Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 16

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< April 15 April 17 >

Purge server cache

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meroka Machine Gun

Meroka Machine Gun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Neologism. Created by the author of the article along with the category - Category:Meroka Firearms. Megapixie 13:04, 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, WjBscribe 00:03, 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 03:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexx Agcaoili

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

Fails WP:A and WP:NOT#DIR. This unsourced stub article about a voice actor who may or may not have had parts in a number of anime series. Wikipedia is not Friendster. -Danngarcia 19:32, 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, WjBscribe 00:03, 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, copyvio pushes this over the edge. --Coredesat 03:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mitali Mukherjee

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

"Mitali Mukherjee" appears to be a self-promotional article. It violates the norms of wikipedia and deserves to be deleted immediately. Indian_Air_Force(IAF)

  • Very Weak Keep this is one of those tricky borderline ones; the name returns hits in Google, but some appear to be about someone else; a lot of the refs are forums, blogs, etc - however we've kept Western anchors with less experience than she has so I am wary of WP:CSB. The article does need a tidy up at the very least. EliminatorJR Talk 10:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per JR. For an American I'd vote delete, but in this case I'm not willing to pull the trigger. YechielMan 18:17, 15 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 00:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep per she could be the indian doppleganger of suze orman. i dont wanna be ethnocentric, and there are discussion/media sites about her, giving her notability. cleanup would help. the_undertow talk 02:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - as it's currently a borderline issue. However, the current article is short on references and needs to be brought to Wikipedia standards in order to remain. --Sigma 7 02:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. cab 05:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Verifiable (e.g. official profile here: [2]) but doesn't seem notable due to lack of independent coverage. Tried alternative spellings too (e.g. "Mitali Mukherji" cnbc which gets another 37 GHits [3]), but no reliable sources there. I've "saved" a few South Asia-related articles from deletion processes in the past, but I really don't see anything that could be done to help this one. She reads the news and gets talked about on forums for being pretty. That's it. cab 05:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - i've always voted delete on ones like this. i mean, everyone will have their 15 mins of fame. and its that much easier if you're a newscaster or a blogger or something. but then having articles for everybody who has had their 15 mins of fame is not what an encyclopedia is for. Sarvagnya 05:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as NN. The small number of GHits contain a large number of references to Mitali Mukherjee (Mitali Mukhopadhyay) the singer. The newscaster isn't notable at all. --Ragib 06:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Not notable. I am an Indian and there are practically thousands of news readers with new ones popping up everyday. They are hardly notable and don't qualify for an encyclopedia entry, I reckon this was a weak self promotion stunt Correctus 06:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the ground that the article is improved. The person DOES seem notable, there is no point in deleting the article just because there are more notable "Mitali Mukherjee"s, plus there are many pages for less notable anchors from the west.

And, I think additive Ghits of Mitali Mukherjee CNBC 37 and Mitali Mukherji CNBC 577, should be considered. So, Keep. Speedy Delete copyright violation of this page.Mayank Abhishek 06:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: all anchors are not notable. Anchors in the West who are less notable than this one can certainly be brought to AfD as well. Anchors who make significant editorial intervention - I'm looking at you, Barkha - can certainly be considered notable; others are not. Hornplease 23:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 14:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old Beatty Ford Road

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

Improperly application of AfD template redirected to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Beatty Ford Road.

This article should be deleted as per WP:LOCAL. It is far from being notable enough for Wikipedia, as it is just a road, not even a wide or heavily used one at that. --TinMan 23:24, 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 00:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alfonsina Molinari

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

Puerto Rican actress with small starring role 17 years ago, no references killing sparrows 06:04, 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, WjBscribe 00:03, 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 Keep. fishhead64 04:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piece by Piece (documentary)

Piece by Piece (documentary) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable film 789yub 07:24, 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, WjBscribe 00:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 14:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muertas

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

No assertion of notability for this short film. Delete unless notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete pending Evidence of notability/Reliable sources. It had some minor stars; this may just be a bad article about a decent film. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete?- The IMdB listing gives a running time of only 8mins, meaning this was one of those short films shown at film festivals and probably nowhere else. During a quick Google search I could not find any independent sources. This is a good of example of why mention on IMdB is not always criteria for inclusion. Danski14(talk) 02:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - From the America Ferrera article, it seems that the director (not the Ryan Williams linked in the article) of this movie met and began dating Ferrera in the making of a student film (perhaps this one?) while he was (or they were?) at USC. Perhaps their association lends this movie notability. For now, however, I'd say that the director of the movie might be notable enough for an article, and most of the information here could be in that article. But unless this film was shown at more than a couple galleries, and the galleries were of note, I don't think the film is notable enough for its own article. I guess that makes me in the weak delete category. Smmurphy(Talk) 15:00, 15 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 00:03, 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 Move to Samsung (disambiguation). fishhead64 04:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung(Name)

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

Dictionary definition of Korean word. NawlinWiki 21:18, 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, WjBscribe 00:02, 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. WjBscribe 14:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Screwtaping

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

Unsourced original research about a neologism with only 1100 google hits (even after almost 1 year of article creation.) Abu badali (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete A5 (transwiki), since the article has been put on Wiktionary already per a tag on the article. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, per Dennithe2. Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 20:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending expansion. I think there is possibly much wider use of this concept, and it impinges on questions of scientific method. If I write several different articles about the effect of global warming by the year 2010, all with different numbers, and manage to get them published in various obscure places, i can then write a single article in 2010 referring to the one that happened to be right, and showing how close I came. DGG 05:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment unfortunately the scientific method also refers to the journal used. So obscure magazines are entirely ignored by the scientific community, although even there we might find valid articles. More to the point, if the scientific method really works you are unable to write the same article with changing numbers and still get it published.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 05:59, 16 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 00:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GMAT Zone

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

No links, not notable, no substantive content mitcho/芳貴 00:10, 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. Majorly (hot!) 12:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue Combat

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

Deprodded. Howto guide about a class in WoW. No mergeable content. This may qualify for speedy but I'm not sure Darksun 00:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only way this could qualify for Speedy deletion is CSD A1: Very short articles without context. So I'll say Delete per WP:NOT and WP:OR. This is a discriminate collection of information, Original Research, and a game guide. SuperDT 02:25, 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 speedy delete and protect from recreation per A7 and G11 - self-promotion for a forum with no assertion of notability. --Coredesat 03:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Buffy Board (IMDb)

The Buffy Board (IMDb) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article in not notable and has been speedy deleted a number of times under different names (including IMDb Buffy board and IMDb Buffy Board). Absolutely not notable. Alabamaboy 00:59, 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 03:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Tyler

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

I came across this article in response to a request for copyediting. I looked for more info on the subejct with a Google search and found only the subject's my space page, from which this article is substantially copied. I can find no indication of notability or verifiable info outside of the said page. killing sparrows 01:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy delete as a blatent copyright infringment, adn so tagged. If not speedy deleted, delete as not notable. DES (talk) 04:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Myspace pages are almost always written by the subject of the article, and are intended as personal publicity. I would not delete an article copied from one a a speedy without first asking if there was permission. DGG 04:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. I also doubt that copying from a Myspace profile really counts as copyvio (is it even copyrighted in the first place?). Rockstar (T/C) 05:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response There is no assertion of permission, and no indication that the uploader is the subject. If the editor who created this can obtain permission (which would need to include a full GFDL release, and communicate it to teh foundation's permissions departmetn, s/he is free to recreate. Current WP:CSD says delete in such a case. And yes, myspece pages are copyrighted, jsut as almost all written work is, unless the author specifically and explicitly relases to the public domain. No copyright notice is needed. See WP:Copyright and Copyright. DES (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay. Rockstar (T/C) 06:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Per our copyvio policy, shouldn't the copyrighted material be removed and a {{copyvio}} template added? Rockstar (T/C) 04:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I thought it was blatent enough for a speedy instead. Since that was reverted, i have tagged as a copyvio and listed on the copyright problems page. DES (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Note that our policy says:"Posting copyrighted material without the express permission of the copyright holder is a violation of applicable law and of Wikipedia policy." (my bold). we don't assume permisison or leave a copyvio in place while we ask if there is permisison, we either speedy or hide the infringing text behind a copyvio tag first. DES (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yeah, I know. That's what I said and that's what you did. I'm confused about what the problem is... Rockstar (T/C) 22:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't think there is one, now. i tag the article for speedy-delete as a copyvio. Someone else removed that tag, apparently because this AfD was in progress, buit without butting on the {{copyvio}} tag. I saw this, and, rather than fight over the speedy tag, put on the copyvio tag. No further problem. Earlier your thought that "I also doubt that copying from a Myspace profile really counts as copyvio" could have been a problem, but wasn't after the policy was explained. Now we must either decide to delete, or decide to keep and rewrite the article so it isn't a copyvio, or decide to keep and get permission from the author of the text on the myspacepage to release it unde the GFDL. Whether we keep or not will depend largely on notability I would think, guided by WP:MUSIC. DES (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Ha! I see the issue now. My bad, I forgot to respond to my own comment. I did some research, only to learn that anything written is copyrighted. So what you did is good (though I don't know why someone removed the db tag, as article can still be speedied if an AfD is going on), and I'm adding my vote below. Rockstar (T/C) 19:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. If it's true that he had a song on The Real World: Austin, then he might satisfy WP:MUSIC under criteria #9. However, even if the song occurred, per criteria #9, I'm not convinced that the subject is notable enough for his own article. Rockstar (T/C) 05:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of notability and sourcing. --RaiderAspect 04:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC and the discussion above. Rockstar (T/C) 19:11, 20 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 03:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Ruth

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

Campus lake; one article about its being cleared of duckweed, and another about how it was named after the college president's wife, are two sources, but they are sources that do not attest to notability. Removing the weeds is NN no matter how many articles attest to it. DGG 00:59, 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 03:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northgate Square Shopping Centre

Northgate Square Shopping Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN mall--Largest, but in a very small city of 50,000 DGG 01:11, 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 no consensus. Majorly (hot!) 16:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jurassic Park Visitors Center

Jurassic Park Visitors Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a rediculously unnotable article, which by the way was only created on March 11, so obviously it wasn't important if it was only created then. But if this article had to be created, then it could have atleast have been about the entire fictional universe of Jurassic park island where the film is set,that would have been more reasonable and notable Rodrigue 17:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I have to disagree with your logic here. Just because an article wasn't written several months ago doesn't mean that it isn't important. Every Wikipedia article was new at some point. There are numerous articles about the fictional world of Jurassic Park, and the Visitors Center is a significant setting in the book and movie. --Wasted Sapience 18:18, 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. fishhead64 00:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pulong Buhangin, Sta. Maria

