which could verify it. I've sinced added a reference from prowrestlinghistory.com, a reference used in numerous wrestling biographies on Wikipedia. MadMax 09:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Calumet Lutheran

Camp Calumet Lutheran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable summer camp. Current article doesn't do much along the lines of establishing notability, it just lists what they do there-EMP 00:50, 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. --Coredesat 01:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish language rock and roll

Spanish language rock and roll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list of no encyclopedic value. List is unmanageable, and invites commercial advertising, and non-notable content. Redundant to Category:Rock en Español. Jerry 00:47, 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. --Coredesat 01:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-Strike culture

Counter-Strike culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

unencyclopedic, non notable, completely unsourced, and everything important is already duplicated in the related articles for counterstrike, and the professional gaming stuff is duplicates of the CAL article and the individual notable teams. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 00:52, 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 delete a1 (no encyclopedic content), WP:NFT, WP:NOT a recipe book. NawlinWiki 02:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate apple pie

Chocolate apple pie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is not really an article. There's nothing special about chocolate apple pie as far as I know. Prod contested. Delete due to lack of (potential for) encyclopedic content. ... discospinster talk 01:39, 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 no consensus. Majorly (hot!) 10:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

K-Salaam

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

I don't see any claims of notability, but the speedy tag I put on it was removed, so I'm bringing it here. This is a non-notable musician. Corvus cornix 02:03, 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 No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-19 06:30Z

Active Citizens Transform

Active Citizens Transform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Lack of notability Mmoyer 02:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References have been added, so I'm changing my vote to keep. -- P.B. Pilhet 22:09, 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 Speedy delete g1 patent nonsense, no sources; also deleting The Great Jayhawk and The Free Will Church of Kamrar, oddly enough created by same author. NawlinWiki 02:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kamrarism

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

I think this may be a hoax; a goole search found no results. Possibly a speedy candidate. Abeg92contribs 02:22, 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. --Coredesat 01:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hollywood Squares center squares

List of Hollywood Squares center squares (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Indiscriminate information. WP:ATT. Etc. Saikokira 02:16, 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. --Coredesat 01:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Countdown octochamps

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

WP:NOT#IINFO. A list of people who have done well on a game show. "Countdown octochamps" is a Non-notable topic considering how many there have been, and a Google search for "Countdown octochamps" returns a lot of Wikipedia mirrors. If any of these contestants are worth mentioning, that should be done in Countdown (game show), not a seperate article. Saikokira 02:28, 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. --Coredesat 01:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neurot Recordings discography

Neurot Recordings discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT. As the title suggests, a list of releases from an obscure record label. Saikokira 02:36, 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. Single-purpose account arguments have been disregarded, and most of the keep arguments given by those accounts are attempts to defend the subject's theories without addressing the notability of the subject per any guideline or policy. This is not a debate on conspiracy theory; Wikipedia is neither a soapbox nor a battleground. --Coredesat 01:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Judy Wood Phd.

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


This debate is about whether Judy Wood's article is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.
This is not the place to discuss the merits or truthfulness of her theory.
Please base your arguments on relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
  • Delete: This is not a biography. It's a discussion of Dr. Wood's hypotheses regarding the events of 9/11. It should perhaps be a sub-section of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. I'm not opposed to a general biographical entry for Dr. Wood, but this is not that. This is a protracted discussion of one very specific aspect of her work. To argue that this is just a biography entry is disingenuous and indicative of an agenda, in my opinion. And this entry's formatting is embarassingly poor. E.g., what's with the academic credentials being blocked at the beginning like that? --Skidoo 12:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have refactored long comments to the talk page of this AFD because it is very long and disrupts reading of the day's AFD page. This is not an assertion that those comments are incorrect or less important. When contributing please try to place a sentence or two with your keep/delete opinion on this page with longer comments on the talk page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. Wood believes that the World Trade Center towers were destroyed by "directed energy weapons." She presented a paper to that effect at one scientific conference. The article, however, gives no sources showing that either she or her theory are notable. NawlinWiki 02:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For openers, it is requested that all editors refer to Dr. Wood using the academic title to which she is entitled, that is "Doctor" and/or "Ph.D.". Dr. Wood is a Ph.D. in mechanical and civil engineering, and believes that the twin towers were destroyed by energy weapons. The combination of these two irrefutable facts alone is noteworthy. Furthermore, she has filed an RFC against the NIST, this too is noteworthy on its own. Dr. Wood has appeared on various radio interview shows, again noteworthy, and these are in the process of being added to the article. Dr. Wood and her theory are so noteworthy, in fact, that a Ph.D. physicist, Greg Jenkins, has written a lengthy article attempting to discredit her. It is hard to imagine Dr. Jenkins investing such effort in someone not noteworthy. Zarcon 03:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)— Zarcon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Strong Keep: Ph.D. says energy weapons. This is notable on its face. RFC, Interviews, conferences, etc. all just add more weight. Zarcon 03:08, 14 April 2007, 02:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC) (author of article, voted twice so far)— Zarcon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete: No plausible assertion of notability. Frankly, I rarely vote to delete anything for this reason, but the subject's theories are absurd, and absent notability, should not be publicized further. I will add that the request that the subject be referred to at all times by her academic title contravenes Wikipedia's style guidelines, and should be totally disregarded. (Disclosure: I live and work in Manhattan and cannot view grotesque conspiracy theories about the events of September 11th dispassionately; it required an exercise of willpower on my part not to speedy this as soon as I saw it.) Newyorkbrad 03:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! None of you could possibly be qualified to explain WHY her theories are supposed to be "absurd"! Indeed, she is in fact the most highly qualified scientist who is studying the destruction of the World Trade Center. Steve Jones has issued many promissory notes about thermite/thermate, which cannot be cashed in. [remaining comments refactored to talk page]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.117.42.26 (talk) 03:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC). (has only one other contribution besides this AFD) This comment was contributed by James H. Fetzer, Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Notice that a disciplinary journal has been devoting its resources to attacking her, which means that her work, no matter how controversial, is indisputably important. KEEP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.42.26 (talk • contribs) (only other edits are to James H. Fetzer)— 71.117.42.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong Delete - No assertion of notability. Having a Ph.D and believing 9/11 was a conspiracy, does not mean notability.--Bryson{Talk}{Edits} 03:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
all theories of 9/11 are conspiracy theories, you must know that. Zarcon 03:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)— Zarcon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please, let's not turn this into a 9/11 conspiracy debate, this is about Judy Wood.--Bryson{Talk}{Edits} 03:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, you brought up conspiracy.
  • Delete While her theory may be notable for the attention it has gathered, Dr. Wood herself does not appear notable. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • On further review of the article, I realized that 90% or more of it is about the theory. So Keep and rename to The Star Wars Beam Weapons theory or something like that, remove the "Academic positions and conferences" and "Interviews and media appearances" sections and rewrite the lead. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per her publications/articles. comment: if she is deleted because her theories are absurd, i'm afriad David Hume would have to go as well. the_undertow talk 03:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A crank, yes, but apparently a notable crank, based on the amount of Web publicity and the fact that a real scientist actually took the time to refute this nonsense. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete The theory may be notable, and is probably discussed somewhere among the various WP articles. But nobody is notable simply for proposing a 9/11 theory. The ordinary rules for academics apply to JW:
  1. she is (or was) an assistant professor, and assistant professors are rarely notable unless they have done exceptional scientific work, recognized as such by the scientific community.
  2. She has published zero peer-reviewed journal articles. She has written a thesis, but all beginning scientists do, as an academic exercise; the publishable parts if any are published. She has delivered a paper at a conference. That goes as a minor element of one's CV; even if published it doesn't count as a paper, because peer-review is usually minimal, and hers' has not even been published. She gave an unreported lecture. She asked for input to a government document, and filed a statement. That is not notable.
  3. Journal of 911 Studies, which claims to be peer-reviewed, is published by Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. Their web site indicates strong internal feelings pro and con the question of whether the utter implausability of JW's studies imperils their work. For those inclined to get involved in such things, that group seems well worth an article. But in my opinion neither being published nor attacked in that journal confers notability on anyone or anything.

In conclusion, she has a few strong-minded friends and opponents, but nobody outside that small circle knows of her or thinks of her as notable. She may become a notable crank, but she isn't there yet.DGG 04:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unless Wood's theory gains some sort of widespread acceptance, or even widespread denouncement, it is no more significant than the dozens of quasi-scientific claims made about the WTC collapse. The sources presented to substantiate claims of notability include self-published material, and a minor internet-only journal. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia will become a laughing stock if it becomes a repository of absurd conspiracy theories. Arguing that her baseless allegations are notable because she has a PhD is the logical fallacy of arguing from authority - which she doesn't have anyway. A wikipedia article like this will be used by conspiracy theorists to 'prove' that their ridiculous charges are gaining popular, even official, sanction and wikipedia's good name will be trashed in the process. Nick mallory 07:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Unless there is a response to the RFC or there is coverage by "multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject" this needs to be deleted. - Ctbolt 07:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! - Dr Wood's credentials show her to be more noteworthy than most, if not all, other 9/11 researchers. She is definitely more educated than Jim Hoffman. Her directed energy weapon theory addresses much more evidence than Steven Jones. Those who are voting in this "articles for deletion" page should become acquainted with the facts about her theory. This can be done here [8] by clicking on the "Star Wars Beam Weapon" link at the top. (Those who believe NIST did a thorough investigation are indeed ignorant to the facts. NIST admitted on page 82 of their report that they didn't even analyze the "collapses".) It's really amazing how so much effort is being used to discredit/silence Dr Judy Wood and her theory. Perhaps she's on to something?? Complete Truth 07:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Ignoring established credentials, POV on the "theory", calling on emotionality, passing judgment from a layman’s education on "theory" presented by credentialed authorities like Dr. Wood is contrary to the stated objectives of Wiki. Presenting one side of an argument sets precedent for strong bias that is also not an objective of Wiki. The "delete" factions are clearly playing on POV, discrediting credentials without any proof that such credentials may be want, and playing on emotions rather than validity. 911 Eyewitness 11:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)— 911eyewitness (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - this article is about the theory, not the author, and if it's to be kept should be kept under the theory. There is nothing whatsoever to indicate any notability for Wood in and of herself - "assistant professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department at Clemson University in Clemson, South Carolina" is not an assertion of notability. Furthermore, this article is completely unsourced, and the only sources any of the editors !voting keep above are offering are her own website and press releases. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DGG's convincing argument. Unless reliable secondary sources exist, attributing Wood's case and claimed notability, this article just becomes naïve theory description, and WP an extension of Wood's likely desire for publicity. MURGH disc. 12:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Dr. Judy Wood is well on her way to becoming a significant historical figure. Her theory that directed energy weapons (dew) were a causal factor in the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) complex relies on the visible record of the event and, more recently, upon an analysis of the corporate contractors that were relied on to prepare the governmental report on what caused the destruction of the WTC. The primary contractors used are, themselves, at the epicenter of the military industrial complex, including the main developers of, you guessed it, directed energy weapons.

It matters little whether Wikipedia keeps its entry on Dr. Judy Wood. After all, the powers that be certainly do not want the public to perceive that directed energy weapons were used to destroy the WTC. Why, if that were ever to become a part of the public's awareness, think what the outcome would be? I'll stop with that.--Jplotinus 13:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC) (note: this is User:Jplotinus sole edit to Wikipedia)[reply]

  • Delete. Whether her theories have merit or whether she's a crackpot, the provided sources don't appear to me to establish notability, and my googling didn't show evidence that she's been profiled in significant news media- just the usual array of WTC conspiracy theory sites, which wouldn't count as nontrivial independent sources. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: Iridescenti's points are cogent. As much as some people seem to want to turn this into a debate on 9/11 theories, this is about the concept of notability. No evidence is presented that Dr. Wood's theories have been discussed widely and publicly. It's as simple as that. -- P L E A T H E R talk 14:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If you do not delete Woods will become notable by your decision. Notability is under your control. So let us forget the notability criterion for whether or not to keep the article. Deletion is the right course because Dr. Wood ray gun theory is a either a hoax with extreme political consequences that you will thereby be perpetuating; or else an honest theory that has not gained acceptance either by the scientific community, by the media or by the 9-11 investigation culture. You will be declaring her not only noteworthy but also consequential -- taking sides what may be a deliberate disinformation effort to discredit those who actually have uncovered clear stong evidence poining to a false-flag attack on 9-11-01. The fact is that even her supporters say merely that she deserves to be heard, not that she has the best evidence of the 9-11 crime, not that she has distinguished herself. Is there solid achievement? No. Is there future historical significance because of a controversy -- possibly a cointelpro op? Yes. Should you assist the cointelpro op if there is one? No. Dick Eastman M.S., M.A. .