Pulong Buhangin, Sta. Maria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

To the best of my knowledge, this Philippine-related AfD has no known precedent of its kind, so I hope this opens a lot of good inputs from Filipino editors. As with the TfD for Template:Santa Maria, Bulacan, I think there should be a fine line between what place-names deserve their own WP article. Creating an article about Philippine barangays (that would be something similar to a municipal district for non-Filipinos) is taking it too far, as not all barangays are notable, and some are too small to deserve their own place on WP. We might as well write articles about every purok (place) or kanto (street corner) in the Philippines, in the same flawed logic that just because a street such as EDSA or Mendiola has its article, then some unknown private alley should also get its article just because the article's writer lives there. Addenda I might as well include the redirect to this article under the name Pulong Buhangin. --- Tito Pao 01:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are around 42,000 of them - They are actual towns, villages and districts where people live in in a very populous Asian nation, that's why Wikipedia considers municipalities inherently notable. Even more imporatant than city neighborhoods (ie:Larchmont, Los Angeles, California) because, unlike city neibhborhoods, barangays are actual governments that administer the services in them. --Oakshade 04:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: about how many people live here? We are relatively strict about city neighborhoods; many are home to 50 or 100,000 people, and not all of them are included. It seems "neighborhood" is the nearest comparison.DGG 04:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But if it's an actualy govenment district with governing body made up of a legislative council and committees, then it's much more than a simple neighborhood that doesn't have such entities. --Oakshade 04:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has a population of 23,069. This is much larger than the usual population of a barangay, by the way (usually under 5000). TheCoffee 06:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I appreciate Oakshade's attempt to save the article. However, I believe having a lot of barangay articles would be too unwieldy. Given the way provinces split as fast as an amoeba and cities pop up like mushrooms in the Philippines, it would be hard to manage changes to the affected barangays. I live here but I already lost count how many new ones sprung up during the last decade. I suggest we cut this in the bud before it overwhelms wikipedia. As Chris S. suggested, let's add a barangay if it is notable enough.--Lenticel 06:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Barangays are the smallest unit of government (subdivisions of towns) in the Philippines, so small that most of them don't have any verifiable information aside from census data and government officials. I note Oakshade's view, but I still think barangays should be dealt on a case-to-case basis. In this case, there does seem to be enough Google hits and references for it to be notable. TheCoffee 06:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment. Per DGG, I would agree that a barangay can also be compared to a neighborhood, except that for historical and administrative reasons, barangays are incorporated as a limited version of a local government unit (LGU) like a city, province and region (AFAIK, there is a so-called law titled Barangay Code in the Philippines). However, it isn't exactly sa powerful as, say, a city government in that most of the functions of a barangay involve minor administrative functions (such as the issuance of a residence tax certificate and arbitration of very minor neighborhood disputes); in addition, barangays are essentially dependent on their municipal or city government, fiscally and administratively. Also, it's very, very rare for a single barangay to be as notable as the town/city, if not more so. So, yes, on these points, not all neighborhoods can be notable enough for a WP article, even if it's a large barangay. Which is my contention as a resident of the province of Bulacan. Pulong Buhangin is one of many barangays that I know of, but I'm not sure it's notable enough to be on WP.
I took a look at the borough article, and I'll have to disagree with the comparison because a barangay is too small and too weak, administratively and legally, to be considered as a borough or town or city. In Manila, yes, there are some districts which can be considered as the historical barangays that made up Manila (e.g. Sta. Ana, Tondo, Sampaloc...these used to be considered as the principal Manila barangays), but as far as the government and the law is concerned, these barangays do not exist anymore because they have been subdivided into their proper barangays ("Barangay 74, Zone 1, Purok 3" anyone?). And there are potentially hundreds of these in Metro Manila, which on their own might not be notable enough.
In Pulong Buhangin's case, this is the same barangay as it was historically and administratively. Having said that, I'd want to contest the article's notability on its own merit, not just on the basis of its population. Most of the Google hits for "Pulong Buhangin" return sites for directories and classified ads, but very little (if any) material that could be used for a WP article. --- Tito Pao 12:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My first inclination here was to !vote keep per WP:LOCAL, as the general consensus is that inhabited towns/cities etc are inherently notable, and the fact that a barangay has an elected government would lead me to believe that is good enough for inclusion. However I must admit that it's hard to find a comparison to make in terms of municipal/local government here in the United States, as to whether a barangay is more than just a "neighborhood", I cannot definitively say. So, going on the assumption that the closest analogy is "neighborhood" I would say weak delete based on lack of sources supporting notability. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The closest US anaogy is not "neighborhood" as neighborhoods don't have independent governments with elected officials like towns and cities do. --Oakshade 16:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, barangays are not "towns", the towns, translated into Tagalog, bayan, are the municipalities. The closest comparison would be the communes of France. --Howard the Duck 10:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, many neighborhoods do have such organization. There are community boards, and also overlapping utility districts, historical districts, business improvement districts, police districts, fire districts, sanitary districts, water districts, library districts, and on and on, usually elected, sometime appointed. (Where I live the community zoning board is where the action is.) In a wiki of local interest to a region then probably every one of them would be included. But this is a general encyclopedia. DGG 06:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on what's defined as a "neighborhood." In the traditional American sense, most of those things you mentioned, ie library districts, water districts, police districts, fire districts, etc. are in fact governed by county, city and town (sometimes called "township") governments, not neighborhoods. At least in California, the term "neighborhood" refers to sections of such places that are not independent government districts. For example, Noe Valley, San Francisco, California is a distictive neighborhood, but it has none of those "districts" you mention. All of those services are provided and governed by the city and county of San Francisco. A barangay does have those entities. --Oakshade 06:21, 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 03:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Florida Frontier

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

Contested prod. Unsourced article on startup student newspaper with no claim to notability (ie speediable). Notability is not conferred by association with the University. Delete Ohconfucius 01:28, 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 keep. John254 00:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Paisano

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

Prod contested "This is the only student run newspaper on campus, on the largest university in San Antonio. Low google hit amount is not a reason to nominate an article for deletion. This is not a paper encyclopedia". Unsourced article on non-notable small-circulation student journal. 13 unique Ghits for "Paisano newspaper"+"San Antonio" -wikipedia, most of which are directory listings or trivial articles on the subject Ohconfucius 01:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Unlike the Florida Frontier, this is the principal newspaper for the 2nd largest branch of University of Texas. It has been around for over 25 years. Between them, that makes for notability.DGG 04:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I removed the original deletion tag and left the above quoted reasons. Rather than simply suggest a deletion, why not open discussion on ways to improve article. I'd also be open to a possible merge into the UTSA page. will381796 21:03, 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 KO loss, aka speedy delete CSD A7. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 16:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wyatt Routson

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

Someone other than the author has removed the speedy tag, but I see no evidence of notability from reliable third party sources. I suggest deletion. — coelacan — 01:43, 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 Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 04:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Ludeman

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

vanity page for non-notable swimmer. I especially like the image and the section "If you've had a dose of a freaky ghost, who ya gonna call?" Previous prod was contested. Royalbroil 01:52, 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 03:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Variable-shape geometry

Variable-shape geometry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be not supported by reputable sources. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there was more substance to the VSG article, making it clear it was really something that could be called geometry, that would go a long way to convincing people it's worthy of being called geometry. But the article is extremely sketchy, and contains blanket hyperbolic statements such as everything is everything which make it not worthwhile reading, let alone content for an encyclopedia. We're not here for spectacle, an encyclopedia is for reference of hard facts. spectacle is promotion and belongs in another venue. If you feel like this has been a great injustice, on your user page you could attempt to write a more compelling sketch and propose it for adoption. But without more facts on the ground like research papers, I doubt it'll go anywhere. Rybu 18:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this seems like pretty much nonsense. It appears that it's simply Euclidean geometry with an a method to identify the end-points of lines. Not only does this not clearly even form a geometry - a proof would have to be produced showing that it's consistent. I suspect this is someone's pet project - and is thus non-notable. --Haemo 21:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if everything really is everything, this is the geometry of the plane where the isometry group is the group of homeomorphisms of . If Bess has non-trivial theorems about the group of homeomorphisms of I'm sure he'd get an audience in the mathematics world.Rybu 18:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. If only I knew what you were talking about... Burnedthru 22:10, 18 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. I've gone ahead and redirected the article to the list of characters, but redirecting him to the entire show is an equally good option. The logic being that someone might type it in. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Wentworth

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

One appearance as a main character, but not even close to being the biggest role (both detectives and attorneys are bigger roles). Not only that, but it's only an appearance in the pilot, and in one of the lesser-aired seasons (look at TNT; an episode featuring Benjamin Stone is rare, except at 4:00 AM). Additionally, the article lacks references and at no point does it assert any notability. A Link to the Past (talk) 02:18, 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. fishhead64 00:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Across the Nation

Across the Nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song per Wikipedia:Notability (music), not released as a single, being used for WWE Raw doesn't cut it. The article also provides no sources. -- bulletproof 3:16 02:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That hasn't even been verified.-- bulletproof 3:16 03:44, 18 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 03:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

89268

89268 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable record label. No sources, no notable bands. Fails WP:MUSIC. Rockstar (T/C) 02:22, 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 Keep per consensus and article's improvement. PeaceNT 06:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Chatelain

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

This article was originally a CSD A7 speedy deletion, overturned by DRV, which found that notability was asserted. Large portions of the work are translations from the French Wikipedia. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 02:40, 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 Keep per consensus. PeaceNT 15:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Robinson (songwriter and music publisher)

Jack Robinson (songwriter and music publisher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was originally a CSD A7 speedy deletion, overturned by DRV, which found that notability was asserted. Large portions of the work are translations from the French Wikipedia. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 02:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for roughly the same reason as the Chatelain AFD. YechielMan 16:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Badly written article which all-but suggests its subject is non-notable. However I might be persuaded to change this vote if the focus is switched to his songwriting, and reliable sources are presented to the effect that the songs listed towards the end of the article were in fact hits. AndyJones 13:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Comment he's handicapped by having a very common name. I Googled for sources, but can't be sure they're really for him or not. this seems to be him, but is just a list, not sufficient. See It through My Eyes seems to be him also. Does he meet WP:MUSIC? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Changing to keep, meets WP:MUSIC with charted hits per Adrienne93 and Dissolve, below. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All the songs listed were co-written by Jack Robinson. See Robin Song Music website: www.robinsongmusic.com/ Also, if anyone has a question about authorship of any song it suffices to go on to Google and type in the name of the song. If they just want to keep the musical references:
Major hits: I Love to Love (But my Baby just loves to Dance (J.Bolden-J.Robinson) Saddle Up (J Bolden-J.Robinson) , Strut Your Funky Stuff ( J.Bolden-J.Robinson-V. Robinson (If You Want It ) Do it Yourself (J.Bolden-J.Robinson), Irresistible (J. Robinson-R.Musumarra, Love Me Like a Lover (J.Bolden-J.Robinson) Rendezvous (J.Robinson-J.Bolden). Jack Robinson also produced King Harvest's "Dancing In the Moonlight", etc.
Be lenient, I'm not english... and it's difficult to me to write in english.
Thanks. Adrienne93 16:14, 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. Majorly (hot!) 13:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CIA leak scandal legal questions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page has POV problems. As other pages covering this topic exist, this page is a POV fork. Furthermore, this page has some huge original research problems. Pablothegreat85 03:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There have been lots of scandals and leaks at the CIA over time, the title of this article is misleading as it implies this particular case is the only one. It exists to push a particular political point of view and is therefore against Wikipedia guidelines. This isn't a serious analysis of the case, it's original 'research' of dubious quality aimed to knock Karl Rove as much as possible. If it's left it'll just become the subject of yet another edit war. Nick mallory 10:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, already better covered elswhere, so really nothing here to merge. Title is also cumbersome and potentially misleading. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:44, 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 per Vegaswikian as non-notable group. Luke! 07:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zoobears Softball Team

Zoobears Softball Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Amateur softball team—I don't see that this satisfies notability requirements. Speedy tag deleted by author. Deor 03:01, 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 per consensus. fishhead64 04:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KDHS-LP

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

This article does not show potential for growth beyond stub status. Also, notability is debateable, as it is a tiny, tiny, tiny radio station (ERP of 100 Watts), owned by a school district in Alaska. RogueNinjatalk 04:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per the article simply asserts existence, not importance. the_undertow talk 07:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable minor radio station. Davewild 17:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am the individual who created the article in the belief that a comprehensive thorough list of ALL radio stations regardless of size would give Wikipedia more notariety and credibility in the Radio Industry as a one stop site for research relating to the overall trends and insights in radio; especially the relatively new medium of Low Power FM. My goal is in line with Wikipedia Radio Project to do my part to one day give the Radio Station section Wikipedia Portal Status. Perhaps i'm a little myopic and biased as I am passionate about radio and consider ALL FCC licensed radio stations to be relevant whether or not they are in the middle of nowhere or in New York City. I still support deletion as Wikipedia is not my personal site and I respect the consensus of my fellow Wikipedians. Bottom line - I respect your wishes and though I may personally disagree, I respect and admire people who are considerate enough to not simply delete the article and articulately explain their reasoning - so you have my vote for deletion. Transent 15:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 10:57, 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 05:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peppermint Teaparty, Nabil Azadi

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

New Zealand arts webzine around for less than a year. Article creator seems to have done few edits outside of creating it. No claim to notability per WP:WEB made; no non-trivial coverage found among the two dozne Google results (mainly site itself, this article and mirrors, and blog entries. Seems promotional Daniel Case 04:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for clear lack of notability; only 200 ghits. Also delete the article of the magazine's editor in chief:
Nabil Azadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by YechielMan (talk • contribs) 16:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Per this vote, I am also nominating the following related page for lack of notability:
Nabil Azadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete. I realise that WP:HOLE is a pretty poor guideline to base a delete call on, but as an artist and arts writer working in New Zealand, I'm pretty sure I'd have heard of this site if it was in any way notable. Grutness...wha? 03:09, 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 keep. John254 00:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wren's Nest

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

I am nominating this article on a council housing estate for deletion because I can see no notability claimed or sources listed. I did a Google search and while I can verify it's existence, I still see no claim to notability. killing sparrows 04:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. All geographic places are inherently notable. Cheers, DWaterson 08:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As above. Andy Mabbett 10:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. The article contains a lot of unnecessary trivia about the estate's awfulness, but scarcely mentions Wren's Nest Hill's central claim to notability: as the link says, it's a classic British geological site that was pivotal to Murchison's establishemnt of the Silurian. There's plenty of material at the Dudley Council page. Tearlach 14:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wren's Nest National Nature Reserve. Not all geographical places are inherently notable in spite of the above comments to that effect. The general consensus with WP:LOCAL is that inhabited places, ie. towns, cities, villages and other independent settlements are inherently notable, but this article does not specify Wren's Nest is any of these things - it is defined as an "area" with no sources to either corroborate or clarify this for us. The information provided by Tearlach is enough to establish notability for the nature reserve, however, and information pertaining to it should be moved to an appropriately named article, with the other non-notable information excised. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: well, the article does refer to the Wren's Nest council housing estate, a housing estate being in itself an inhabited place. I note for example that the police describe it as a "neighbourhood" here, though reference to a map of the area would also confirm that it is a built-up settlement. Cheers, DWaterson 17:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly I am somewhat unclear on what a housing estate is. Part of the problem with WP:LOCAL is that it is largely US-centric in terms of defining things like city, town, settlement and so forth. At first blush it looks to me something like a housing development - which usually aren't notable. Is it an independent entity, seperate from a city/town/village, or is it a neighborhood of an existing settlement? That's where the line would be drawn I think, understanding that better might help refine my opinion. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, housing estate provides a fairly reasonable definition. In this case, you are right that the Wren's Nest estate is not an independent settlement entity - it is a part of Dudley and I suppose that "neighbourhood" would be the correct term to apply, though I think I would use "suburb". But I disagree at this being the place where you draw the line for notability - I would normally consider most suburbs to be notable. I would draw the line at individual streets, but a particular suburb can very easily have its own distinct character and identity from its parent town that creates notability in its own right. Otherwise, if we draw the line at this point, we would need to start nominating many other articles for deletion en masse. In any case, I'm not sure that WP:LOCAL is the correct guideline against which to assess notability - not only is that guideline inactive, it is also about places of local interest such as "churches, historic buildings, breweries, malls, masts, neighbourhoods, parks, schools, and streets", rather than the places themselves. Cheers, DWaterson 18:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A look at, say, Castle Vale or any of the linked pages in Council house#Examples gives plenty of precedent for the notability of UK housing developments. Such estates are a significant fixture of post-WWII UK urban history; often they have a distinctive architecture and ethos, as well as incorporating (at least nominally) some historical connection with the rural areas they were built on. Tearlach 19:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for the feedback. I understand that WP:LOCAL is inactive, although I was more referring to some of the somewhat recent discussion that had gone on in the talk page regarding the status of minor settlements. I have seen some other AfD's coming up as of late that is starting to further muddle the issue, so I'm contemplating bringing it back up in a broader discussion again ...
In any case, the impression I get is that these housing estates are somewhere along the lines of a neighborhood or housing development. In terms of US cities, at least, when I think "suburb" I tend to think of an independent city that shares a common urban area with a larger city, rather than being a part of that larger city itself. In my experience on AfD's for these types of articles, neighborhoods and developments are not granted "inherent notability" but are forced to rely on the broader WP:N guidelines for establishing notability, such as some sources to verify cultural or historical significance to the region.
I still feel that most of the established notability is for the nature reserve and not the estate, and that information should be moved out into its own article. If some soruces can be found to show the estate itself is notable, and not just for neighboring the nature reserve, then I would not be opposed to keeping it and having the article split, but without more information my recommendation would still be to put the emphasis on the notable reserve and rename accordingly. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite to primarily focus upon the nature researve which is what mainly makes it notable. However prefer to keep current name and cover the estate as both in Dudley and not enough information for 2 articles. Davewild 17:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewritten to include above concerns. Hopefully the article is now better written and sourced. EliminatorJR Talk 19:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article needs a lot of work but the Wren's Nest area is important to industrial archeologists, naturalists, geologists, waterways enthusiats etc. Martin Cordon 21:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nominator. Create an article, Wren's Nest National Nature Reserve, which would contain the bulk of the current article (most all of which was added after my nomination and is notable!), and the bits on the housing estate could be added to the Dudley article. The estate section is still just about a housing project and has no apparent notability. I guess re: the above arguments on whether this place is notable, I feel that just because something exists, and has been written about, that fact alone does not necessarily make it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Apologies to anyone who lives there, but who cares? Sure, we've got lots of server space, but we don't have the human resources to patrol, copyedit, cleanup, etc. articles about everything and everyone that is reported on in every newspaper everywhere. If approved I will create the article and move the relevent material. Please notify me of the outcome or send the article to me (userfy). Thanks --killing sparrows 00:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article should be kept because it is about a notable residential area. Many other similar neighbourhoods have their own articles and most of them have not even been considered for deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AlexWilkes (talk • contribs) 09:52, 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 Keep per consensus and article's improvement PeaceNT 06:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James and Tom Martin

James and Tom Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notable enough or not? You, the people, can decide... Chris 21:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. According to the article, 40 of their songs have been covered by various rock acts. That statement needs a citation but it does assert notability. JamesMLane t c 04:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - looks like an obvious self bio. Create a Wiki-name tag named after one of their songs, just added photo's and text to this article. Looks like a simplified version of their MySpace bio...! Rgds, - Trident13 19:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Am currently in the process of researching more songwriting credits to give more "notability" to this article.Will be adding to the page asap if this will help.

--Purplepickledonions 21:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is certainly not a self-bio. I know the girl who created this article.