  • Strong Keep I am very surprised at the assertions that Dr Wood is of no significance within the 911 Truth community. We can assume here that everyone agrees that, whether it is to their personal taste or not, such a community exists and includes many thousands if not millions of supporters. Because the debate takes place largely on the internet does not make it less of a reality and a historical fact.Our personal and emotional responses to the theories are completely irrelevant. If a figure like Dr Wood attracted the amount of interest on the internet that she does, in any other field, there would be no argument. Why should September 11th be an exception to this?

I offer these search results from Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 9,910 for nist "judy wood " Results 1 - 10 of about 1,050 for star wars beam weapon "judy wood ". Results 1 - 10 of about 177 for nist rfc " judy wood " Results 1 - 10 of about 802 for billiard balls "judy wood " Results 1 - 10 of about 12,200 for world trade center "judy wood " Results 1 - 10 of about 551 for directed energy weapons "judy wood "Andrew Lowe Watson 15:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also draw your attention to the fact that she has received strong support from two other Wiki-articled figures in the 911 truth community, DrJames Fetzer and Morgan Reynolds. Her work has been mentioned in many of the leading video films about the attacks, including Loose Change and 911 Eyewitness.Andrew Lowe Watson 15:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep The thoery, no matter how crazy, seems notable... either her page needs to be kept or a seperate page on the article needs to be started. Monty845 18:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As it stands, almost the entire page is devoted to the theory. It would be very easy to rewrite/remove the one or two short sections specifically about Dr. Wood and move the page to a title about the theory. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: It is indeed notable when an academic proposes a theory that goes against official standpoint.

Add to that the fact that the official standpoint has failed to explain and in some cases completely ignored the anomalies that Dr Wood says are explained by her theory. [remaining comments refactored to talk page] 82.23.139.49Coffinman

  • Delete. Ph.D.s having wacky theories is not in and of itself notable, and self-published theories on web sites are not reliable secondary sources of notability. The academic paper and letter in a journal by two others debunking her theories are such a source, but not enough of a source to convince me that anyone takes her theories seriously or that she's an important part of the 9/11 conspiracy theory world. Put it this way: if we were evaluating a non-crackpot Ph.D. for notability using WP:PROF, one self-published paper with only two citations would be very far from satisfying that guideline. —David Eppstein 23:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - first of all, nigh-on 90% of this article is not about Judy Wood. What is about Judy Wood is not notable. Furthermore, this article provides no sources which either assert or support that her theory (let alone her) is notable. --Haemo 23:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you reading the same Judy Wood article? 100% of it is about her. Of course it is about her work and her theories, practically all notable person articles are primarily about the work, for that is what makes them notable. Could you please elaborate on what you find not to pertain to Judy Wood? Zarcon 00:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the independent, verifiable, non trivial sources which back up any of the claims made in the article? Just because someone comes up with a theory with no rational basis doesn't mean they, or their theory, is notable. It doesn't matter how many 'truthers' pile on to the debate here. Secondly, why did you remove the information pertaining to the Attorney's critique of this thesis? Science is a process, not an attribute inherent attribute in a person determined by qualifications. He tested the hypothesis against the evidence and found it wanting and clearly explained why, that is science. Your attitude is more centred in faith. I request that you restore this information. 124.183.228.151 02:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - clearly the arguments for delete are ideological, defensive, and are attempting to argue by ridicule. Anyone researching the controversies over the official account of the incident will have to know about alternative theories and who advanced them. Judy Wood’s work has been distinguished in this regard. If you really want the Wikipedia to be a laughing stock and irrelevant then delete Judy Wood and all references to everyone else who has had the temerity to offer alternative accounts of the 9/11/01 events. This attack against Judy Wood is a rear-gard action, too late and too biased to have any effect. The public does not trust the official account, and this entire subject will be an important topic to cover openly and in an unbiased way. Delete Judy Wood, and you lose all credibility about Wikipedia's capacity for objectivity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.190.55.208 (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC). signed leschwartz[reply]
  • delete per David Eppstein, she's not notable as an academic. Comparisons to Steven Jones are simple WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, and dismissable on those grounds. This article functions as a soapbox, which is what Wikipedia is not. If the raygun theory is notable then an article (establishing encylopedic notability) should be on that topic, not Judy Wood. Pete.Hurd 02:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[responses to this comment refactored to talk page]

DO NOT REMOVE MY COMMENTS AGAIN! signed leschwartz
Ad hominem attack. The sort of thing your side has to resort to. Judy Wood IS notable in the development of the discussion of these topics. What this is really about is your sides attempt to fashion Wikipedia after your biases about the 9/11/01 events. Judy Wood is a fact and her presence in the public debate about this topic is notable. When your side loses be as vociferous in ensuring the accuracy of the coverage and you will have made up a little for your efforts towards intellectual dishonesty. Specifically, I mean hiding facts, attempting to make people you disagree with disappear is the worst sort of intellectual crime.
They use the term "raygun because that is all they got, ridicule. In fact DEW weapons exist, and there is substantial evidence to show their presence in the 9/11/01 events. But that really is beside the point. This is about enforcing neo-con views on Wikipedia. People, some people who think and investigate for themselves are dangerous. theories which counter the official line are dangerous. Such people, such theories should be made to disappear. leschwartz

— Leschwartz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leschwartz (talk • contribs) 18:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC).\[reply]

re:— Leschwartz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leschwartz (talk • contribs) 18:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
This is not true, the leschwartz id is new, further this is another form of ad hominem attack, without ad hominem attacks, attempts to demean Judy Wood or attempts to ridicule the topic of DEW, and aside from ridicule aimed at persons, the delete crowd has nothing to say. This is indeed the reason the Wikipedia has such a tarnished reputation for lacking objectivity. If Wikipedia insiders don't like a topic or person for ideological reasons, out come the ad hominem attacks, and those who put up another viewpoint find their comments deleted by those who can not counter the comments with persuasive responses. I leave your comments untouched because I have higher standards of honesty in debate, further your comments help me make the contrary point. These are the frequently used tactics, a campaign to delete the person, or topic will be mounted and ridicule, ad hominem attacks against all who disagree will take place, in the name of - wikipedia - standards. Such campaigns are entirely transparent, you are not fooling anyone with these campaigns, and deleting another contributors comments again during the discussion; intellectual arson. signed leschwartz, lhs_emf@pacbell.net
  • Strong Keep

Whatever merit Dr. Wood’s theory has it certainly is significant since it has created much discussion in the scientific community, passionate support from some as well as many aggressive efforts to discredit it. This theory is closely documented and argued in great detail.

In fact, the visual evidence and the arguments that she makes as well as the factual information concerning the existence of Directed Energy Weapons is extensive. While it remains to be seen whether or not Directed Energy Weapons powerful enough to disintegrate one hundred story buildings exist, Dr. Wood has taken steps to verify this hypotheis by contacting individuals in the Directed Energy Directorate to elicit their opinion on whether or not the phenomenon observed in the World Trade Center attacks are consistent with the effects that would be caused by Directed Energy Weapons.

A Google search for “Judy Wood Directed Energy Weapons” yields 362,000. hits. Plainly public interest and discussion of Dr. Wood is significant.Dr. Wood’s theory has been hugely controversial and has attracted much attention on a national level and it would be unreasonable to exclude information about her from an open source encyclopedia -- a curious public should have the opportunity to educate themselves about a provocative and unusual theory and the person who conceived it.

Dr. Wood’s theory is scientific and not political. She does not speculate about who might have been responsible but limits herself to her theory and a discussion of the physical phenomena observed and recorded.

Dr. Wood has published her theory where it can be viewed and critiqued by her peers, her critics and the general public. Her theory provides an informed and unique perspective on unusual physical events whose cause have been the cause of much discussion and dispute for nearly six years. Consideration of her theory invites reconsideration of other theories thus catalyzing a more detailed, critical and objective dialogue on the subject.

A frequent charge by critics of Dr. Wood is that DEWs don't exist. The Directed Energy Professional Society website lists numerous companies and individuals who are involved in this technology: http://www.deps.org/DEPSpages/sponsors.html

We aren't talking about the Cardiff Giant here. Dr. Wood has composed a credible and well documented theory. The theory is notable and Dr. Wood is notable for having concieved it. The public interest is well-served with an entry on Dr. Wood.

http://www.drjudywood.com

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2007/3/emw515165.htm

Thurn X 03:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Thurn X (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Pete.Hurd 03:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right now, the article is far too much focused on the theory, and not on the person. An article about the theory *might* be notable, I don't know. Right now, this is a hash. Delete if not sourced to references that actually deal with the good doctor and pared down so it's actually biographical. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DGG Baristarim 05:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Assistant professors are not generally notable enough for individual articls. Her theory of directed energy weapons being used to help the aircraft impacts and ensuing fired bring down the two towers is not very credible on its face, and is not presented in the article as being published in reliable peer reviewed scientific publications, but insteat the article refers to her website. The article fails to satisfy WP:N or WP:ATT. Her concept of "dustification" does not appear to have caught on in the scientific world. If she is a well published scientist and researcher beyond the 9/11 theorizing, that should be presented in the article. Edison 05:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- not notable. A Google search on "judy wood" + "trade center" produces 432 unique hits (first 100, last 32). I could find no media reports that meet the requirements of our Notability and Reliable Sources Guidelines. Find sources that meet those requirements and I'll be happy to reconsider. --A. B. (talk) 05:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nick Mallory's complaint was moved to the talk page of Judy Wood.
  • Delete The truthfulness of her theories are not what we are supposed to discuss here. If she is to be included on wikipedia, she must be noteable. Notebility requires multiple, independent sources. Dr bab 11:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - whether or not the article's kept, the photo on the page is a clear delete: Caption "Judy Wood in a white hat"; fair use tag "This image is a faithful digitalization of a unique historic photograph". - iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources. Furthermore, having an alternate theory about what happened to the World Trade Center does not make someone notable. Also, the article is almost entirely about the theory itself, and not Judy Wood. dcandeto 22:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia. There is tremendous interest in Dr Wood and her work, therefore it's more than appropriate for wikipedia. People want to know who she is, and get information about her. Wikipedia is the place for that. It is wikipedia editors responsibility to have information that the public wants. The "reliable sources" guideline is a secondary issue, as long as there are no slanderous-type comments. People are interested and want the information. Google searches prove this. Complete Truth 08:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Many of the Keep votes are now arguing that we should disgregard the usual notability criteria in this case. These voters may be new to Wikipedia, and may not know that the notability criteria aren't waived for any article. They are a natural extension of Verifiability, a central guiding principal which says that all information on Wikipedia must be able to be verified from reliable sources, to confirm that it is true and accurate. This isn't a 'secondary issue,' it is at the heart of what Wikipedia is. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's job is to get information that people want out in the open, and to do so from reliable sources. This means if there's two newspaper articles, one in the New York Times, and the other in the National Enquirer, then obviously we'd pick the Times. But this is not the case here. The reliable sources in this case are those where the information can be found. The wikipedia article should be a representation of all the sources. People want the information. Complete Truth 12:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that isn't what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compilation of material already in reliable sources. Extensive use of primary source documents constitutes original research, which is unacceptable. JoshuaZ 15:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - On what basis do you claim "this is not one of them"? A former mechanical engineering professor at a mainstream university files a Request For Correction (RFC) with NIST. The RFC is archived on a US Government website. The former engineering professor is represented by a mainstream attorney. There was an official PRWEB press release issued. Do you wonder why the New York Times has not picked this up? I'd like you and everyone else to take the time to watch this short 10 minute video. After that, I'd like your opinion on whether "exceptions to basic notability criteria" apply in this case. If you don't believe so, I'd like to know why. Thank you. Complete Truth 00:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There should be no exceptions to the basic notability criterion, as the presences of mutiple reliable sources is the only way we can have a neutral point of view article with no original research that is verifiable by mutiple Wikipedia editors. Without attributing statements in articles to reliable sources, anyone could just write whatever they want on WP and there would be no independent peer review of articles, leading to an unreliable encyclopedia. Leuko 03:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment by ewing2001

As pointed out earlier and then censored and wiped by wikipedia, the whole idea of wikipedia is an Orwellian Operation, where nothing honest gets established. Judy Wood has theoretically the same right to appear at wikipedia as Professor Jones, who are actually was working on the same weaponry, wikipedia not only denies but also ignores that wikipedia has their own entry about directed energy weapons. Since you will erase my entry again, i am not interested how this Issue will be solved anyway, but for those who are accidentally will caught my entry: Here is the evidence that Directed Energy Weaponry was already a business for at least 50 companies BEFORE 9/11: http://www.911researchers.com/node/403 The 9/11 StarWars ExoW CoverUp: Why NASA and NGA was part of the Perp System

http://www.911researchers.com/node/403#comment-2963 [StarWars: ExoW incl. DirEN directly plus aviation weaponry]

Boeing ("Team ABL"), Lockheed, TRW, General Atomics, SPARTA, Inc., Ionatron, Rockwell Collins International, Mevatec/BAE, Ball Aerospace, Allied Signal, Hughes, EMS, United Technologies, Comlinear plus Israeli co-contractors Elbit/El-Op and IAI/Elta....