--Penthux

— Penthux (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this topic. Rockstar (T/C) 06:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  • Strong Keep. The article is in need of improvement but they have written/co-written several songs which have charted for other people and therefore they definitely fulfil the notability criteria.Jud 15:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep With help from another user and a few improvements/new additions to the article, I now feel it more than fulfills the notability criteria. --Purplepickledonions 18:23, 15 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, W.marsh 04:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article was the first one to be created by this user and she was unaware of the various conventions of Wikipedia. I am working with her to try to create a more encyclopedic entry which will include verifiable references.Jud 10:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article nominated for deletion the day it's created? Give the article creator a chance for crying out loud! =) Above votes make it seem like the subjects pass the notability criteria, so give the newbie a chance to bring this article up to par. →EdGl 21:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with EdGl. Though I do worry about COI per just how the page reads and this discussion, let's give it a chance to breathe. If there's a still problem in two weeks or a month, then we can nom it again. Rockstar (T/C) 08:57, 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 05:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of important and famous Baby Boomers

List of important and famous Baby Boomers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am nominating this list for deletion because it seems to me that the criteria for inclusion are sufficiently broad that the list's contents cannot be effectively constrained. It's better served by the existing categories for birth year. If this list is deleted, I'll also see about removing a similar list from the page on Baby Boomers FrozenPurpleCube 05:42, 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 Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 14:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previously speedily deleted as spam, and recreated. No assertion that this journal is notable, and the article is still rather spam-like. I'll co-nominate other journals produced by Emerald Group Publishing Limited Steve (Stephen) talk 05:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they assert no notability, and are from the same publisher:

International Journal of Operations & Production Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Supply Chain Management: an International Journal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
International Marketing Review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As a late entry I also found this one, not such much listing for deletion as for DGG's excellent analysis...:

Journal of Knowledge Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Weak redirect or keep Emerald publishing seems to be one of the journal databases to which my university subscribes, and the Google hits for each of these include several .edu domains and such. The articles would need to be rewritten regardless, or simply redirected to a main article for the company, as they are spammy. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to Emerald Group Publishing. In a similar vein to WP:EPISODE - list the publications and expand as more individual notability / article worthiness can be setablished. And despammify. - Tiswas(t/c) 10:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • rewrite These have now been rewritten; thank you for the chance to do so. Since there are several other encyclopedia entries for Business and management journals it seems legitimate for each individual page to remain, provided the content is objective. Lawrencemj 11:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: These are all peer-reviewed academic journals from an apparently reputable academic publisher. My university library also subscribes to Emerald. It actually seems that an article on Emerald Group Publishing Limited has already been speedy deleted as advertising. The articles should probably be cleaned up and kept, and a new article on the publisher should be written. I have asked User:DGG, who is an academic librarian, to look at this. Pharamond 06:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've made my week. In general its been possible to show that every published peer-reviewed journal is notable--, at least the ones in Web of Science and other indexes, but this may be a case where sections may be more appropriate. I will also write a completely new article on the company, and there will be no problem keeping it, as they have been specifically the topic of several published works. Stephen, a good catch. DGG 07:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management . This journal has actually been rated by several independent raters, summarized in the peer-reviewed article cited (& not published by Emerald), and considered 1st, 2nd, or 6th among the 12 specialty transportation journals using various measures. Thus, I think by our rules it is inescapably notable, even though it is not in Social Science Citation Index, my usual criterion (The authors are university faculty, though primarily not from the US. SSCI is very US-centric for applied journals; Scopus is more balanced.).
Articles about journals traditionally have some puffery--everything is a "leading international journal" or the like. When seen, such comments just need to be removed. Though as you will see there is some reason to be suspicious of the quality of Emerald journals, this one is OK. (to be continued) DGG 00:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for Supply Chain Management: an International Journal. It is in SSCI and JCR, and ranks about midway in its group. Since JCR covers about the top quarter of peer-reviewed journals in the firs place, this is a respectable performance. The authors are mostly academics,not businessmen. DGG 00:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge for International Marketing Review. It is in Social Science Citation Index, probably because it has been published a relatively long time, but unfortunately its impact factor puts it in the bottom 15% of its group. This is only a rough way of assessing journals, and all the caveats are discussed at Journal Citation Reports and Impact Factor, but it is relevant for the comparison of similar journals in the same field. When I add the publisher article, I'll merge in the essentials.DGG 00:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge for Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal , unless I can find out some more. It isn't in ISI and I have no other quantitative information. There are other ways of evaluating , but they're complicated-- You can look at how many libraries have the journal--which is not that useful as it once as because because Emerald like many major publishers sells most of its journals as packages--which also mess up subscription numbers. You look at a sample who publishes in it, and what their academic reputation is. You collect opinions of specialists. One look And so on. for now, I'd be very content to merge it in the general article. DGG 00:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep for the moment for Journal of Knowledge management. This is a new field; there are at most 10 journals in it, & this is one of just 2 of them to be included in Scopus. (None are in Web of Science.) I'd suggest keeping it on that basis. I think it's at least respectable, and the authors are academics. DGG 03:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - genuine refereed journals should be considered ipso facto notable. Metamagician3000 11:14, 22 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 05:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erastide

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

While the books are clearly notable, this fictional holiday from them doesn't seem to meet WP:N-EMP 05:57, 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 05:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of British idioms

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary and unsourced original research. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of idioms in the English language (A), etc. Transwikied, contested prod. MER-C 06:03, 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 05:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of jazz clubs

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

What does this accomplish that a category couldn't do? —Ocatecir Talk 06:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional Delete Provide redlinks to clubs needing links? Unfortunately, given the lack of criteria in the article, I'm not sure that is a good thing. Even if that were changed, it'd still be something of a directory, but maybe somebody can convince me of content to increase its value. FrozenPurpleCube 15:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The red links should rather be kept as a list on a project page. Dr bab 17:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Even as a list of red links it is mysteriously vague. Like a List of people. If an individual jazz club is notable someone can make an article about it and, per nom, put it in a cool category. Jdcooper 01:45, 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 05:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of eugenicists

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

This "list of eugenicists" is unsourced and contains no information that wouldn't work just as well as a category (for those who self-identify or self-identified as eugenicists, at least). There is also no definition given for what a "eugenicist" is - is it someone who advocates that people with severe defects voluntarily choose not to reproduce? Is it someone who encourages the supposedly 'fit' to have more children? Or is it someone who forces involuntary sterilization on or murders people based on supposed eugenics principles? You'll find members of all three groups in this list, with no clarification as to who believed/believes what. The list even states that some of those in the list may not be eugenicists - which ones, and why are they on the list? Charlene 06:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Francis Crick? really? Charles Darwin? Why? Presumably because his cousin, Francis Galton, invented the term, does everyone who is on this list have their cousins included as well? If the term was coined by Galton in the 19th century, then do people like Plato qualify under different rules than those who actually heard of the term in their own life time? Also, the term once encompassed pretty much everything that we now call behavioural genetics and much more, do we include everyone who published in the Journal of biosocial science (formerly Eugenics review), or Annals of human genetics (formerly Annals of eugenics)? Some people consider genetic counseling to be eugenics, do we include everyone in all University Genetic Counseling departments, and all hospital genetic counseling staff? Pete.Hurd 06:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is actually a very poorly defined list, and hard to define. Every Victorian who considered themselves or others "well bred" could be included. Charlene articulates this well already. Good nomination. Let's drop this article. — coelacan — 07:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, already well argued there. Poorly defined list with no solid inclusion criteria. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete list with far too arbitrary scope.-- danntm T C 01:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rework I would like to rework this with somewhat more defined criteria and , probably, a division into groups; this sort of information is a good purpose for a list a compared to a category. I dont want to make a massive edit during an Afd, so I have userified it, and will edit it as a new article, though under the same title, for it probably is the best title. (btw, Plato did specifically advocate selective breeding of humans as a major theme in the Republic).DGG 06:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just so you know for the article (if you plan on writing it), Cato the Censor also discussed breeding slaves, although I'm not sure if we know that from his writings directly (not all survived) or from Horace and others who mentioned them. --Charlene 09:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Someguy1221 20:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jdcooper 01:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No clear definition. No supporting references. Random list of people who with no clear pattern.Glendoremus 05:02, 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 merge and redirect to Ralph Fiennes per consensus. fishhead64 04:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Robertson (Australian)

Lisa Robertson (Australian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The incident received substantial media coverage and should be included in the Ralph Fiennes article, but the the depth of coverage of the subject is not substantial and therefore does not appear to meet Notability (people) guidelines Thin Arthur 06:19, 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 Speedy delete both g1, patent nonsense. NawlinWiki 13:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sas monkey

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

Hoax. Alksub 07:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm bundling another page with this nomination, because the same editor created both and they resemble one another:

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

An IP user removed the prod template from both. Alksub 07:20, 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 05:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Altscher

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

Article in current state fails to meet notability guidelines for people. The subject of the article was a former contestant on the reality television show, The Apprentice LA, sixth season. The only claim to notability is by way of a contestant on the show. Seven days earlier, I had expressed my concern on the notability of the article subject by way of a {{notability}}. Given that the subject of the article was on a widely syndicated/watched television reality show, and no improvements have been made since then, I believe, it is fairly safe to assume that this individual is not notable. Luke! 07:20, 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. WjBscribe 02:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MoonPie Madness

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

Article for a recent event that took place at Virginia Commonwealth University - it's a moon pie eating contest, simple as that, but events aren't speedy deletion candidates. There are claims of some minor local news coverage, but it isn't notable on a wider scale, the text is somewhat promotional (though not quite enough for G11), and the article isn't actually sourced. I have preemptively placed {{afdanons}} given that this article is being advertised on a Facebook community. Coredesat 07:23, 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 05:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lower Mainland-Vancouver Island

Lower Mainland-Vancouver Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The subject doesn't appear to exist. I've lived in Vancouver for years and this is the first I've heard that these two metro areas are beginning to form into a single urban area. Frankly, it's an absurd claim, and certainly not notable or attributable to any credible source. bobanny 07:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete - Per nom. Erroneous implication for a non-existent/conjectured urban area, which, when one looks at the actual geographic masses in the title :"Vancouver Island" and "Lower Mainland", consists of an area considerably larger than Belgium. Most of the former is relatively sparsely settled, particularly on its northern half.--Keefer | Talk 07:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's nothing wrong with such a large "urban area", the US Census bureau, for example, identifies a number of extremely large "metropolitan areas" for statistical reasons. Nevertheless, there is no indication that thsi particular area actually exists, and one could say it's original research but it looks more like just something someone made up. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've heard of the GVRD/CRD region spoken in the same breathe, usually in the context as a demographic or economic region, and every few years a bridge is proposed between the two. But I've never heard of Lower Mainland-Vancouver Island connection. I did a quick scan of books about such things but did not find this. --maclean 16:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above arguments. There's no reported political push to blend the two areas, nor have I seen or heard any indication of public interest in that kind of combination. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom. This is a fabricated metropolitan area: OR if I;ve ever seen it. Fishhead64 20:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - this is nonsense. I live, and work, in both of these regions during the year. There is only a very elementary integration between them - by no sense of the term can they be considered a "single" metropolitan area. The Juan de Fuca Straight is quite a barrier to integration, after all. --Haemo 20:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I live in Vancouver, and never heard of or seen of this term. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 01:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy STRONG Delete with a Snowball There's Greater Vancouver, which is Lower mainland plus chilliwack, albesford, Pitt meadows, Langley, and maybe Mission. Vancouver island is never part of Lower Mainland or vice verse; not even the past, not now. George Leung 01:56, 18 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 neodelete. --Coredesat 05:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neogoth