[StarWars: logistical contracts of any kind ] ... BoozAllen Hamilton, Research Planning, Inc./BTG ("Eagle Alliance"), CSC, ACS Defense, CACI, Compaq, TRW, Windemere, Fiber Plus, Verizon, Superior Communications, Veridian ("Logicon TASC team"), Advent Systems Inc., Electronic Data Systems Corp., Advanced Engineering & Sciences/ITT Industries, RDR Inc., SRS Technologies, Washington Group/Raytheon, Titan Systems Corp., Delfin Systems, SAIC ("Digital Network Intelligence Enterprise Team"), Northrop Grumman, Telcordia/SAIC and others.


... -Many smaller start-up companies during Summer 2001 had been linked to production of other unconventional weaponry (exoW), i.e.: Positronics Research LLC, in Santa Fe, N.M (AntiMatter Weaponry) Nanoenergetics Inc./NovaCentrix (Nanothermite Weaponry)

(see also http://www.911bloglines.com/node/61)


http://www.deps.org/DEPSpages/meetings.html (all conferences , workshops of DEPS etc...) ...


this quote: "...We're going to fight from space and we're going to fight into space. That?s why the US has development programs in directed energy and hit-to-kill mechanisms...."

Commander-in-Chief of US Space Command (1994-1996), Joseph W. Ashy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_W._Ashy


http://www.911researchers.com/node/403#comment-2982 DoD budget 2001 plan had "new line item for Directed EnergyTech A new line item for Directed Energy Technology would be funded at $ 32 million...


http://www.911researchers.com/node/403#comment-2982 NIST hooked up with Defense Company specialized in Directed Energy

http://www.atp.nist.gov/ https://www.mepcenters.nist.gov/cims2-web/pub/ss.mep?sfc=1&state=read&UN... Activity Period: 2004-2

"... Center Name: Missouri Enterprise Story Title: Clean Earth Technologies, LLC, Designs for the Future

"...CET has broad experience in optics, photonics, ...directed energy technology,...

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ewing2001 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

As has been said before multiple times and is in the box at the top of this page, this is not the place to debate the truthfulness of Dr. Judy Wood's theory. Per WP:V, truthfulness has nothing to do with inclusion on Wikipedia. This debate is about whether Dr. Judy Wood, the person, is notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry. Whether directed energy weapons exist or destroyed the WTC is irrelevant for this discussion. Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion or research; it's an encyclopedia. Also, no comments here were censored or "wiped". User:Stifle moved some of the longer comments to the talk page for readability reasons; all comments are still accessible in the page history. Finally, please put new comments at the end of the page to make the page easier to read and to avoid splitting discussions. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you joke when you say "leading to an unreliable encyclopedia". Take a look here. Wikipedia is already unreliable, in that most everything on that page is factually wrong. I offer the animation at the top of this page as proof - definitive proof - that Dr Wood is 100% correct when she says the towers were dustified. The still shots in that animation are confirmed by ALL other photographs, and there's NO contradictory evidence. The towers did not collapse. They were dustified. Therefore, it should be obvious that the sources used in this wiki page are NOT reliable. The sources for Dr Wood's page are definitely MORE reliable! Complete Truth 06:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is one part bioskethc of Judy Wood, 10 parts 9/11 conspiracy theory. The theory has received little-to-no publicity outside of a small group, and there are no reliable sources to establish sufficiently wide notability for the theory, therefore failing Wikipedia:Fringe theories:

    The discussion of a non-mainstream theory, positively or negatively, by other non-mainstream groups or individuals is not a criterion for notability, even if the latter group or individual is itself notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If a non-mainstream theory is so unnotable that mainstream sources have not bothered to comment on it, disparage it, or discuss it, it is not notable enough for Wikipedia.

    Wood's WP:BIO claims are far too weak to stand on their own, so there's not enough here to justify an article. I would not be opposed to a merger of any of the important theory information into Morgan Reynolds (please trim it up to a paragraph or two, though...). Hell, if you do that, make this a redirect to that section as far as I care. Bottom line: insufficent reliable sourcing and insufficient notability combine to create an inappropriate Wikipedia article. — Scientizzle 15:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She seems to be a prominent advocate of alternate 9/11 theories, and the publication of a thesis on the topic is significant. I see no reason to remove the article. - grubber 18:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Inclusion of this page in Wikipedia is not a referendum on either the theory or the person. The name of the page is the name of the person, so it should be about the person, not a description of the theory. Notability requirements are not met, since there is not enough widespread coverage of the person by reputable media. If this changes in future, then such an article can exist, but not with the present lack of coverage. If you take away the theory, then all is left is someone with a Ph.D., and who was a Professor, which is not, in and of itself, notable. Does not meet requirements for WP:BIO does not meet requirements for inclusion criteria for academics. If you change it to just the theory then there hasn't been enough independent coverage in the media to warrant inclusion yet. Either way, it does not meet the requirements for an article yet, and WP is not a cystal ball. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 21:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with Alucard Sleep On It 21:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following are the criteria for inclusion as an academic, with my comments added. Dr. Wood meets five of the six, while the guideline only requires one of the six.

Criteria

If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are definitely notable. If an academic/professor meets none of these conditions, they may still be notable, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable.

1. The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources.

Independent source James Fetzer, Ph.D. has called Dr. Wood the "most qualified" person to research 9/11, which is her area.

2. The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field.

All 9/11 researchers are aware of Dr. Wood, her importance is documented by her many strong supporters including Jim Fetzer and Morgan Reynolds, and also by her critics such as Steven Jones and Jim Hoffman. Love her or hate her, Dr. Wood is an important figure.

3. The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course, if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works, if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature[1].

"The Star Wars Beam Weapons" paper is significant and well-known. All prominent 9/11 researchers are well-aware of it.

4. The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known.

Along with the "Billiard Ball Example", the Beam Weapon paper, Dr. Wood's collective body of work is significant and well-known in the 9/11 truth community. She has spoken at several conferences, and will speak at the upcoming conference Aug2-4.

5. The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources.

Dr. Wood is responsible for the important new concept that energy weapons likely were used to destroy the twin towers.

6. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.

Well, not yet.

Zarcon 00:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note as substantiated through reliable sources. No WP:RS are present, and thus none of the criteria are met. Leuko 03:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leuko, the problem is that 9/11 research is blacklisted from the mainstream media generally. You cannot pretend that it does not exist. Dr. Wood is notable within the 9/11 research community, her field. Precedent for inclusion of 9/11 releated matters has already been set. Scholars for 9/11 truth has survived RFD, despite the same lack of mainstram sources. 68.122.147.56 03:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for crying out loud. First, "9/11 research" is not "blacklisted" by the "mainstream media". There have been multiple articles about 9/11 conspiracy theories in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and other major "mainstream media" sources. Second, even if this material was "blacklisted" it would be irrelevant to Wikipedia policy. If we don't have any reliable sources discussing the matter then Wikipedia can't say anything about it. The 9/11 scholars article survived AfD because it had been mentioned in mainstream sources, not despite it. JoshuaZ 20:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: At the risk of stating the obvious, I feel the need to point out a crucial concept: If Dr. Wood is to be evaluated for notability as an academic, it must be within her academic field. She is not a professor of 9/11 Studies, but of mechanical engineering.

1. The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources.

Please cite sources demonstrating her agreed-upon significance (not competence) in the field of mechanical engineering.

2. The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field.

This field is not "all 9/11 researchers", but mechanical engineering.

3. The person has published a significant and well-known academic work.

Her work may be "significant and well-known in the 9/11 truth community", but that's irrelevant to her academic credentials. If my English professor happens to write one-act plays, he may be "significant and well-known in the one-act play community." But it doesn't mean that his plays are academic publications.

4. The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known.

Please note that there are no caveats. Not "significant and well-known in the 9/11 truth community," but in the world as a whole.

5. The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources.

Again, this pertains to the field of mechanical engineering.

6. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.

Well, we agree on this one! P L E A T H E R talk 03:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change Article Title?. The article is titled Judy Wood, yet the article is almost completely about her theory re: 9/11; only the first paragraph says anything about her. In other words, there is little about Judy Wood being noteworthy. However, her theory has proven to be noteworthy (although controversial), as witnessed by the articles' verifiable references to others who have criticized her work. Therefore, I suggest that the article be renamed to Dustification (that's what best describes her theory) and the initial paragraph changed to describe the theory, not the author of the theory. Truthanado 04:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a classic technique used by 9/11 coverup perps. Discouraging people from even thinking about Dr Wood or her work. It won't work anymore. Complete Truth 06:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Press article mentioning Dr Wood and her 9/11 work: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2279963 Complete Truth 06:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I may point it out, Wood is not the subject of that article, which is more generally about 9/11 conspiracy theorists. There is one paragraph about Wood's theory, and one quote, on page three of the four-page story. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Dr Wood's website attracts on average nearly 1,000 visitors a day: on a single day in March it had 85,000 page views and 45,000 visits. Of course this is not nearly enough to satisfy the stringent requirements for notability.http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s10yogi1&r=33. Andrew Lowe Watson 11:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ There is no objective criterion for establishing that a publication is "widely" cited. Wikipedia editors should consider not only the absolute number of citations (as provided by a citation index) but also the number relative to other publications in the same field which are generally acknowledged to be important.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blade: Dictionary

Blade: Dictionary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT. WP:ATT. The most important terms could be mentioned in Blade: The Series, because it is relatively small, but Wikipedia articles aren't fan glossaries. Saikokira 03:08, 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. --Coredesat 01:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia - Chapter Omicron Gamma

Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia - Chapter Omicron Gamma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:ORG, individual chapter of Phi Mu Alpha that does not appear to be notable in its own right. Rackabello 18:08, 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, WjBscribe 03:05, 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 Keep per consensus PeaceNT 11:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crower six stroke

Crower six stroke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There are under 50 ghits for "crower cycle" and only one non-trivial source I can find, but we have two articles, this and six stroke engine. There is onyl one concept, and it's not an especially notable one. Guy (Help!) 09:01, 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, WjBscribe 03:05, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-19 06:31Z

Shan (Cumbrian)

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

This is a dictionary definition of a term in Cumbrian. Cumbrian already has numerous examples of such terms. Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete. Flyguy649talkcontribs 04:47, 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, WjBscribe 03:05, 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 Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-19 06:31Z

Mr. Short Khop

Mr. Short Khop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC, having only 1 album released back in 2001 to no great distinction. The album also has an article, and should be deleted as well if the artist does not make the cut. Indrian 19:20, 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, WjBscribe 03:05, 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 Speedy delete a7 no assertion of notability, a1 no content. NawlinWiki 04:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salvington united

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

Not notable football team -- not even in a league yet. Selket Talk 03:07, 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. --Coredesat 01:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caughman Road Elementary School

Caughman Road Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

School that fails WP:N, WP:V, hasn't really expanded at all, plus prod was contested by the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. Wizardman 03:08, 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. --Coredesat 01:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Paul Elementary School (Virginia)

St. Paul Elementary School (Virginia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N, WP:V, was never expanded after prod removed over a month ago (by using the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. Wizardman 03:13, 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 Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-19 06:33Z

Stainless Broadcasting Company

Stainless Broadcasting Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company. Article makes no assertion of notability —Ocatecir Talk 23:22, 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) 09:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 03:13, 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 Merge to Minor seminary. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-19 06:35Z

Diocesan College (Definition)

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

Four months after its creation and this article is still just a definition, even the name specifies that. Until today it had no category and no article links to it. FateClub 16:38, 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]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 03:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that, but minor seminary has a specific meaning, and it refers to high schools. This is about colleges. --YbborTalkSurvey! 19:40, 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 Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-19 06:35Z

OnAir

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

Company in question may be notable, but sparse on sources. AfD should evaluate whether WP:CORP satisfied. Delete. Xoloz 20:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 03:13, 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. --Coredesat 01:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bluemoon(Band)

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

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 03:48, 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. --Coredesat 01:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcore is more than music

Hardcore is more than music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 03:48, 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.