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

newly coined neologism. This article cites no independant or reliable sources for "neogoth". It contradicts itself saying neogoths are members of the goth subculture and at the same time neogoths are a counter movement. It advances original positions such as that cybergoth originated inside the goth subculture. in searching for the term neogoth I can only find 2 cd's both sold by Cleopatra records using the label neogoth (and neither CD actually contains the contents of this wikipage, but rather are music compilations and nothing more). No bands are promoted by anyone as "neogoth".. no one on the internet seems to say "I am a neogoth". google searching turns up no reliable references on neogoth (but many which point back to wiki). and www.neogoth.net is nothing but a placeholder on the name. neogoth.com is for sale. neogoth.org is some kind of error message page. I can not find any reliable independant sources to attibute this information to and I've tried. TheDarknessVisible 07:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Neologism and original research / POV. The modern day goth subculture is covered in that article. Mdwh 10:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - neologism + personal opinions on the topic. --Stormie 06:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - For all of the above reasons and the fact that it's patently untrue - there's no such thing as a "modern goth subculture," that would suggest that today's goth subculture is somehow different to that which existed previously, but in fact it's just a continuation of the same. A1octopus 18:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no "modern goth subculture". There's a goth subculture which hasn't changed much since the 80s and just call themselves "goths", and there are a bunch of subcultures inspired by it (dark wave, electroclash, ethereal wave, even boho & emo) who would sooner die than refer to themselves as "neogoths" (well, a lot of them would sooner die than anything, because the world doesn't understand them and it's all so unfair, but you get the picture). Nobody ever uses the term "neogoth". - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:17, 20 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 05:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planetary mass type

Planetary mass type (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
also Planetary Mass Type (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (redirect to the nominated article)

This is basically a neologism. A search on Google for "'planetary mass type' -Wikipedia" turns up no articles that use the phrase. A search at the ADS Abstract Service also shows that this phrase is not used in astronomy. Planet already covers much of the material presented here, but it includes references and generally accepted scientific terminology. In contrast, planetary mass type may contain original research. This article should therefore be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 08:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote the original article, so you know best where the information comes from.--— JyriL talk 16:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. However, I would support its recreation or retention given its backing by an authoritative source and/or evidence of its being used by the astronomical community. --EMS | Talk 20:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I know the author put a lot of work into this. But there is no authoritative source that I know about that has published this classification scheme, and it is against Wikipedia policy to create one here. If anyone can find an appropriate source, I would be glad to reverse my recommendation. Vegasprof 21:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as made up in one school day. And brown dwarfs are not planets (see the Extrasolar planet working group for IAU). [7] 132.205.44.134 23:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - In fairness User:BlueEarth indicated that a brown dwarf is not a planet in his section on brown dwarfs and in the table at the bottom of the page. Though I agree it would seem inappropriate to have them in a planetary classification system.Sdp1978 15:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless adequate sources are provided. Someguy1221 07:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to copy of other people's work. The information on that page is a combination of my ideas and Wilbur's ideas on the |Extrasolar Vision forum of my early suggestion of a planetary classification, John W.'s PCL list, and other suggestions from other people on Extrasolar Forum and Arcbuilder's BBS. Talk:Appearance_of_extrasolar_planets, here on the last section, you can see BlueEarth knows of the Extrasolar Vision forum.
  • Improved I added four references and one external link to the article. BlueEarth 21:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Most of the classification scheme still needs references. Also, "A teenager Chris Dybala developed the planetary mass type in April 2007" is not a valid reference. Moreover, the introduction now clearly indicates that this violates Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Dr. Submillimeter 22:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The first reference, which appears to refer to the origin of the classification system, should refer to a primary of secondary source see WP:OR. This reference does not refer to anything and is therefore an invalid reference. Also your reference suggests that this is original research which is not premitted.Sdp1978 02:49, 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 05:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nikos Tzouannis

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

Not-notable journalist. Before seeing the Wikipedia article I did not even know him. Never heard of him. He works for NOVA Greece and that is all. Is that enough to make him notable? Definitely not one of the well-know Greek sportcasters. If you search in Google, putting the Greek characters, you will have a link telling you that he took some interviewes during a Olympiacos-Panathinaikos match (he was not the main or one of the main sportcasters during the match!), and that he played in a match between journalists! Now, if you click the English name, you'll find only the Wikipedia's article about him. In any case, I do not base my arguments on just Google search. This is just another argument that he is not notable. Yannismarou 08:46, 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 Keep per consensus PeaceNT 06:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Painter

Contested prod. Apparent fan article about a college basketball coach. Notability is rather dubious. >Radiant< 10:01, 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 all. --Coredesat 05:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albuera Street Primary School

Albuera Street Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

One line article about a school with no evidence of notability provided. While the article may improved in the future, the school is unlikely to be notable Mattinbgn/ talk 10:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Avoca Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bagdad Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Beaconsfield Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bellerive Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bicheno Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Deloraine Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Mattinbgn/ talk 10:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addition:

Lenah Valley Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was tagged speedy delete, merge to this AfD by Chuq (talk) 03:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abbotsfield Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was tagged speedy then tagged "prod-nn" now included here as part of the same group of articles. --Mattinbgn/ talk 13:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I created these pages because I thought I was being helpful. There is a page called List of schools in Tasmania with lots of red links for pages to be created so I had a few hours free and decided to pitch in and start creating them. I have no knowledge of any of these places. I would not have bothered if I thought they were going to be deleted. I have very little spare time so it is fustrating to find I have wasted it. I thought 'red links' were links where a page was required? Can anyone suggest how I might contribute in future without haveing all my efforts deleted? Also, it seems to me that if a self-interested private school creates their own page, it stays, whereas state funded school don't seem to be important. Just a thought. MrsPlum 22:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before doing this work it would have been a good idea to discuss it at a talk page I guess - either Talk:List of schools in Tasmania, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tasmania might have been good places to try. Unfortunately this does happen that when articles are created without finding sources first then what is created is a directory-style stub which does not show that the subject of the article is at all notable. Garrie 23:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • First off, thanks for being helpful and trying to resolve redlinks. If more people did this, Wikipedia would be a much better place. Second, the proposed deletion is no reflection on your work, its just that it appears the articles don't meet the notability guidelines for schools. Schools need to have some notable feature(s) other than their existence - for example, interesting architecture, a number of famous alumni, or a record of winning nationally significant competitions. Many schools can meet these criteria, but these current articles don't include that kind of info. Have a look at WP:SCHOOLS for an idea of the kind of information that might justify a school article.Euryalus 02:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I should have added - WP:SCHOOLS is not official policy, but it is a useful guideline nonetheless. Check out the active links at the top of its page for more current conversations on schools articles. Euryalus 02:57, 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 05:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subterrestrial

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

This is effectively a neologism being used to describe planets that are the size of Mercury and Mars. The term is generally not used this way within astronomy as revealed by a search through my textbooks, Google, and the ADS Abstract Service. The article contains no references to verify that it is a term that is in use. The article contains nothing of value; it should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 10:43, 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 05:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arglebargle

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

Nickname of a character from The Tommyknockers; fails WP:FICT from a character POV, or WP:NEO for the nickname, but either way you look at it it's not notable. Percy Snoodle 11:25, 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 14:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bud Hayman

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

Freelance photographer, whose only claim to fame is to have been the photographer for the 1-week old short film Take Out. Non-notable in my opinion. -- Marcika 17:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as clearly not notable. Also delete the film:
Take Out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

YechielMan 16:59, 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. Herostratus 14:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clairredolence

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

This page contains information on a non-notable area of parapsychology. The subject matter is mostly a romanticized new age idea that has been tagged onto parapsychology by its own believers, rather than by parapsychologists. After a brief period of research, I was unable to verify that this topic existed outside of a "fringe of a fringe", and can assert that it hasn't even succeeded in attracting of notable kooks, let alone serious investigators/well known pseudoscientists.

The topic also does not exist in popular fiction. The closest that I've found to a reference to it were a couple of "related incidents" in TV shows (a Doctor Who episode in which somebody smells a familiar smell around what they think is a ghost of a relative, and a scene from the movie poltergeist where a spirit runs through somebody and leave a distinctive odor behind). In these cases, it is referenced through an action, but it never named.

In brief, it's not notable, and should be deleted.

perfectblue 09:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There doesn't appear to be one. This is new age stuff, not proper parapsychology perfectblue 16:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response: It says it's part of extra-sensory perception. IF not, then Delete. J. D. Redding 17:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not part of ESP as far as parapsychology is concerned. It's just a new age neologism - perfectblue 17:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then redirect to new age or extra-sensory perception. Is there a list of such neologisms @ either article? Such as "Clairaudience", "Clairaudient", [insert new age term here], etc ... J. D. Redding 17:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC) (PS., I know about neologism, I did some work on that a year or 2 ago ...)[reply]
  • Delete. The phenomena of odours related to supposedly paranormal sources is well-known, but this term gets just one unique GHit [10] that isn't a Wikipedia mirror (and that was written by an "Empathic and Intuitive Mediator"), so it probably drifts into WP:NFT territory as well. EliminatorJR Talk 20:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tejatat Tejasen

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

Non-notable person, fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:29, 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 NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. The raw total is 11-5 Delete. But its not a vote. The Keep commentors make the point that (1) It's notable (this is true), (2) It's sourced (this is true) and (3) this is sufficient for the article to be kept absent a compelling reason to delete it. This is a pretty strong position; we don't often delete well-sourced articles on notable subjects. The Keep commentors has a variety of arguments. Is it a POV fork? [User:The Behnam|The Behnam] notes "[W]e have had complaints that it is both too anti-Iran and also too pro-Iran." That doesn't sound like a POV fork to me; I would say that if you have complaints from two opposed camps that you're probably doing something right. Aarktica makes the point "[A]nything that has CURRENT in the title — while news-worthy — is hardly encyclopedic." This is a good point, but not fatal; it appears that it's encyclopedic now and I guess it can be renamed, merged, or delete if and when it is no longer notable. The agrument is made that it's original research, which may be true; but the considerable sourcing tends to belie this, granted it doesn't completely negate it, per Mardavich's comment. For the rest, commentors mainly assert that its unnecessary and unhelpful. But this is not a telling argument when others claim that it is useful and helpful to the Wikipedia. Because of the "vote" totals and the variety of the Delete arguments, I think No Consensus is called for rather than a straight-out Keep. Herostratus 14:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current international tensions with Iran

Current international tensions with Iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article seems like a POV fork. Someone on the talk page asked for an AFD, so here it is. Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 11:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This is not a POV fork. Its a significant series of events that cannot be incorporated into any other article without making it unwieldy. Also it has many related sub-articles that would loose any connectivity if this main article is deleted. If I saw someone wanting to rename or merge the article somewhere, that would be reasonable (I would still oppose that ofcourse), but nominating this significant article for straight deletion is not reasonable at all.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 11:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: User Matt has never contributed to this article and/or its talk page.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 12:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contribution is not required in order to participate in an AfD. Please make yourself familiar with Wikipedia's policies. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but I'm 99% certain the only reason you are voting here is from wikistalking me from my contribs.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 00:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When the article was created, the events already were tied together by Foreign relations of Iran. It's not clear why we need an article that focuses only on the tensions, and doesn't include the aspects of Iran's foreign policy that other countries can agree with. And there's no clear reason that we need the summary of current events to be separated from the summary of historical events (especially when foreign relations of Iran has long addressed both). --Interiot 07:26, 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 merge to Apple-Intel architecture. WjBscribe 02:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext

Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Non-notable factlet. Not even worth being merged into another article. AlistairMcMillan 11:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not delete While in the grand scheme of things, the existence of a Mac OS X kernel extension to block non-Apple hardware from being used to run OS X might not seem significant, it has everything to do with virtualization and digital rights management, both of which are very important topics particularly of late. The article does cite references and is very informative, as well. Perhaps it could be merged with Mac OS X or even osx86? Mstahl 16:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. We're not the hacker's guide to Mac OS X and this is way too technical. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-16 18:14Z
  • Comment - mhm yah this is informatiional its not about hacking OS X —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.11.149.61 (talk • contribs) 04:27, April 18, 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Reading the notability wikipedia guideline, we can see that "Notability is generally permanent", which makes this article far from notable, since it is a response to the trend of running OSX on non-apple hardware. Dravick 22:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't believe this is the correct interpretation of permanence of notability - just because software evolves, does not mean it's not capable of being notable, otherwise we would be deleting all software entries once they are superseded. There are references Ohconfucius 02:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe I wasn't clear. I just meant that it is not a notable subject; maybe there could be like a sentence in a "trivia" section in the apple intel transition page, but certainly not its own article. Dravick 00:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's not an argument, since all sources could be from very technical websites, making it interesting only for programmers or so. Dravick 06:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many articles on wikipedia concern a topic less than ten years old, especially computer-related pages. Is that really a valid argument? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 18:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think perhaps Hero meant the "will the subject still be interesting to anyone in ten years?" test. AlistairMcMillan 20:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that depends on whether or not Apple decides to keep it in the code for ten more years. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:03, 22 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 (re-creation of deleted material - CSD G4) --rogerd 12:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banned Allstars

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

This page has been deleted & reposted numerous times (apparently as a non-notable group), yet the nomination was sort of malformed. I am hereby completing the nomination. TML 11:54, 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 speedy delete CSD G4. WjBscribe 14:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small penis humiliation (3rd nomination)

Small penis humiliation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Hoax, recreation of a page already deleted, no references, no verifiability, original research. Delete.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Gheelh

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

Hoax article. The only "reference" points to an entirely different school. Although I can't prove it, I have a feelign that this was made up by a student of that school. Tito Pao 12:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Even if it does exist in the Philippines (Google is inconclusive), there are not enough RS to support an article about it. YechielMan 17:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Using the keyword "Gheelh" Google finds several pages of the University of Gheelh, so it apparently exists.— JyriL talk 23:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Hate to disagree, but I'll bet one months' salary that it doesn't exist. First, I live in the province where this university is supposed to exist. At present, there are less than 10 tertiary institutions with university status, and this one isn't it. If it was, people here would know about it. It also claims that it has its own conservatory of music, but the truth is there are no music conservatories in the province of Bulacan (otherwise, why would the musicians in my province go to Manila to pursue their music education?); so do the other institution in this dubious "university", judging by their names (facilities in "CityLand Pulong Buhangin" which is likely a residential subdivision, "StarsBorn Institute" which reeks of the StartStruck TV series in the Philippines ("where stars are born"), and both "University of Bermillo" and "Ryan College" which looks like the invention of someone named Ryan Bermillo). In addition, the links on Google are either mirrored articles of the WP article, or submitted links to Alumni.net which, to the best of my knowledge, does not verify if organizations exist (members on this website can add their own organizations) and hence cannot be considered a reliable resource. --- Tito Pao 13:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Delete No official website, no media coverage, no document to confirm its existence, obviously a hoax. And if it is not, not notable to have its own article here. --Mithril Cloud 04:14, 22 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. WjBscribe 16:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tibia (computer game) (2nd nomination)

Tibia (computer game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - Only assertion of notability is a big number. Unsourced beyond fansites. Fails WP:ATT, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N and WP:WEB. DarkSaber2k 12:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete - Big number is sufficient assertion, in my opinion. This game has been mentioned in Polish media regarding its addictiveness, so it is certainly having a cultural impact. Anything with a cultural impact should be reachable via Wikipedia. Ivucica 14:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[14] <- Indicates that Tibia is large enough to attract people trying to scam accounts Sorry, this is actually another ten year announcement from a different source.
[15] <- This is the account scamming announcement.
[16] <- Indicates a total player base of 250,000 players
[17] <- Announces the fact Tibia has been around for ten years
  • I've seen others as well, but the computer I'm on refuses to load IGN and a few other sites, so I can't see if there's anything there. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 14:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I pointed out by linking to WP:BIGNUMBER, length of time and number of players are not useful for establishing notability. The article still fails WP:ATT, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N and WP:WEB. We have one story about account scamming, but then again, any web game that offers premium and free accounts attracts scammers. DarkSaber2k 14:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That still doesn't address link 3, an independant article which announces the fact the game's been around for ten years. I imagine that when I get home tonight I'll be able to scrounge up more sources in addition to those three. Plus, the article on account scamming is notable because it's a third party announcement. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 14:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, I did, it was the scammer story I didn't refute, just pointed out that having people trying to scam accounts on a game isn't exactly notable in itself.. WP:BIGNUMBER has numerous other related things on it, one of which mentions the length of time something has been around. DarkSaber2k 14:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd argue that WP:BIGNUMBER doesn't apply here. This is not a first party source claiming that Tibia's been around for ten years, but an independant third party doing an article on Tibia being in existence for ten years. That's a big difference. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 14:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I disagree, as your are trying to assert 'It has been around ten years, it's notable' 'It's notable because it has 250,000 players.' Which is exactly what WP:BIGNUMBER is describing. BUT, the fact that there are articles at all goes some small way towards notability. DarkSaber2k 14:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, that's NOT my argument. The contents of the articles indicates that Tibia has been around for ten years. My assertion of notability here is that Tibia is notable enough that two third party sources felt it was important enough to write articles about it being a decade old. I'm not saying "Tibia is ten years old and is thus notable", I'm saying "Tibia had two articles written about it being ten years old and is thus notable". If I wanted to just go for WP:BIGNUMBER, I'd just state the fact that according to the last AFD, the game's homepage was under 1,500 according to Alexa's traffic rankings. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 14:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I get you now, sorry for the misunderstanding. DarkSaber2k 14:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough in my book. Has more members than alot of other MMORPG'S that are "notable" (EQ, AC, DAOC, AO, etc etc), and has a noticable enough existance. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 19:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep WP:BIGNUM is not policy and I don't agree with it. This game has a LOT of players (hundreds of thousands) world-wide (note 11 other languages whose wikipedias have articles about it), has a high Alexa ranking, a large fan-base, and is known by a lot of people, and therefore has wide impact. That's what notability is. It does need citations for its content, of course, but that's not what AfD is for. (Note that as a German game, it may unfortunately be harder to find English sources than we are used to.) — brighterorange (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable source about mobile phone edition — brighterorange (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No independent reliable sources presented. Ones listed above are either trivial listings (fileratings.com) or reprinted press releases on mmorpg.com. You need secondary sources to write an article, regardless of how many people play it. Wickethewok 17:15, 18 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, 15 yr old youth team player, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 13:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris thomas mckim smith

contested prod - not notable as footballer guidelines - needs to be a pro. Fredrick day 12:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

contested prod - not notable as footballer guidelines - needs to be a pro. Fredrick day 12:30, 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 05:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ding (vehicle)

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

Unreferenced, and already transwikied to Wiktionary. Article is no longer needed at Wikipedia. Longhair\talk 12:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - a disambiguation page is to assist in navigation to an article, and not to provide dictionary defintions so it would not be an appropriate disambig entry. -- Whpq 13:01, 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 no assertion of notability. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 16:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The United Jewish Alliance

The United Jewish Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

no google hit except wikipedia and mirrors. I suspect a WP:HOAX Jon513 13:16, 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 keep. Majorly (hot!) 17:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RIT Ambulance

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

NN student organization ccwaters 13:54, 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 05:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barcelona Business School

Barcelona Business School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organization lacking independent sources of information Jehochman (talk/contrib) 13:57, 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 05:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cartrain

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

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 14:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Shameless self promotion from an inconsequential Banksy plaigarising non-entity. Get rid of it. Now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.99.113 (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 speedy delete no assertion of notability. —Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 2007-04-16 17:52Z

Lockleys Riding Club

Lockleys Riding Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable vanispamcruftisement. Nothing on google. Contested prod. MER-C 14:24, 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. fishhead64 01:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Toilet Cartel

Canadian Toilet Cartel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Should have been speedied; the author removed the speedy tag multiple times; no empirical sources; appears to be a non-notable news incident, violating WP:N and arguably WP:NONSENSE; Delete --Mhking 14:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete People buying six-litre flush toilets I do understand. It's something that happens. A cartel of criminals trafficking in such toilets? I'm not seeing this one. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 15:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - It may sound like an implausible idea, but the author has provided multiple sources, some of which qualify as reliable under WP:RS. As such, it just about passes the "multiple non-trivial coverage" criterion in WP:N. I'm not sure all the information in the article is verifiable, and it does need a cleanup, but that's not necessarily a reason for deletion. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (but not speedy) - the Time article is real but none of the cited sources describe a cartel or even use the word. So delete as original research which distorts sources into presenting a point of view they do not explicitly state (aka novel synthesis). Resurgent insurgent 17:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Resurgent insurgent above. Most of the sources cited don't even mention any kind of "Canadian Toilet Cartel", and the only Google hit for that phrase is [20], which doesn't count as a reliable source. The author seems to have augmented this with original research. Hut 8.5 20:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the verified information to toilet. The title is problematic, but the "toilet" article could use something besides a list of slang anyway. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given that the sources appear not to stand up. Capitalistroadster 02:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well-documented phenomenon and well-referenced article. -Leastdays 01:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is the possibility of a merge with Toilet as an incidental paragraph in a new section entitled Low flush toilets. The "Cartel" in question is purely a humorous phrase used by Dave Barry in relation to Canadian regulation on low flush toilets. The "references" in the article are mainly to the introduction of low flush toilets in Canada. Other than a link to Barry's book, the only reference to the Cartel is in reference 3 - the other references are about low flush toilets. The article - intentional or not - as it stands is more of a support for Dave Berry's book than an article of merit in an encyclopedia. SilkTork 18:41, 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Nash ( Artist, Lyricist and Poet )Martin Nash