Redirect to Legion Arena Caknuck 04:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legion arena

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

A better article already exists under the same name, except with a capital 'A' in 'Arena'. The better page is Legion Arena. SharkD 03:51, 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. --Coredesat 01:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lingwa de Planeta

Lingwa de Planeta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A non-notable constructed language. 486 [9] ghits, mostly WP, its mirrors, and yahoo/google groups. No evidence of mention in reliable, non-self published sources. Was deleted via WP:PROD in December 2006 and soon re-created. Has been tagged for notability since February 2007 with no improvements. In short, fails WP:N. Delete Aagtbdfoua 04:19, 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 No consensus to delete, possible merge to Blaine, Minnesota. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-19 06:39Z

Blaine High School (Minnesota)

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

Not a notable school, no sources Naconkantari 04:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*'Merge and redirect to Blaine School District as a better place. TerriersFan 19:04, 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 delete per CSD G11. Stifle (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easedesign

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORP guidelines Samw 04:23, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-19 06:42Z

Fantasy Tales Online

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

Non notable MMORPG. The article doesn't do much to establish whether the subject is notable, and with 108 ghits, I'm rather doubtful as to whether notability can be shown. Fails WP:WEB and WP:N-EMP 04:25, 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, 18 votes to delete, 9 votes to keep. Votes to keep were not taken as seriously in closing judgment as many tended not to cite policy. Jersey Devil 04:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of ZIP Codes in the United States by state

(View AfD)

Delete. I am recommending that all articles in Category:ZIP codes of the United States by state be deleted as per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:NOT#IINFO. These articles are essentially a "phone book" of all the zip codes in each state with no other content included. All of this information can more easily be found via http://www.usps.com/ as indicated at ZIP code. Please note also prior discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ZIP Codes in Oklahoma, where it was suggested that these be discussed together as an umbrella nom. --After Midnight 0001 04:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see anything to bar some editor taking the non-directory paragraphs from that article and trying to either work them into another appropriate article or creating an article that doesn't act like a directory. But if it were a new article it would need to follow attribution, notability and no-original-research rules or eventually face another deletion. One idea might be to use the non-directory information as an example of a broader phenomenon and put it into an article about Zip codes. Keep in mind that it's only the directory aspects of these articles that editors have said they have a problem with, so this discussion, unless it takes another turn, would not be ammunition for a move to delete a different kind of article, if you create one.Noroton 03:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I believe that all other articles in Lists of postal codes that consist of directory-type information should be deleted, but as noted, that's a future discussion. Reasons (except perhaps frequency of updates) from this discussion apply to the other articles. In a few of those cases, there may be enough reliable sources for an article on history of that nation's postal code system, but directory articles on any of them aren't encyclopedic by WP's standards. Now I'll go play Thurn und Taxis (board game), a Spiel des Jahres winner, which is about the formation of Germany's postal system. Barno 23:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the same data were listed in List of settlements in XXX and the zip codes were part of the list would we be doing this? NO. There is a huge bias here against lists and anything geographical, is this going to be an encyclopedia or a Pokeman and Star Trek shrine? Carlossuarez46 03:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Simple violation of WP:NOT, straightforward directory. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 06:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a simple directory and a reduplication of something that the USPS already does better anyway. In addition, I tried for a while to maintain some of the lists and quickly realized that they are just unmaintainable. They are just too inviting both to vandals and to well-meaning editors who use dubious or outdated sources or who simply speculate as to the organization of ZIP codes, and the resulting problems can be very difficult to catch. There is also the problem of keeping them in sync with the corresponding lists grouped by first two digits. In short, I believe that they are more trouble than they are worth. Nonetheless, I agree with Dennis the Tiger that US-centrism is not a valid reason to delete them, as the subject is inherently US-specific. Doctor Whom 17:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Please define a dubious source. And instead of outdated source did you mean historical reference? Just because you aren't able or willing to maintain a few of the lists does not mean that others are not willing to maintain a few of the lists. Some pages may have problems figuring out ZIP code organization, but Oregon is pretty darned obvious once you look at the list. It's even explained on the page. A cursory glance down the list confirms it. Bdag 17:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I can't speak for most of the pages, I can speak for Oregon. Despite the amount of time and effort I've put into the page, this page (Oregon at least) should remain for many reasons:

This page takes historical references into account. Believe it or not, post offices can be closed down and their zipcodes sent to the abyss. The Oregon page attempts to document these changes as well regarding who closed out to whom. I was about to add dates to some of these such entries, thereby making them historically relevant. This is not a 'directory' page as some people state. This is a compilation of historical directories, not available in any one year of the USPS guide, nor available on USPS.com as some people state. WP:NOT#DIRECTORY should not apply.

Since this is also not a list of indiscriminate data, WP:NOT#INFO does not apply. As I previously mentioned, it is a historical reference compiled from many different sources, of which usps.com is only one. If it is desirable, I can footnote which entries came from the 1963 Zip Code Directory, the 1965, the 1967, Oregon Geographic Names, etc, ad naseum.

USPS is a fine way to find A specific zip code, but not great for looking at batches of zipcodes. Referring to the prior point, it will not tell you what station a zip code used to be.

What is different about this page vs. a list of neighborhoods in a city or a list of cities in a state? Why should I care what all 40,000 types of spore molds are? I'm obviously being facetious, but it seems that people are fine with lists of names, but not numbers. In that case, please consider this list to be all the post offices in Oregon with their respective zipcodes. Maybe we should just remove the numbers to the periodic tables and leave just the element name? I could find 50 pages that have this same basic setup.

As far as the maintenance issue, there are several people that work to maintain the Oregon page. If you would kindly refer to its talk page, you will see the discussion that happens there.

If the 'list' page is deleted, shall I create 450 seperate entries for each zip code/post office with their own unique histories? Wouldn't that take more space?

Apparently the problem is that the numbers aren't relevant to enough people. But then again, how many people do ANY entries have to relevent to in order to stay? Bdag 21:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let's rephrase this here, from our perspective: it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. We have the criteria listed above that we're discussing the potential deletion for - for one, WP:LIST. Given the amount of stuff here, though, perhaps another site is appropriate. (It's one of the beautiful things about the internet - you can always find another place for your stuff.) Shoot, you can even start your own wiki. It is this reason that I'm starting a wiki for bus routing systems - you shouldn't find information on OCTA's route 26 bus here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The beauty of Wikipedia is the vast availability of almost any information one would want to find, way more than any official encyclopedia would have. To delete these articles would be to rob people of an easy way to find information on ZIP codes. I, for one, rely on Wikipedia for information I could easily find on any other page (with a little more effort and research), but choose to browse Wikipedia instead, because it's easier, everything I need to know is put together so well on a single site. LeviathanMist 10:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure of the argument that we would rob people of a valuable resource. How are we robbing people of the US Postal Service's zip code search site? I mean, the vast majority of people are going to look for the zip code for a city, not a city for a zip code - and even then, you can do a reverse search on zip code to city with the USPS, including a reverse lookup from zip code to city, which provides more information than these pages will. (Case in point: go to that latter link and look up zip code 90026, which will find three cities that the USPS does not consider acceptable to use in substitution of Los Angeles, California.) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in favor Let me further state that to delete these pages invites the potential for mass deletion of many other pages as well. Should the lists of highways in each state be deleted? That can easily be found on many states' DOT sites. Shall we delete the lists of cities in a state? That can be found on yourstate.gov. Should we delete the list of the Presidents of the United States of America? That can be found on usa.gov. I personally don't care a lick about the counties in the state of Delaware, besides those are easily found on www.delaware.gov. We should also delete the Indy 500 pages, because those are easily accessible from www.indy500.com. See the List of Indianapolis 500 winners and please tell me what the difference is.

The point is, as was just mentioned, that any of Wikipedia's information can be found on the internet already. What Wikipedia does is to create a concise page where all of this scattered information is compiled and easily accessible. To find ALL of the information on Oregon's Post Offices and zip codes would require going outside the internet. (I should know, I've been working on this project personally for five years). We on Oregon have taken the extra effort to obtain out of print books and scour other sources to bring you as comprehensive an article as we can to date.

Since you mention WP:LIST, let me argue why the Oregon page should stay. The Oregon list is a valuable information source, compiling historic data. It is a table of contents with links to other relevent articles. It has a lead section and a trivia section giving some background and facts about the Oregon zip code and post office numbering system and such. The list has been (albeit just recently) referenced with the materials that had to be used outside of the USPS to find the information.

If you would like, we would be more than happy to expand the Oregon page to include whatever relevant information you might require. By the way, the last time I looked under the 'Presidents of the United States' article in my paper copy of the encyclopaedia, I saw a list. I should write to Brittanica and tell them it's pointless to have lists in their volumes... Bdag 15:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • That sounds rather indiscriminate and biased to me. That said, just because most of the articles considered in this argument seem useless, does not mean that they should ALL be deleted. I'm not arguing for the whole list to stay. I'm just saying that Oregon and probably several others go beyond the conviction of mere list. Bdag 16:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in favor I apologize for my incessant squeaking to keep Oregon, but I'd like to put forth one more argument. The List of tomato cultivars was voted to stay based on the merits of the similar List of basil cultivars page. I would like to have the opportunity to edit the Oregon page to the point where it becomes meritorious enough to be an example for similar pages. To its credit, Oregon is even a mostly static list, not dynamic as the tomatoes are. Oregon Post Offices and Zip Codes do not change often, but when they do, additions and deletions have been taken care of in a prompt manner. If it makes you feel better, we could add it to the Dynamic lists Category. As per Tomato Cultivars, we could also add an incomplete list tag. Please pull Oregon from the umbrella nom. Bdag 17:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Apparently some of these lists contain historic information that is not on the USPS site. The lists can be expanded to make them more useful and better highlight the historic information. I think consideration should be given to improving all of these rather then deleting them. This umbrella nomination may well delete some that are not worthy of deletion. If some are notable, then the others can be improved so that they are also notable. Vegaswikian 22:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given this argument, it begs the question: is it appropriate to merge the zip codes for a city into each city's article? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh my, I wouldn't even begin to consider tackling that. For one thing, some cities do not have a unique zip code. In other cases, zip codes do not have a city. In many cases, you would end up writing an article for an un-citied zip code that would be a stub. It would be a short blurb on the history of the post office with nothing else notable to add to it. Then there are cases where a city had its own zip code, then was absorbed into another city and given another zip code. Then there are zip code boundaries that move. Perhaps it would help to realize that the names given for a zip code are not the name of the city, but the name of the post office. Most of the time they correlate. Many times they do not. Post offices do not equal cities or census tracts. To split up into all those articles would then require a user to chase references all over the wiki rather than seeing them in one place. Bdag 14:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This info is very useful, and I frequently use this page to find a certain zipcode. It's valid information and signifiact information, something can be encyclopedic without being in paragraph form. This page has it's place as reference, it's not a list of indescriminate material. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.162.59.142 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Since the start of this debate, List of ZIP Codes in Oregon#979 has being updated with several versions, look at the history if you want to see some other versions. The current one lacks the established date which I believe is significant, especially for showing when expansion of the zip codes was happening. With the addition of this data, I think it would be appropriate to reconsider the delete votes above. Vegaswikian 18:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • By no means should the possible original research in a single subarticle and the last-minute addition of print sources by someone other than he who added that information be grounds for keeping all fifty subarticles despite the strong consensus above. At most, it could justify extending the debate for Oregon's article only. —Cryptic 19:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would like to note that this is not a last-minute effort to save the page. The additions would have come anyway and have only been accelerated by the threat of closure. I don't understand your statement about "...addition of print sources by someone other than he who added that information..." since I am the one who added about half the zip codes to the Oregon page AND added the print sources from which I got my info. I'm merely lazy about adding references. Please look up Bdag in the history to verify. Your comment sounds more like a personal attack than an unbiased opinion. And if you'll read back through this debate, you will see that I have never argued to keep all 52 subarticles. Just Oregon. Bdag 19:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, including Oregon. Absolutely textbook case of "WP is not a directory", and no, not particularly useful given that it's a list that must be eyeballed to be searched, as opposed to a page with an honest-to-God search feature like the US Postal Service has. --Calton | Talk 20:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually in trying to convert the Nevada information to the table, I found the problem with the USPS database. Simply put it is wrong, or maybe more politely it lists the name it has decided to use to label the location as rather then actual name that the local government or the census bureau uses to label the area. So, this is no longer a directory issue per say. It provides information on what areas the zip code really covers and not what the USPS wants you to think. Vegaswikian 22:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Per Calton. How about moving the Oregon content to History of Zip Codes in Oregon? -- Ben 20:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your suggestion. I would find that to be a reasonable alternative, one that doesn't compromise the content of the page. I can't believe how many people think this is simply a list form of what's available on usps.com. Bdag 21:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep this is very helpful and you can use the "Find" option in the edit menu of any browser to search the lists. That is what it is there for. But, these are helpful when finding a zip code and what zip codes fall under what cities and towns. The USPS website is hell to use and sometimes just plain annoying. - SVRTVDude (Yell | Toil) 01:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This listing is simply not akin to the examples listed in WP:NOT#DIR. The entries on the list are individually notable in the same way that localities, rivers, and highways are, and probably more notable than such information as county birds. But, more importantly, ZIP codes are a systematic and widely-used way to divide up the United States geographically; ZIP codes themselves are in widespread use, and the system itself is notable. I know of no other online, centralized repository where it's easy and free of charge to get a list of all ZIP codes and/or see how they are organized; one can query databases like that at the Post Office website, but that won't show all the ZIP codes in an organized fashion. The per-state lists are a logical and useful hierarchical addition to the main ZIP code page. This is of general interest--why delete it on disputed aesthetic grounds? Krinsky 15:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It remains, though, that this is still outside of the scope of Wikipedia. This would be like asking T-Mobile to provide computer support for an Apple 2C. But that said, there's nothing stopping anybody at all from cataloging this elsewhere on the 'net. It is a big place, you know. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If this information is of general interest and is notable (and I think it is) and it doesn't fail the WP:NOT#DIR test (and you seem to agree that it doesn't), on what grounds is it "outside of the scope of Wikipedia"? I don't see why Wikipedia, in general, should not err on the side of comprehensiveness and expansiveness--it doesn't damage Wikipedia one bit to include this here, and it's a reliable place for it. Also, your analogy is a bit off--no one's asking anyone to do anything, except not delete content that other people wish to keep and maintain. "The net is a big place, you know" would be an argument for deleting any Wikipedia article--but that presupposes both that the information can be reliably hosted in perpetuity and easily found once it's there. Krinsky 04:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. These lists are incredibly helpful to have, and the information is encyclopedic. If this kind of information is "unsuitable" for Wikipedia, then maybe we need to open up an almanac. Also, I disagree with the nom's assertion that using the USPS website is easier. If you're looking for information on ZIP code blocks, a list like this one is far, far more helpful than hunting for one ZIP code at a time on the USPS website. -Branddobbe 20:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I like your idea for the almanac. That would be uber-cool. =^_^= Hey, Jimbo?... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I like the idea for an almanac too if this kind of thing is going to get deleted from the main Wikipedia--but I don't see why it should be segregated into a separate project. The major advantages of print almanacs over print encyclopedias are that they can be updated frequently and that they fit in a single volume, but neither of these are concerns for Wikipedia. Krinsky 04:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Based on this discussion I decided to look at the Nevada list. What I found interesting was how the post office name is not a match for the cities served. I knew that the PO was using Las Vegas for portions of Clark County but I was surprised to see that they also covered delivery to parts of Henderson and North Las Vegas, which have post offices, under Las Vegas post offices. This is not something that you will easily find on the USPS site. Vegaswikian 06:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - somebody might want to userfy this, get back to me on my talk page when you do. It doesn't belong here on WP, clearly but somewhere else might be an alternative. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It belongs in user space even less. You say "it doesn't belong here on WP, clearly" but you haven't pointed to any specific guideline it violates, nor to any site other than "the 'net," Wikipedia user space, a nonexistent postal wiki, and a nonexistent wiki almanac as an alternative place for it. As far as I can tell, your objection to its continued maintenance on Wikipedia is just that it's too detailed, but I'm at a complete loss as to why this is a sound objection--there's no requirement that Wikipedia content be as summary as a print encyclopedia, and the best articles aren't. Lists like these are a type of information that Wikipedia is particularly good at maintaining and few other sites are, and it adds depth and utility to the main ZIP code article. Krinsky 01:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki → Wiktionary as a new Appendix. See Wiktionary:Category:Appendices. This is appropriate almanaic content for the Wiktionary appendix. I am of the opinion that these lists constitute a de facto thesaurus. I've posted a question about this at the Wiktionary Beer Parlour. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ho Yap