Martin Nash ( Artist, Lyricist and Poet )Martin Nash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Asserts notability as poet (see talk page), but no sources showing notability. Obviously needs to be moved to a different title if kept. NawlinWiki 15:16, 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. WjBscribe 02:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shelluning

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

Contested PROD. Neoglism at worst, Dictionary definition at best. No encyclopedic value. And unsourced. TexasAndroid 15:34, 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. WjBscribe 02:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Code 13

The Code 13 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Internet forum. No sources are available to verify anything in the article. The forum has less than 500 members, which is some indication that it is not important. --- RockMFR 15:59, 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 14:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Farmstead Elementary/Junior High School

Farmstead Elementary/Junior High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
can wikipedia house an article on every single school in the world? Wikipedia is not a directory or gazetteer.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, especially considering the strength of arguments presented and weight given to non-ip voters. IronGargoyle 04:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Prism

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

Procedural tagging. No opinion. --OnoremDil 16:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Total failure of the article to assert its subject’s non-obvious notability —Ian Spackman 16:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC) *keep as per article's talk page. notablity established with three independent references - Tiswas(t/c) 16:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - manchester evening news articles are merely reports of joiners & leavers, the other articles are either press releases, or reports of co-op bank buying some software. Slow newsday stuff. And nothing since. - Tiswas(t) 09:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 02:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westwood Tunnels

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

This is an unecyclopedic account apparently based on nothing more than student hearsay without published sources (perhaps added by those involved or their friends - it may be true, but Wikipedia rules insist that everything is supported by reputable published sources) and does not add anything useful to the section on the Westwood Tunnels in the main Warwick University entry, which summarises the main information in this article, but itself lacks sources. This article also fails the notability test. ThomasL 17:25, 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 speedy delete website "created on 10 April 2007" gives an idea of how much notability was asserted - none. —Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 2007-04-16 17:40Z

Angel-Babies

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

Website does not meet any notability criteria such as Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization.. Shiva0x007 17:12, 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 speedy delete by Anthony.bradbury as "author's request". —Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 2007-04-17 01:13Z

Theoretical periodic table with 8 atomic orbitals

Theoretical periodic table with 8 atomic orbitals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Octonide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Octonides (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Looks like uncited original research; even the atomic numbers, the whole basis for elemental positions on the Periodic table are not fully defined. We've already recently deleted pages for lots of "potential/future" elements and uncited names for groups of them (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Untribium and also those who remember User:Cosmium) on the basis of WP:CRYSTAL and that what we can say about them are just mathematical results and/or obvious trends. I'm taking to AfD because there are several inter-related pages here...bundling several forms of an uncited name for this non-existant group of elements. Looking further, I now see that we already have an extended periodic table at Periodic table (extended), which does include the actual useful info one would want (and can know). A redirect there for the 8-atomic-orbitals page might be reasonable if "Theoretical periodic table with 8 atomic orbitals" is a resonable page name or WP search term. DMacks 17:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now... Perhaps we can ask the author to provide some sources. Based on what I remember from my chemistry courses, the table appears accurate for what would happen with 8 orbitals. I don't think deletion is appropriate... just yet. - grubber 18:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now that you bring up Periodic table (extended), it seems that these articles have significant overlap, and the "extended" version even goes out to 9 orbitals. The only difference I can see is that this AfD version uses a different coloring scheme. I personally prefer the "extended" version, and I'm not sure I see any reason to keep both. I'm tempted to change my vote. - grubber 19:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Grubber. My understanding is that the strength of the periodic table is that it allows the prediction of yet undiscovered elements; and as such the series it predicts can be discussed meaningfully; it is not a mere crystal ball prediction. Note, though that octonium, linked here to element 121, seems to be something completely different. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- the article has been blanked by the creator Thunderwing 20:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. I tagged it with {{db-author}} per WP:CSD#G7. →EdGl 21:12, 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 keep. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 14:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schmuck

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

None of the content seems to meet wikipedia guidelines.

Vernacular Usage - goes against Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary

Use in popular culture - Not references, not very notable - not encyclopaedic in the way it is written

Surname - Of the four people mention one (Roger Schmuck) doesn't have an article, two (Marcus Schmuck and Peter Schmuck) have stubs and one (Donald Schmuck) has an article that has been nominated for deleted on notability grounds with a result of no consensus - not the most notable bunch then.

Taking all of this into account I'm not really sure if this page it at all necessary - if you want to find the definition of the word there are many internet dictionaries that can be used - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. At the most this should be disambiguous page for people who's name is Schmuck (as suggested previously) - although taking into account their (small) number and lack of notability I don't think this would be necessary - with maybe a link to the List of English words of Yiddish origin article for information on the word. Any thoughts? Guest9999 17:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to List of English words of Yiddish origin, per a lack of encyclopedic content. It's essentially a dictionary definition. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 17:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not only a dicdef, it gives a bit more origin to the word, and shows some of its other background. The problem here is that there seems to be a very fuzzy line on what constitutes a dictionary definition - and while it defines the term, it also gives some background to it. Perhaps revisit it in a few months and see what it looks like. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is essentially a disambiguation page. I will format it to look more like one shortly. -- Black Falcon 20:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have removed the "pop culture" section. Also as Dennis notes above, the article is borderline and probably could be expanded into a full-length article. However, even now I think it's fine as a disambiguation page. -- Black Falcon 20:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If adding a background means that the article is not a dictionary definition then any word could have an article - especially in English where most words have a somewhat interesting history - essentially this makes the Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy redundant. [[Guest9999 23:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
    • Well, what I'm seeing is kind of weird. If it's a strict etymology cite, then yes, it's not only a dicdef, but a really good one. If you can flesh it out beyond an etymology (case in point...well, schmuck), then you might have something. The line's really fuzzy, though, as near as I can tell. Probably should bring it up in a talk page somewhere. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another Comment - The information about the origins of the name seems to come from a website called Schmuck Fest [[21]] I don't know how reliable this is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guest9999 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Besides Rosten, there are other discussions. It's more than a word, its a concept. But the people should go on a different page--and why doesnt Roger have an article if he was a major league baseball player?DGG 06:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I came to the page specifically to look up the history and finer details of its vernacular usage and was enlightened as to its non-American meanings and histories through the page. That said, the article is fairly dumpy and could stand a solid rewrite and perhaps an instance of the Schmuck family coat of arms. Krapitino 05:52, 22 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 nothing but a product catalogue. —Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 2007-04-17 01:09Z

Active_Ankle

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

this page is clearly an advert created by the company that sells this product ConfuciusOrnis 17:34, 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 no consensus. Majorly (hot!) 17:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Ball Manipulator

Blue Ball Manipulator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unimportant and barely notable fad. The Wired source mentions this only briefly. It got a lot of views on YTMND and was a fad on Something Awful. Not much more needs to be said. --- RockMFR 17:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are completely missing the point. This fad is neither important nor notable. Bookmarks are obviously not evidence of notability. Is that what you are trying to say? --- RockMFR 16:58, 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 Keep per consensus. PeaceNT 07:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tsarion

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

subject doesn't meet WP:BIO, "sources" used are inadequate (i.e. not reliable and/or commercial) and keep being replaced when removed. Delete. Jefferson Anderson 18:21, 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 05:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Native American Extermination Song

Native American Extermination Song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was first nominated for deletion on 12 April with a prod tag.

This was after discussion at User talk:AkiShinji; we established that the term "Native American Extermination Song" is not in widespread use beyond the article creator and his close friends. Therefore it does not merit an encyclopedia article.

The prod tags were removed on 16 April, and so I have started this AFD process. NerwenGreen 18:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFC Sidford

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

Entirely non-notable non-league football team, plays well below the normally accepted Level 10 criteria for English football clubs fchd 18:26, 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 Redirected to 2007 AFL season. -- Longhair\talk 09:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFL Ladder 2007

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. No sources. Seems to be the result of primary research. Francisco Valverde 18:36, 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 05:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extraterrestrial energyzoa theory

Extraterrestrial energyzoa theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced and possibly original research. Article creator, User:Cyberguru, is the originator of the theory. User:Nima Baghaei, a contributor to the article, added a {{pagenumbers}} template, but this is incorrect -- none of the footnotes actually are references; they simply spell out details of the book title that is the source of the footnote. howcheng {chat} 19:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have been helping clean up this article, from what I can tell the article is fine, we just need to get more specific page numbers from the books in citation (unless the entire book itself is on the subject hehe) and check the wording to make sure its neutral ... also if anyone can find any other references that would be great but the article is fine and should stay, the images also add great improvement to the article (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 19:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not? Only well-known paranormal topics are worthy to be mentioned in the Wikipedia. Science or paranormal, Wikipedia is not the place for publishing new ideas.— JyriL talk 23:10, 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 MERGE into Debagging and Redirect. Herostratus 16:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pantsing

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

Trumpetband 19:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article does not belong in an encyclopedia. Trumpetband 19:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment agreed, it may be more of a wiktionary entry, but that is debatable.- HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 04:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as this prank occurs in America as well and I recall people doing this in elementary school and junior high to various people and calling it pantsing or depantsing. Best, --164.107.223.217 04:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 02:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London School of Astrology

London School of Astrology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Advertizing for non-notable organization, created by single-purpose editor. Pleclech 19:42, 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 redirected both to Inventory items exclusive to Super Mario Bros. 3 and tagged {{r from merge}}. —Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 2007-04-17 01:04Z

Hammer Brothers' Suit

Hammer Brothers' Suit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I have merged this into a new article, at Inventory items exclusive to Super Mario Bros. 3. I merged another article in, which I will bundle into this discussion shortly. Basically, I didn't think that it was enough of an article on its own. That is why I created the page with the long name to start with. Now that it has been made, there really is no reason for this article to be around any longer. LuigiManiac 19:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related article because it has also been merged into Inventory items exclusive to Super Mario Bros. 3:

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

The result was keep. Majorly (hot!) 17:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was nominated for deletion back in october, the result was: "Keep, nomination withdrawn". Only two arguments were put forward: that the list was useful, and that the Category:In popular culture exists to "keep the crap this out of the main articles". Furthermore, the debate was closed by a non-admin other than the one who nominated the page. This page is an indiscriminate list of librarians in popular culture, completely unmaintainable. Usefulness is not an inclusion criteria. Putting the trivia and unencyclopedic stuff in an article of its own does not make it any less encyclopedic.