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

Non-notable neologism, 204 non-wiki ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 05:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Well known in Canada? Maybe regionally, but I've never heard it before. If it's real, surely its non-English language of origin could be more precise than "Native Canadian". I'd like to see better referencing than it has to change my mind. Flyguy649talkcontribs 05:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First, if I remember right, "native Canadian" comprises several languages - so saying "Native Canadian" is like saying "celtic language". Which one? Even if this is elaborated upon, it still fails to be anything more than a dicdef. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Possible hoax or thing made up in school one day. Delete unless evidence is provided. —Celithemis 07:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This seems to me to be a clear and obvious hoax. Article creator's only other contributions were to Oakwood Collegiate Institute and were vandalism. There are something like fifty aboriginal languages in Canada. What Yap in the Caroline Islands has to do with Canada has yet to be identified. --Charlene 09:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definite neologism, probable hoax given the information currently available. JavaTenor 09:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that this should probably be a dicdef and will work towards gathering more information for the entry. It is NOT a HOAX however. And I don't see how changing the word "Gymnasia" to "Gyms" which is more commonly used in every day language is vandalism. Currently I know that this is widely used in the Toronto area mostly with Native people, along with the Rastafarian community. There does not seem to be any SPECIFIC tribe that uses it so I wouldn't be able to elaborate on that. But if some of our Native friends are out there then please DO contribute!!!

Okranian 21:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC) — Okranian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J. Bryan Scott

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

Delete. Wikipedia is not a resume-posting service. Despite claims of this person being a "philanthropist" and "investor", the facts indicate that he is, in the final analysis, a college student. One with ambition, perhaps, but well below any threshold of notability. His connection to the website CampusTrade.com doesn't convince me either; its user base is limited to the university he attends. Calling it "the second largest website of its kind in the United States" is a strained, tenuous (and unsubstantiated) claim; several colleges have similar websites that perform this service. And you'd have to ignore this little thing called Craigslist, etc. Sounds like a real go-getter, but he's not (yet) earned a Wikipedia entry. -- P L E A T H E R talk 03:05, 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 keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fans of X-Rated Entertainment

Fans of X-Rated Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article doesn't assert notability of this organization. Fails WP:WEB, too, if you try to look at it that way. No secondary sources. Mikeblas 06:03, 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 delete as a POV fork, and redirect to American Civil War. There is no mergeable content. --Coredesat 02:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

War for Southern Independence

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

There is already an article on the American Civil War, from which this article borrows heavily. Both title and text appear to violate WP:NPOV Vgranucci 06:24, 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 22:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopter Game

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

Article about, from what I gather, is a rather non-notable web based game. Article doesn't do much along the lines of satisfying notability and WP:ATT guidelines, and contains numerous OR sections such as "Flaw", and "How to Play"-EMP 06:58, 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 delete. --Coredesat 02:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myxx

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

Non-notable music group. They have management and industry ties but no record label deal yet... nothing on allmusic.com and article reads like blatant advertising for their myspace. No external sources or verifiability save their myspace page and their own website. Anyway, Wikipedia is not Myspace and since this group hasn't released an album yet, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Per my research, the group fails WP:MUSIC on all counts. That said, we should delete without prejudice for recreation at a later date if they do get signed and release an album or two. Rockstar (T/C) 06:59, 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. Majorly (hot!) 16:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sail Labs Technology

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

Has been speedied more than once for copyvio from the company's website and as spam. The creator of the article, Desertson is quite up-front about his COI and has reduced it to a stub. Does winning a European ICT Prize make the company notable? -- RHaworth 07:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • under the conflict of interest rule, am I allowed to write here? I am not sure and I have gotten so much stuff deleted that I am really confused and frustrated...

So if I am here are my two cents if I am not please feel free to delete me and accept my appologies! The ICT prize is quite a cool thing and was actually pretty hard to get. If I remember correctly it was 451 companies that made the contest hurdle of which 20 where selected. ROSIDS is not like the Babelfish to put that clear all it does is do speech to text and run that through a tuned machine translation, which by itself is very cool but compared to the other things SAIL is working on (I hope here I can write it and I hope it will be in the WIKI entry soon) which include a full speech to speech computer system fades a bit (currently deployed in a Middle East warzone).... So I hope that the people that know SAILs work contribute and that this will stay. ...and by the way in the media like German TV station ARD, ZDF and print like the Austrian Standard, German Spiegel it was referred to as the "nobel prize for IT". Hope this helps and I hope more contribute! Kind regards, Desertson 11:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the COI situation it is preferable if you offer such a reference on the Talk page, rather than adding it to the article. This particular paper is co-authored by a participant in the Sail project, so it doesn't constitute any form of 'third party commentary.' Since it's not peer-reviewed or issued by a known publisher, it's not a reliable source either. It's apparently one of a series of non-peer-reviewed working papers that is explained at this TRECVID site. EdJohnston 17:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Unsigned comments that were cluttering the discussion

  • Keep User:Vienna_Angel the prize goes out to 20 most innovative companies in Europe. In 2006 close to 500 made it to the qualification level (rest was swept out before) and this brings the number down to less than 5% of the contenders. I by chance know Treventus and that stuff is pretty cool, if you also look at the video on the ICT site you can see the scanner... On SAIL the ROSIDS system, I think there is also a video on the sail website under the link, seems to be like the that fish from hitch hiker´s guide to the galaxy, only that this one provides close caption... — Vienna Angel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep Desertson knows is shit. Also, even if the company is limited by actually having to turn out profit, it still supportsopen forums which are run by other experts. I don't think the answer is to only support articles that come from government-supported and subsidized entities. After all, private companies ensure TTM faster. — 85.180.174.89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Limos

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

Originally nominated for deletion by Kanaka maoli i puuwai (talk · contribs) who previously marked the article for speedy deletion, for which it did not qualify. AfD wasn't filed correctly. I'm correcting the nomination. Submitter posted the comments below to the AFD talk page... -- Longhair\talk 07:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha nō, aloha kākou! This page provides no more information being here, than if it were not here. The arguments on the talk page over the whole "porn" issue are getting old and quite annoying. Please, admin, help the Wiki Community by deleting this page once and for all. Mahalo ā nui loa! -- Kanaka maoli i puuwai 05:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO ADMIN I've removed most of mine and Jaynekennedy's arguments from this page as they are unrelated to the article itself and don't belong here. If user 'Jaynekennedy' feels the need to continue they can write on my talk page. Warren85 03:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, removed more personal attacks from this 'Jaynekennedy' person. Like I said, if you want to do that post it on my talk page. Otherwise it has nothing to do with the subject. Whether I have a website or posted comments on another website has nothing to do with this article. The wikipedia admins only make judgements based on what happens on THEIR site. I've stopped so why can't you? Warren85 05:35, 17 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 with A8. wL<speak·check> 06:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Davis

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

Hoax biography of fictional wrestler with no Google hits to speak of. Also taking into mind previous bans against recreating an article about Brandon Davis (in the guise of the Paris Hilton oil heir buddy) under this namespace. Nate 07:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is ridiculous.

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-19 06:44Z

John Miguel, Jr.

John Miguel, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
John Miguel Jr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Biography about a Filipino programmer. No reliable sources to verify the claims of his achievements in the article (either developing two non-notable pieces of software and translating some anime scripts to Tagalog), so he fails the notability guideline WP:BIO. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 09:11, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-19 06:45Z

Cousin Dave

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

This doesn't seem real to me. And if it is, I don't think it is that notable. Postcard Cathy 23:57, 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 delete, repost of deleted content, blatant astroturfing (they openly refer to this as "operation Wikipedia"). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Steel and deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 22, plus deletions at half a dozen other titles, most of which have ended up at WP:PT. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Phineas Waldolf Steel

Dr._Phineas_Waldolf_Steel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

I am currently attempting to rework this article in keeping with Wikipedia's standards for NPOV and Notability. It is becoming quite a labor as over the past two hours I have been bombarded with accusations of vandalism, spamming, and several suggestions for deletion.

I am fully aware of the fact that this subject matter has been overrun with POV and gibberish in the past, and I agree that Wiki is not the place for that.

I do think that the subject matter rates a wiki entry however. Dr. Steel is taking music and theatrics to a new level with his performing, basically pioneering a new artform. The fact that he is a musician who almost exclusively utilizes the internet and independent production to produce albums, establish tours, and communicate with the public is noteworthy as well.

Thoug my wiki savvy may be somewhat lacking, I fail to understand why this subject is constantly on the deletion chopping block, instead of simply being edited and revised like every other legitimate wiki article out there. I really think a fairly neutral NPOV article can be established, and given the opportunity, I am prepared to try. Seary6579 00:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, and probably Speedy Close. What few links there are seem to indicate some notability, maybe just enough for WP:N at the very least. Keep (oppose weak keep) because the nominator has committed to cleanup; attributions alone get a weak keep. If you have committed to improving it, you should not be here, you should be...crud, I don't know where you should be. Somebody else can direct you for that. Still, being here hedges on WP:POINT. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject is clearly notable. Possibly starting off editing by blanking the original page might have caused some confusion.DGG 03:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dr. Steel might not be a household name yet but he keeps gaining more and more fans. He currently had tens of thousands all over the world. He's one of the only, if not the only, music artist to primarily use the Interweb instead of the radio to promote his music. He has three official websites and numerous fan sites but his wiki page gets deleted every time one is made. He’s notable enough to be on The Tonight Show and Late Night with David Letterman. Jarnagin 06:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC) jarnagin[reply]
  • Keep I'm helping the best I can also in cleaning up the article with valid sources and information since I can say for a fact, I was rather surprised when I first heard of this musician and couldn't find a shred of information on him on Wiki, despite the large fanbase and viral internet marketing.ViciousBleu 20:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Doctor steel is gaining popoularity like a run away train gains speed; More and more people are joining his army, more and more people want to know about him, this page is a vaulable source of many peices of information that are not easy to find in one place elsewhere. If it is maintianed and not deleted it will be of great help to anyone who wants to know about the doctor and his plans, goals, life, music, or anything else to do with him. He has been on radio shows and television, his musical gigs are not rare, he is as known a figure as many other people in many other articles on wikipedia are, he is more than a suitable candidate for a wikipedia page Joe64 11:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has an almost cult like following, with the "Toy Soldiers" as proof. I say keep it just because if you do delete it, Dr Steel's fans are just going to make another wiki page, and another, and another and so on. He has thousands and thousands of fans. Just keep the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.160.91.148 (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep seems to be notable to me. i'm not really sure why it was proposed for deletion in the first place. Whateley23 23:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable sources cited. Stifle (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without offering an opinion on whether that template is "really necessary" except noting the presence of the unsigned comment by 67.160.91.148, I will say that the template is clearly appropriate here. Barno 00:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are tons of articles on Wikipedia about other independent musicians and artists. I'm not sure exactly where the line is drawn as to what makes an artist "notable", but I'd hate to see it restricted to only mainstream music. I very often use Wikipedia to look up information on fairly off-the-beaten-path musicians, and if everyone whose record sales were under a certain level was automatically considered "non-notable" I'd probably only visit this site about half as often. If there are problems with specific content on the page, fine, edit those. But if everyone starts flagging the entries on any artist they haven't heard of for deletion, it's going to seriously degrade Wikipedia's usefulness as a resource on music. Miss Lynx 05:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has been on Leno and Letterman and VH1. Dr. Steel has a large fanbase and is very notable. --PseudoChron 23:38, 17 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 Winterport (town), Maine, which is further renamed to Winterport, Maine, and Winterport redirected as well. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-19 06:50Z

Winterport (CDP), Maine

Winterport_(CDP),_Maine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This is a good page, and noteable, but it's about the exact same place as :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winterport_%28town%29%2C_Maine I think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winterport should probably just stop being a disambiguation and should just absorb

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winterport_%28town%29%2C_Maine

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winterport_%28CDP%29%2C_Maine

I suspect a bot made this and just had a bit of a quirk when this town was listed twice. I think the CDP is just the 'village' area of the town, which is simply a very small downtown part of an already small town, and really shouldn't be it's own article. Owlofcreamcheese 18:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The boundaries of such places may be defined in cooperation with local or tribal officials, but are not fixed, and do not affect the status of local government or incorporation; the territories thus defined are strictly statistical entities. CDP boundaries may change from one census to the next to reflect changes in settlement patterns. Further, as statistical entities, the boundaries of the CDP may not correspond with local understanding of the area with the same name

It is not a thing that is notable on it's own. It probably isn't really notable at all compared to the town, but if it is notable, it should be part of the article on the town, since it is a part of the town and not something separate. They both refer to the same locations. One is just the whole town and one is a statistical creation for the census that includes part of the town. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Owlofcreamcheese (talk • contribs) 18:12, 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. --Coredesat 02:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Željko Kalac International Appearances

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

I am not sure if this is wiki worthy. Postcard Cathy 00:41, 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. --Coredesat 02:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plague metal

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

This seems to be one of those obscure genres that doesn't actually exist. There is one link to it on the English Wikipedia, and the page has been maintained by people, who have only one edit apiece outside of this article. As far as Googling it goes- I'm getting Wikipedia mirrors, the mandatory Geocities sites belonging to garage bands, the odd forum post, lots of unrelated titles ("Metal Bands - Winds Of Plague ( Metal Underground . com )" for instance). The only real references I can find are two articles on Vampire Magazine, which are both linked to here, about Ruttolapset, who we don't even have an article on. However, even if this confirms that a tiny band has been referred to it by questionable press, it doesn't nearly provide the kind of information that we need to have an article, or the kind of information that is already written within this article. J Milburn 10:15, 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. --Coredesat 02:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Up the Philippines Day

Clean Up the Philippines Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is basically Non Notable - Unlike its parent project, Clean Up The World Day, Clean Up the Philippines Day is on a much smaller scale. Add this to some elements of OR & it's poor formatting & writing, this is a clear cut candidate for deletion. Is this really that encyclopedic? Delete from me -- Spawn Man 10:49, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-19 06:56Z

Bradley Mill Springs Cabin

Bradley Mill Springs Cabin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completing a nom. Original reason follows. Tizio 10:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been nominated for deletion, because I don't think it is notable enough. If you created it, please don't be offended: you can follow the link on the template and debate it's deletion there.

And if I haven't got the technical side of things right, sorry: the instructions for nominating pages for deletion are quite complicated!martianlostinspace 13:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No mention of Notabilty, obvious OR, no sources either - And it leaves us hanging by trailing off at the end there "also include....". I'm not too sure I really want ot know what goes on in the 7th grade teacher's "special" cabin though - showing them life in the 1800's old school... ;) Kidding.... Anyway, Delete from me... Spawn Man 10:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete but a good try from the ed. If he can perhaps find references to discussions of such teaching environments, or comparisons with others, it might make a good article. DGG 03:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DGG. Seems incomplete. Stifle (talk) 20:59, 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. Majorly (hot!) 16:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shinsaku Yanai

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

I think this should be deleted because there is insufficient information available on subject on the internet (google searches only come up with hits copying wikipedia's entry), no sources listed on the article page and no real explanation as to notability. John Smith's 11:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those "links to news articles" on Talk:Yanai Shinsaku/Delete are actually links to a chat group. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Indeed, which is why I relisted this. John Smith's 13:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced 1.6k GHits on Japanese name 柳内伸作[17], but based on my cursory look through them, mostly blogs and people selling his book, not media coverage; excluding "書店" (bookstore) and "amazon" from the results leaves only 290 hits [18]. Anyway, at least this isn't a hoax (e.g. see the bios of him attached to his books on Amazon [19][20] ); I'm open to correction about his notability. If there was any media coverage about him, it would likely be back around 1992 when he got kicked out of the SDF in the first place, but Japanese newspapers aren't nearly as good as US newspapers about making their old archives show up in Google results. cab 14:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, just noticed he has ~15 hits even in English in a Google News archive search; unfortunately, they're all pay archives, but these correspond to some of the newsgroup repostings at Talk:Yanai Shinsaku/Delete. [21] cab 14:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment But is that real notability? Also part of the problem as I see it is that there is so little on this guy - the article will remain a stub pretty much forever. He said one controversial thing and that's about it. Can you imagine how many articles there would be on wikipedia if doing one thing like that meant you could get an article? John Smith's 14:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Well, he did set a sort of milestone, being the first person to get fired from the SDF for writing a newspaper article, according to the Boston Globe. And there's actually a decent number of sources on this guy, I'm just too cheap to pay to look at them, so I can only expand the articles based on the free summaries. Given that he got that amount of coverage even in the US, I'd imagine coverage in Japan was even greater; I just don't have much clue about searching back issues of Japanese newspaper articles. cab 14:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I'm not that fussed, I just thought this was a somewhat pointless article created because someone "heard of him and thought it would be an idea to put him in", etc. John Smith's 15:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep apparently notable. If cab will tell us what English sources he needs, perhaps one of us will have them available, and perhaps eds. who read Japanese will also help. DGG 03:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an insignificant nutball who enjoyed his fifteen minutes. (What's a lot more significant is the enduring existence, even popularity, of the redlinked Shūkan Bunshun, a particularly blatant conveyor of xenophobic drivel to right-thinking Japanese folk.) -- Hoary 01:31, 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 and redirect.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sketchblog

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

NN blogging term Computerjoe's talk 14:06, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-19 06:58Z

All American Rathskeller

All American Rathskeller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
All american rathskeller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Non-notable local bar. Is no more notable than any of the other 1.5 dozen bars in State College Part Deux 14:20, 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 Nomination withdrawn PeaceNT 18:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mi Novia Esta... De Madre

Mi Novia Esta... De Madre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Was listed for speedy due to an inability to find information on the film, but films are not speedy-deletion eligible. Possibly a hoax, but the lack of easy Googling may be more due to systematic bias than anything else. So here we are. badlydrawnjeff talk 14:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC) - Withdrawing - JavaTenor = awesome. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:39, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-19 06:59Z

Greatest Hits (RBD album)

Greatest Hits (RBD album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:RBD - Greatest Hits.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Bumping from speedy because albums nor hoaxes meet the CSD criteria. The CSd nom stated that "They have never officially released an greatest hits album and this article does not contain any references that back up the existance of this album or future plans for this album. Another thing is that it is a fake cover, check the left corner of the cover. The labels are pasted on the picture." I can't find anything in Google either, but I could be wrong. Bringing it here. badlydrawnjeff talk 15:08, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-19 07:04Z

Simon Curtis

Simon Curtis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Simoncurtis.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

seems to fail WP:MUSIC, no releases, only speculation of being the next big thing. Promotional and/or autobiographical. ccwaters 15:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete There are a few weak assertions of notability, namely the connection to disney. However as the only assertions of notability are unreferenced: delete. Monty845 18:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article started off being about a different Simon Curtis, before being replaced with a page about this singer. Jw6aa 18:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite a few big names being sprinkled in there (Disney, Britney Spears), this young gentleman is an unsigned musician with only vaguely-announced plans to release an "independent" album. Fluffy, PR-like entry that definitely fails WP:MUSIC. Getting tired of people who don't grasp that Wikipedia is not MySpace. -- P L E A T H E R talk 19:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)-- P L E A T H E R talk 19:28, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-19 07:03Z

Jadion

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

autobiography of the promoter of the proclaimed "next big thing" (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Simon Curtis) in pop music ccwaters 15:19, 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 keep. Chaser - T 10:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magic 1170

Magic 1170 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Blatant advertisement Shoessss 15:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say I still say DELETE. This is not to be taken as a negative to the company or the individual writing the article. However, there is a misconception that Wikipedia can and should be used as a directory (or as we call it State side: Yellow Pages) or a listing of companies. Sometimes we forget that the Wikipedia project is supposedly an encyclopedia providing a research tool for individuals to explore “Note” worthy items that are not widely known outside there small area or are widely known, but the individual would like additional information. All-in-all, I believe the article will be deleted. However, as I stated earlier, please do not take this as a derogatory statement to you as the author or the company you are writing about. It is just a state of affairs that I believe is not a good fit for Wikipedia at this time.[[ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shoessss (talk • contribs) 19:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
While the parent company may be notable, for the station to warrant an article of its own it must be notable on its own. Monty845 19:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, which is why mine was a Comment rather than a Keep. I don't know a lot about UK radio, but I'd be curious to discover whether any or all of the Magic Radio stations should be considered notable. JavaTenor 20:00, 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 as vandalism (CSD G3) Jesse Viviano 17:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Blowdog

Notability concerns. A school principal. All schools have a principal, and they're not very notable people. Retiono Virginian 16:16, 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 all three. --Coredesat 02:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Violence in Edward Bond

Violence in Edward Bond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Violence in Edward bond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Edward Bond Violence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Plainly original research Shoessss 15:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete In a weird way, I suspect it kind of violates WP:NFT (it looks like a copy of a school paper). - Richfife
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-19 07:06Z

Jack Glass

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

It does meet CSD G5, but rather than speedy delete because of the sheer content of this page, I am placing it here for discussion. I, however, abstain from voting. Ian¹³/t 16:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note On further examination I can't understand why the author, user:Dog cicero was blocked initially. CDMS 10:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this may have been the reason. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was mostly because of Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Cicero_Dog which proved the account was a sockpuppet master, and also general disruption (see block log) (e.g. Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cicero_Dog and falsifying votes). You are welcome to contest the ban however. Ian¹³/t 14:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was Cicero Dog (talk · contribs) not Dog cicero (talk · contribs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.131.67 (talk • contribs) 16 April, 2007
The edits made and name do indicate a link. Especially due to the volume of sockpuppets Cicero Dog has made. You could request a checkuser or request for discussion at the admin noticeboard or similar, but this board is for discussion of the article and not the user. Ian¹³/t 07:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southgate Road

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

Article about an utterly non-notable B-road in north London. It consists entirely of unsourced trivia and indiscriminate information about bus routes & parking facilities. Wikipedia is not the London Transport Journey Planner. I am also nominating its sister article Downham Road, but am doing it as a separate AfD as the articles are slightly different - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:25, 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 23:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It Quiet

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

Contested prod removed without comment by article creator. This article is about a yet-to-be-released movie that the article creator heard about by word of mouth, and is unsourced, unattributed, and unverifiable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and there doesn't seem to be any indication that this movie even exists (zero Google hits for "Keep It Quiet" "Jaume Collet-Serra"), so it might be a hoax. Coredesat 16:21, 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. --Coredesat 02:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Downham Road

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

This is a page about an utterly non-notable B-road in north London. It consists entirely of untrue information (De Beauvoir Town is in Hackney, not Islington) unsourced trivia and indiscriminate information about bus routes & parking facilities. Wikipedia is not the London Transport Journey Planner. I am also nominating its sister article Southgate Road, but am doing it as a separate AfD as the articles are slightly different - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:24, 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. --Coredesat 02:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feminism in Literature

Feminism in Literature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Personal essay based on Original Research - Richfife 16:28, 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 delete per CSD:A3 - only content external links and stub tag. Stifle (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools of computer science

List of schools of computer science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a directory. Pretty much any computer science department could be listed here but that would not make the list of more value from an encyclopedia's point of view. One option, I suppose is to make School of Computer Science (which currently redirects to that list) a proper disambiguation page for schools that have their own article on Wikipedia but I believe it's a pretty improbable search term. Pascal.Tesson 16:30, 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 delete — G1 - nonsense. — ERcheck (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japhetism

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

Several previous versions of this page have been deleted as nonsense, but this one seems to be a somewhat coherent description of a form of Christian white supremacy. However, it gives no indication of notability as required per Wikipedia:Notability. Although I've asked for references, the only sources provided are two biblical quotations on which "Japhetites" supposedly base their views. The creator, User:Holy Ambassador, has been making some very odd POV edits to Kingdom of God, promoting the views of "Sergius the Restorer", the (apparently self-proclaimed) "First Citizen, Professor, and Prime Minister of the Kingdom of God". In short, the Japhetism article seems to exist only to publicise the views of one man with a blog. Either that, or the whole thing is a hoax or attempt at satire. Delete. EALacey 16:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Delete SPEEDY DELETE - see comment below WP:NOT - not a publisher of original thought. --Fredrick day 16:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No way? The fact that he claims that the capital of the kingdom of god is London and the current prime minister is called Sergius the Restorer, now I don't like Tony Blair, but I'm pretty sure that's not an official title... it's incoherent nonsense and should actually be a SPEEDY on that basis. --Fredrick day 13:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah my mistake HE claims to the prime minister... still needs to be deleted under WP:COMPLETEANDUTTERBOLLOCKS --Fredrick day 13:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Absolute nonsense Kneale 13:32, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-19 07:10Z

MyOS

this is here by my mistake, in short - i thought it was desired of me to make this as an "explanation" to the link at "mini-linux distros" page which is the only thing i originally wanted to update around here... so yeah, delete it, move it.. sorry, zelko


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

Non-notable distribution, referencing only one low-level URL that is riddled with broken image links --Auto(talk / contribs) 16:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Article isn't hurting anything, is not breaking wikipedia in any way, and provides relevent information. I've been a linux user for several years, and this is the first linux distribution I've ever seen geared towards this purpose. Although this won't be something sought after by every average joe, it's very possible a potential developer could be searching for OpenGL resources here and find this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.105.244.31 (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per EALacey. Stifle (talk) 21:21, 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. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DarkMetal

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

Still no assertion of the primary notability criterion. Argument for keep in previous AfD was that it is a well established game with a high user base and by comparison to other articles. But there simply aren't any independent references here. Marasmusine 16:57, 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. 1ne 01:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U-Fig

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

Contested ProD by an Anon user, with no explanation as to why. I am nominating this page for deletion for three reasons. First, it fails to establish notability. It's not a single, it hasn't gained any notability, and it's just a song on one of their CD's. What makes this song stand out that it deserves an article? Second, all the article is is a play-by-play description of how the song goes, down to what each instrument sounds like. I guess this would fall under WP:NOT#IINFO, specifically Plot Summaries and Lyrics Database. Lastly, the interpretation of the lyrics is all Original Research. None of the interpretations are sourced, nor could they possibly be sourced, and they make no sense at all. SuperDT 17:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for my reasons above:

Soldier Side (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
She's like Heroin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Holy Mountains (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tentative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stealing Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)SuperDT 17:22, 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 23:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slade gellin

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

Appears to fail notability. Was only able to find a small handfull of published articles, and none were particularly cited. Claims to notability aren't properly sourced.Pekaje 17:12, 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 keep. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Secunda

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

Totally non-notable person. Has some shares, did some programming (would somebody write an article for me please!) Unexpandable sub-stub. Pleclech 17:19, 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 without prejudice to recreation of an expanded, sourced article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saddle Butte (Wyoming)

Saddle Butte (Wyoming) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Bumping from speedy, as it's not a candidate. I thought it was a bit of vandalism (heh heh, Saddle Butt), but then found that there's a road called Saddle Butte in Jackson, Wyoming. So I'm not sure that the actual Saddle Butte is a real thing, or, even if it were, it was really appropriate. So here we are. badlydrawnjeff talk 17:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, this is an article about a subdivision? Then that needs to be explicitly stated in the article. The actual butte may be a local naming convention that doesn't appear on any maps, but even so, unless we can clearly show that it is a real butte, I don't think a subdivision or the road into one is notable. Maybe the lodge is notable, but not sure if it is...still would need a renaming under Saddle Butte Lodge.--MONGO 19:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could rename it East Gros Ventre Butte as that is a pretty big "hill" nw of Jackson and highway 89 parallels it on the east side...that is apparently where saddle butte drive is. according to this link...as seen here in topo--MONGO 19:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I originally called this into question on the talk page. Its clear that Saddle Butte was a name fabricated by some real estate agent, but even East Gros Ventre Butte doesn't meet any sort of notability. Its doubtful this will ever expand beyond a stub except as a link to non-notable real-estate subdivisions. Its just another hill in a valley noted for them. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 00:04, 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. Majorly (hot!) 16:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Stetson

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

Non notable wrestler, one of the references provided is trivial as can be seen here. His name appearing on five pages is not a non-trivial source. The other book can't be searched properly on Amazon or on Google books, but based on the information in the article it isn't a non trivial source either. Fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney303 17:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A bit of honesty wouldn't go amiss, he didn't "win" any titles in a major promotion. He "won" titles in 1993 when ECW was known as Eastern Championship Wrestling and it was nothing but a small independent promotion. The later success of the promotion does not transfer backwards to somehow make Tony Stetson more notable, especially when he hasn't been the subject of multiple non-trivial sources. One Night In Hackney303 22:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of the name change, his career in ECW did not stop at 1993 and the lineage of the ECW tag team championship does include Eastern Championship Wrestling. I'd rather not debate this point (one could easily make this point of the WWF prior to the 1980s), however I provided a published book which supported the claim of several championship reigns in the promotion. I don't see how I've been "dishonest" in this point and I don't feel a presonal attack is nessessary (in regards to your comments at the World Xtreme Wrestling discussion). MadMax 23:07, 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 and redirect to East Canonbury. WjBscribe 00:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canonbury East

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

Article is a redundant content fork created at the same time, by the same creator, as East Canonbury. I don't feel that this article even warrants a merge-and-redirect as "Canonbury East" is a phrase I have never heard used to describe this area (known to the rest of the world, the London A-Z guide, the Metropolitan Police et al as De Beauvoir). The article as it stands is totally non-neutral ("It would be a good idea if..."), unsourced, unreferenced, unwikified, loaded with weasel words and appears to consist entirely of inaccurate and irrelevant trivia.

The other prong of this content fork, East Canonbury, is currently the subject of debate at WikiProject London about whether to merge with Canonbury or delete, so I'm not submitting it at this stage. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The area the creator of these two articles is referring to isn't any part of Canonbury (east or otherwise) but De Beauvoir Town, and isn't even included in the council ward of East Canonbury (the only usage I can find of the phrase in the real world); Canonbury is in Islington and the area in question's in Hackney. If it's to be referred to by a compass point, it would be either South Dalston or West Haggerston. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technocratic Syndicalism

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

nominated on behalf of anon who incorreclty tagged it as speedy: "non-notable and seemingly WP:NFT, 1 author, no incoming links, few google results". This is a procedural nomination; I abstain. Natalie 18:20, 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 keep. 1ne 01:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav attack, 10.O-O-O

Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav attack, 10.O-O-O (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am nominating this page for deletion because it constitutes nothing more than a brief instructional guide to a particular variation of a chess opening. (see WP:NOT#IINFO(4). In addition, rhere are no references on the page, and while I suppose it is possible the name can be referenced, I do not see any kind of assertion of notability in it. (Note: I also nominated several chess openings at once here but since people expressed a desire to weigh some of these pages individually, I decided to give folks a chance for that. Apologies if this seems too quick, but I see no reason to delay further. I do not feel a merge or redirect is appropriate because there's no real encyclopedic content, the title is unlikely for a redirect, and Sicilian Defence, Dragon Variation is itself dubious in my view. This may be valuable content if you want to teach somebody all about chess, but is that what Wikipedia is about? FrozenPurpleCube 18:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Refs [26] [27] etc. However, this may in the future be a good merge candidate for a larger Sicilian Defence page. The information is encyclopedic just as much as say, Ludo.EliminatorJR Talk 13:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ludo is a disambig page. I assume you meant Ludo (board game), but there is a huge gap between an article on a board game, whether it be Chess or Ludo, and an article that simply describes how to play a particular variant is not encyclopedic. It is, as I said, indiscriminate information, in particular number four. Neither of the sites you linked to establish the notability of the actual opening, or provide any substantial content about the opening's history. They just describe how to play the opening. That is not encyclopedic at all. FrozenPurpleCube 15:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is perfectly encyclopedic. The articles are verifiable definitions of the openings. However, look at my comment below. Give me some time to work on this, and I think we can come to a workable position. EliminatorJR Talk 15:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe need to look at WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:ATA. These are indeed definitions of the openings. That is not actually encyclopedic content, especially since they concentrate heavily on description and advice on play, and focus little (and sometimes not at all) on anything else. FrozenPurpleCube 16:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are dozens of similar articles, see the category of chess opening stubs. These all need to be dealt with in the same manner. This has been brought up at the Chess project from time to time, and the general consensus has been to merge these small articles about sub-variations back into the main article about the opening, except for perhaps a few such as Sicilian Dragon. So far, no one (including me) seems to want to put in the time to do it. It certainly needs to be done, I believe. Bubba73 (talk), 14:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC) added: Well, there seem to be a lot fewer of them in that category than there were, but there are still quite a few, especially under Ruy Lopez and Sicilian. Bubba73 (talk), 14:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed dozens of such articles, and since I brought this up months ago, discussed it at the Chess Wikiproject, I have noticed no significant action, that it was going to be worthwhile and necessary to draw attention to the problem. It may seem to you that there are a lot fewer, but I saw roughly the same number as before, and no evidence of action on your part, or anybody else's. FrozenPurpleCube 15:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, just to be clear, what do you believe should be done about this article in particular? FrozenPurpleCube 15:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge I was just going by memory of there seeming to have been a lot more earlier. I could easily be wrong about that. Action does need to be taken to either expand or merge them, but I see no reason to delete them. I am not well enough versed in the openings to do much work on them. I think this article should be merged into Sicilian Defense, Dragon Variation. Bubba73 (talk), 15:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What could be done to expand them? And what's the point of merging content that is nothing but a description of an opening? Is that information not available elsewhere? I'm all for redirects, but there's a point where even I have to admit, the plausibility of a search term is nil. FrozenPurpleCube 16:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on the project page, I will look at these with a view to merge. I'm still working on the irregular openings stubs at the moment, though. If FrozenPurpleCube can just hold off on these random AfDs for a short time, I will try to do this. EliminatorJR Talk 15:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the Chess Wikiproject has had months to do something. I am not nominating pages randomly, I am nominating pages because after effort on my part to get awareness of this problem raised, and waiting several months for something to be done, nothing has actually been done to resolve the concerns that I, and others have expressed. FrozenPurpleCube 16:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am only a recent contributor to Wikipedia, so give me some time on this, please. Of course, there is the possibility that nothing has been done because other editors consider the articles to be encyclopedic? EliminatorJR Talk 16:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it's quite possible these editors don't consider there is a need to do anything. That, I believe is mistaken, and I have yet to be convinced otherwise. FrozenPurpleCube 16:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge with Sicilian Defence, Dragon Variation. Bubba73 (talk), 12:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Note, this is a duplicate comment, as this user already suggested a merge above. FrozenPurpleCube 14:07, 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 and redirect to Fifty pence. WjBscribe 00:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

50 Pence

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

Non notable artist. Completely unsourced. 1 hit wonder, does not pass WP:BAND, nor does the meme satisfy WP:WEB. Think: does this in anyway improve the encyclopedia? No links to any reviews or prominent discussion of the artist = non notability. Also, note the artist being born in 1986...not likely to be a famous artist.⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 18:50, 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. Majorly (hot!) 16:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 11, 2001 attack opportunists

September 11, 2001 attack opportunists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nominating this for User:Steve Dufour because he was having trouble with it. Article is POV, according to Steve Dufour. I am voting Delete mcr616 Speak! 19:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I've worked extensively on our 9/11 articles, helping to maintain and improve them. I don't care to work on this one, don't think it's really encyclopedic and could be made consistent with Wikipedia policies such as NPOV. --Aude (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am the nominator. Thanks very much to mcr616 who responded to my request for help -- what a great community we have! Anyway my main problem with the article is the label "opportunist". People who sell coffee mugs which say "Let's Roll" get the label. However people who sell American flags, and made millions because of 9/11, do not. For that matter the Red Cross and the Salvation Army also made many millions in donations because of 9/11, yet they are not called "opportunists" in the article. How can we decide who is called an "opportunist" and who not? I think the general topic is worth covering, maybe under a title such as "The economic impact of the September 11, 2001 attacks" if there is not such an article already. Steve Dufour 21:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Has POV issues and very few sources.--Bryson{Talk}{Edits} 21:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete reluctant to delete something that could be sourced... but eh a lot of this is speculation ("assuming that the two attacks are not linked, it follows that the anthrax attack was at least in part opportunistic"). I think that perhaps some of this (price gouging, the scientologist thing) should be mentioned in 9/11 articles, but there are NPOV issues all over the place with this article's name, implications, lack of sources... but some of this could go in Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks. --W.marsh 21:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NPOV. Mystache 00:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have POV issues with some of the part (particularly the anthrax section), but on the whole I see no reason why this aspect of the events should not be included. The Aftermath ... article mentioned is itself in need of cleaning, and I wouldn't suggest merging in any additional content there. DGG 05:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not saying the information is not interesting and maybe even important. It is just that the label "opportunists" can not help being POV and there is no standard for who is one and who is not. A couple of other points: I am sure the anthrax attacks took a long time to prepare, regardless if by a "lone gunman" or by a complex conspiracy as the article implies. I don't think they were an example of 9/11 "opportunism". And Scientology, although it made some mistakes of judgement, is probably not any more or less "opportunistic" in its actions than many other religious groups that got involved but are not mentioned in the article. (BTW I happened across this article because it links to Tom Cruise.) Steve Dufour 17:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to satisfy notability criteria, but must be better sourced. There are some POV problems, but I think this article should be improved rather than deleted.Biophys 23:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change title and Merge If the problem is the POV nature of the word "opportunist", then consider changing the title. For example, an article titled Response to the September 11, 2001 attacks could have this content inside it without using the POV term "opportunist". The content is encyclopedic; the POV of branding the actions as "opportunistic" is unencyclopedic. --Richard 07:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Steve Dufour 14:28, 19 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#G4 by Can't sleep, clown will eat me. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer (My Chemical Romance Song)

Cancer (My Chemical Romance Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Already deleted but recreated;non notable mcr616 Speak! 19:21, 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 23:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ironbox

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

Delete, Non-Encyclopedic and Non-Notable Jaymac407 18:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - it goes without saying that notability and popularity are distinct and separate. However, this AfD addresses the notability of the subject, which is neither claimed, nor established. The whole point of notablity is that mere existence is not sufficient grounds for inclusion. Its popularity is moot. - Tiswas(t/c)
  • Comment - we also cannot take this comment, from someone who has caused so much vandalism on Wikipedia seriously. See the users talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaymac407 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as an advertisement which would require a substantial rewrite to be anything else (G11) Guy (Help!) 15:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A&F Fragrances

A&F Fragrances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I believe the article should be deleted per Wikipedia:Notability. The topic is not notable to have reliable sources other than the Abercrombie & Fitch website itself or have unbiased sources to be neutral. Without it, the pages will continue to have adjectives like "surfer" "athletic" which are opinions. mirageinred 19:59, 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 23:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

India Outsourcing

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

Possibly a fork of Outsourcing or advertisement for outsoucing in India. Its been tagged as needing cleanup and as an orphan (only 1 relevant incoming link) since September 2006. No sources, the little relevant, verifiable information this article has is much better covered in Business process outsourcing in India and Outsourcing. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be deleted ?? India is a big market for outsourcing and there is a big discussion among companies to outsource to india or not. I guess this topic is needed and may have good content in future.

Delete, nothing worth merging, just some random observations. Also covered well by e.g. Silicon Valley of India. Simply no need for this unsourced duplicative article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:24, 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 Keep per consensus PeaceNT 11:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amillia Taylor

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

vary non notable people Baxi66 20:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC) — Baxi66 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Junk Sundays

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

No references or sources cited, this article does not have anything in it that asserts notability, and it may well be a hoax. SunStar Net talk 20:40, 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. --Coredesat 02:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people speculated to have Asperger's Syndrome

List of people speculated to have Asperger's Syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is unverifiable, and has possible WP:BLP issues. Also no sources have been cited, and there are no reliable sources cited either. This may well be original research too. SunStar Net talk 20:58, 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 delete. WjBscribe 23:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-agnosticism

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

This is original research and a neologism for which I can find no reliable sources. Google gives 48 hits (and 73 for "meta-agnostic"), and the only mention of meta-agnosticism on Google Books concerns uncertainty about whether one is agnostic, which is not what this article discusses. — Elembis (talk) 21:02, 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. --Coredesat 02:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TUGS characters accents

TUGS characters accents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The entire page consists of list of tugboats and unsubstantiated guesses from an online forum as to which tugboat has which accent. While TUGS is a reasonably notable show, this list is beyond crufty; even quite extreme fans would probably find the list rather uninteresting or extreme! Laïka 21:21, 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 withdrawn. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portmanteau dog names

I'm taking the bold step of making a mass nomination here to cover the following articles on dog hybrids: (View AfD)

My reasoning is more or less identical for all of these articles:

  • The "breeds" in question aren't recognized by any major registries (not counting special-purpose "rare breed" organizations).
  • The articles generally fail to describe any features that can't be summarized as "if you cross breed X and breed Y, it looks like a linear combination of the two".
  • The articles are more or less unsourced - although some of them cite dogbreedinfo.com, the pages cited have next to no information. Most of the substantiative information in these articles appears to be the result of observations by owners -- a classic example of original research.

I'd like to see these stubs deleted or redirected to either Dog hybrids and crossbreeds or Poodle hybrid if appropriate. I'm personally of the mind that most of these names aren't common enough usages to make redirects useful, but I'm sure others may disagree. Note that I've specifically left out a couple of popular hybrids (Goldendoodle and Cockapoo, for example) - the ones that I've listed here are not well recognized, to the best of my knowledge. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In light of some of the comments here, I'm withdrawing this nomination. I'll try to break this up a bit in a later nom. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to Cavapoo. (Disclosure here, I have one) - though possibly could be merged on Portmanteau dog names somewhere, though that may end up being a largish article. This one to me would satisfy notability as it has been featured on several Australian lifestyle shows (as Cavoodles) over the past few years and was particularly bred for urban living. There are breeders breeding and selling them for significant amounts of money which suggests there is a demand and the term is gaining some currency. I am not sure about the others. Though I agree having a load of stubs is questionalbe I have edited in various biological areas - dinosaurs and fungi where there can be loads of stubs at any one time. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 22:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, there's one. Will fetch some more later. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 01:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it's impossible to evaluate all of these dog breeds together. Some of them are sourced; others arn't. I think most of them pass notability, but I haven't looked carefully at each one. This nomination highlights the problems with mass nominations. --Selket Talk 23:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good boldness, but keep per Selknet.Ezratrumpet 01:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I recommend that nominator withdraw and re-nominate in smaller better-defined groups. I've heard of a few of these, so they are "out there" and presumably there is a possibility of sourcing. Others just seem like Column-A-Column-B name combos. --Dhartung | Talk 01:20, 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 Arkyan &#149; (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name generator

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

Article is written like an advertisement. The subject of the article does not satisfy the notability guideline on Wikipedia:Companies - Masterpedia 22:07, 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 - almost entirely a link farm. WjBscribe 00:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geocaching software

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

Delete Wikipedia is not a billboard. See WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. AlistairMcMillan 22:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory and lack of attributable sources per the basic policy WP:ATT. The Geocaching article needs one paragraph about geocaching software (not listings of individual programs) added, and needs most of its "Websites for geocaching" section trimmed down to one paragraph. No sources are cited for the nominated software article, and (see, for example, Google search for MacCaching) the sources I see appear to be all trivial (such as geocachers' forums and blogs) or non-independent (such as the software sellers' websites). There may be exceptions but probably no more than one non-press-release magazine mention per program. Barno 00:25, 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. --Coredesat 02:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rexx Reed

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

Contested prod. Non-notable independent wrestler, fails WP:BIO and WP:A. One Night In Hackney303 22:42, 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 and redirect to Programmable Airline Reservation System. WjBscribe 23:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PARS

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

Contains two articles which (if they were notable) should be split up. However there is no evidence presented of notability for either product. (Was prodded before by someone else, but the prod template was removed without explanation by an anonymous editor, so I realised, per policy, I needed to take it to AfD instead of prodding it.) greenrd 22:48, 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. --Coredesat 02:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow car rule

Yellow car rule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It is an un-encyclopedic article written in an informal tone about a non-notable topic. The article would require a major rewrite in order to be acceptable. Mars2035 22:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Facebook has groups for thousands of topics that are of some minor interest to some people but haven't been covered by reliable sources enough to meet WP:ATT. Can you show that any of the websites has a fact-checking staff and any kind of peer review process to make them a valid way to verify anything? Or are all those websites just WP:NFT in their own right, from which nothing is proven except that people amuse themselves with unencyclopedic playing around with this topic? Barno 00:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: The Site i referenced has a peer review system, also the ride shotgun wiki references bored.com which does not have a peer review system or to my knowledge fact checking staff Bonkers bassist
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Buttless Chaps

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

No claims of notability. No sources. Fails WP:MUSIC. Corvus cornix 23:09, 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.Chaser - T 09:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Family Guy (season 1)

Family Guy (season 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete This is pointless, nothing links to it, and as the bottom of the page says it's a part of a page. Furthermore these pages don't exist:

  • Family Guy (season 2)
  • Family Guy (season 3)
  • Family Guy (season 4)
  • Family Guy (season 5)

TheBlazikenMaster 23:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-I agree. The page that lists all episodes in each season is enough: List of Family Guy episodes --23:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (no consensus to merge).--Chaser - T 10:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Mallory

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

Non-Notable Person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.253.125 (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. WjBscribe 23:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From The Studio Pt. 1

From The Studio Pt. 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable. Cool BlueLight my Fire! 23:33, 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 - admitted neologism, made up. DS 02:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hyrd

not for something you made up at leeds university one day - contested speedy. Fredrick day 23:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from Lancaster and i have to admit that the practice of using hyrd's is widespread. I myself frequently use them as well as many of my friends and the wider community. I agree with Luke. I think hyrds are a massive new phenomonen and should be embraced.

yeah mate, i use them and love them! keep it on!

Acknowledgment that it is a neologism and portmanteau has been made. I still believe the article is valid. Peripitus, with all due respect, coming from Adelaide (lovely city by the way), I don't see how you can comment on a trend in the UK.- Luke Ward

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Synth metal

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

The page consists of a very short and vague introduction that leaves the reader with more questions than answers. The article lists no source whatsoever. Only three articles link to this one. One is Synthphonia suprema, an article about a band of disputed notability for Wikipedia. The name of the alleged genre is probably derived from this band's name, since they also use the word "Synthphony" in their album name (according to the article). The other article that has a link to synth metal is the list of genres of music: S-Z, and the final one is industrial metal. This article is not only kind of useless, but it gives us a list of bands that don't have much in common. One one side you have power metal bands like Sonata Arctica and Dark Moor, and on the other you have HORSE the band, a post-hardcore band, along with Les Wampas, a punk band, and a progressive metal band (Royal Hunt). I think we should add that the quality and neutrality of the Screaming Mechanical Brain article is highly disputed, as it is an autobiography. Overall, this is a very short article with very few information, and claims of certain bands being "synth metal", when they are not metal at all. Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 00:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Should every band with unorthodox use of an instrument have it's own <instrument> metal genre? Chello metal (e.g Apocalyptica), violin metal, etc.? No. Unless a lot of bands fit the genre. For synth metal it's not the case Google displays about 15000 hits. Non of them notable. Tags on Last.fm displays about 25 bands, all very different from the bands in the wiki article, bands I wouldn't call Synth metal and bands that don't sound similar at all (Mnemic, Orgy, Bal Sagoth). Emmaneul 17:53, 19 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_14&oldid=1081098211"