Dr bab 20:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Ah, In Popular Culture, we meet again. Once more, there's another article about X in popular culture and once more, it consists basically entirely of an unreferenced catalog of virtually any mention of someone, or something, being, playing, seeing, doing, acting like, mentioning, or talking about, X. This is not the purpose of an in popular culture article. They are not meant to be the garbage heap of Wikipedia, where we throw all the unreferenced gibberish that drags down other articles - they are supposed to be encyclopedic articles about the portrayal of something in popular culture; NOT a pile of unreferenced trivia. --Haemo 21:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, indiscriminate nomination. With respect to WP:IINFO and WP:TRIVIA, I'm having trouble seeing how this nom doesn't apply to the whole category or other article sections spread throughout WP. Although this list is not encyclopedic (or complete) in the traditional sense, to me it typifies the sort of valuable (and at times wacky) information that Wikipedia houses -- and I'd hate to see it go ahead of similar pieces. --John Hubbard 03:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC) (Librarian, and author of the linked Librarians: We're Not What You Think site, which some of this article's text is taken from.)[reply]
    • Comment Several of the In popular culture articles are probably good candidates for deletion. That they exist is not an argument that we should keep this one too. Dr bab 08:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment I give credit to John Hubbard for revealing his identity and his connection to the contents of the article. As I edit various pages here, I have noticed a definite pattern of page editing by top members of the American Library Association who do so anonymously, and by using sock puppets, and in a biased fashion. So to see librarian John Hubbard announce his identity and his interests is quite refreshing. Perhaps, to reward such behavior, this page could be put on a slow deletion timeline in respect of his interests and openness. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 14:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep First the nominator did not recommend improving the article, or engage in any discussion to that effect with the authors, it should always be marked for improvement first, unless the article is total crap. This one is not total crap. It is actually useful. If it was improved upon it would be even more useful. If wikipedia has popular culture articles in regard to profesions, which it does, there is no reason to think that this one should be deleted more or less than any other on the basis of the aforementioned positions. Keep for utility, keep for improvement, and keep because nominating to delete an article that just needs improvement is wrong. The article is also encyclopedic, in that diderot had literary references (some even popular) to professions in the encyclopedia, as did the classic britannica. --Buridan 14:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am sorry if you feel I should have "engaged in discussion" with the authors before nominating an article that is "not total crap". I am of the opinion that this article really is unsalvageable. It is a completely indiscriminate list of appearances, mentions etc. of librarians in all sorts of media. Please note that usefulness is not an inclusion criteria, nor is the existence of other "Popular culture" articles in worse state than this one. Dr bab 19:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • Comment The list is notable, it is encyclopedic. It needs improvement, not deletion. We disagree as to whether it is 'total crap'. --Buridan 19:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - first of all, this is an article, not a list. Part of the fundamental problem with these kind of articles is that they are treated like lists, when they are not. Either actually bother to write an article about the topic in popular culture, or make it an actual list, so it can be deleted for being indiscriminate on that basis. Furthermore, I have no idea what it means for a "list" to be "notable", but I'm sure it's not an inclusion criteria. Furthermore, the arguments WP:USEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not arguments for inclusion. This article has been around for a long time, so you really have no excuse for not referencing and improving it. You still have until this AFD ends to do it, so I suggest you trim all the unreferenced, or WP:OR, material and then comment here so people can re-evaluate how it's going in the mean-time. --Haemo 22:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • comment why don't you just dig out the citations instead of cutting it? why don't you want to improve the article? it is notable because it describes a notable profession in a significant context. --Buridan 03:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment - why don't I dig out the citations? It's not my job or something to root around for citations for an article - that's the job of people who want to keep this article. I did my good faith best to look around for some WP:RS for this article. I couldn't find any. I'm sorry, but that's just it. If you want to keep this article, then ensure that it meets WP:ATT - don't toss the burden onto other people. Furthermore, you still aren't making any sense - you claim this article is notable? What? First of all, that's not the reason for deletion - there is no doubt that being a librarian is a notable profession. However, even articles about something notable that completely fail WP:ATT get deleted. What you have is a collection of apparently unsource-able trivia - since neither I, or I assume, you, can find sources to back them up - yet you argue against deletion because "this article is notable". I'm sorry, but that ain't in the Wikipedia policies, and admins are empowered to disregard WP:AFD arguments not based - or in this case, pointedly contrary - to stated policy. --Haemo 23:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment This article is not a list, but it is still a 'listing', and might as well be named list of librarians in popular culture. If the article should be improved to an acceptable form, it would mean to cut away everything that is there now, as listcruft, and write a completely new article, that is actually an article, and not a list. If everything is to be cut, I say delete the article and leave the space empty until someone that cares about the subject (and there appear to be at least a couple) takes the time and effort to create a good, non-list article.Dr bab 08:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Keep I don't think that improving this article means throwing away the content: generally, if you're suggesting just 'getting rid of' content, you're not really trying to improve what you've got to work with. What the list *could* stand is a bit more meta-organization, and a bit of clarification w.r.t. the utility of the text. There's a lot of useful stuff collected together, here, and someone just needs to retroactively make some sense of it. Strong Keep, as the person nominating it for deletion has not done due diligence. --elijahwright 15:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment User: elijahwright has made a single edit outside this debate.Dr bab 18:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • Comment I don't understand this obsession with how people arguing that this article does not meet standards are throwing away content, or are "refusing to help out" or "aren't doing due dilligence". First of all, people in AFD's are not required to do any of those things. Furthermore, if it's so easy to find sources, then why haven't any of the people arguing for keeping this article done that. I know I have - I looked for sources for many of the facts, and came up empty-handed. It really makes me upset when people start arguing that I haven't done any work, or am not trying to improve the encyclopedia. I work hard when I try to comment on an AFD, and it's totally contrary to WP:AGF to assert otherwise. As it stands, you're trying to keep this article because the people arguing that it fails WP:ATT haven't tried to improve this article. Not only is that patently untrue, and violates Wikipedia policy, but it's totally offensive. This is not an argument for inclusion - and it's vastly offensive to me, personally, and surely to other editors who are being tarred with the same insulting brush. --Haemo 23:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we all just get along like true wikipedians? Whether the article stays or goes, it can be discussed in a civil fashion. No? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I agree with Hubbard, "it typifies the sort of valuable (and at times wacky) information that Wikipedia houses." It could just use a little cleaning up.Sils660 17:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment' - what? This doesn't even make sense. Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of material, and it's certainly not a collection of article which fail WP:ATT. Your argument is a pointed example of WP:ILIKEIT. --Haemo
  • KEEP! What harm is it doing to have this wiki up on the website? In fact, it is a great way to share with people just how prominent librarians are in the world since we often have the misfortune (and sometimes fortune) of disappearing behind the scenes. The whole purpose of a wiki is to assemble information for people to find easily - indexing the instances where librarians come up in pop culture is both fun and enlightening. If you feel left out, go start an "engineerss in popular culture" page or something. That could be fun, too.
    • Comment - So, in other words it's WP:ILIKEIT] coupled with an insulting claim that people are arguing against keeping an article people they "feel left out". That's ridiculous and offensive. The purpose of Wikipedia is to collect information - however, that information must be reliable and meet WP:ATT. This article does neither - which is the entire rationale behind deletion - not whatever sort of insulting jealousy you've decided to attribute to me instead. --Haemo 23:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these are valid arguments. In addition, it seems, like Haemo pointed out, that some of them seems to be of the impression that the responsibility of fixing this article lies with the nominator, and the other people voting for deletion. This is false. Dr bab 06:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • VERY SUPER DUPER HIGH TENSILE STRENGTH REALLY STRONG DELETE: After evaluation of the argument above, the KEEPers are unpersuasive. The DELETEers are guided by and following Wiki policy. Wiki policy is the guide to follow. In this case, Wiki policy supports the deletion of this random list.
By the way, one of the five places to "visit" in the "Blues Clues" computer game for children is a library. Anyone want to add that fact to the list? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 11:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just a plain keep. If it were a reasonable delete, there woud be no reason for the stressed words above. The role of librarians in popular culture is particularly interesting to most librarians, who generally think of most of it as denigrating their professional status. The attempts to compensate for this are similarly interesting. non-librarians also find this of interest, as shown by the frequency they use the role as a symbol. This does not mean the article should be kept because it is interesting. It means , that because it is found interesting, notable works have been written using it as main or subsidiary theme, notable characters created, and the appropriateness of them all have been notably discussed--in a great variety of media and a great variety of sources. A summary page like this is appropriate. It isn't OR because the material is either supported by the main WP article on the book or film or whatever, or else is sourced. DGG 07:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I am not opposed to an article that discuss the role of the librarian in popular culture, if it was properly sourced and not original research. The main reason I am opposed to this article in its current form is that it is a totally indiscriminate list, the number of times a librarian figures in any form of media is ridiculously large, and attempting to list them all is just futile. I know I keep repeating myself, but I can't see how this article should not be deleted based on WP:NOT#IINFO. If we keep this article/list, wouldn't it also mean that we open for similar lists that list every single appearance in popular media of composers, firefighters, policemen, lumberjacks, carpenters, cooks etc.? Dr bab 09:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • Comment of course, it is not an indiscriminate list at all. There is also no reason not to have the other accounts of professions in popular culture, monty python's lumberjack skit for instance, is surely popular culture, as is the story of paul bunyan. The discriminates here are two categories which is librarians and popular culture. That for instance removed the references to librarians in unpopular subcultures, such as wikipedia editors;) --Buridan 14:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - original research. Metamagician3000 11:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The function of such 'popular culture' articles (and sections), is to provide a place for people to put indiscriminate information, with which they might clutter up genuine articles. In other words they are a defence mechanism against a variety of quasi-spam. It may well be that such articles need to be pruned occasionally, but they serve a useful purpose in protecting serious content from being diluted with mundane and irrelevant allusions. Peterkingiron 16:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 02:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afro-american fashion designers and fiber artists

Afro-american fashion designers and fiber artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Written like an essay, appears to be original research. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:55, 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. WjBscribe 02:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Heights Learning Center

Mary Heights Learning Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Really wanted to "prod" this, but I figured it wouldn't be a totally uncontroversial case because it's a school and most schools are kept here. Anyway, after removing all unencyclopedic info, you're left with a tiny stub about a school with no way to gauge how "notable" it is (so it probably isn't). If someone can add some great information to the article, then maybe this has a chance, but I'm thinking this will be pretty one-sided: delete. →EdGl 20:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I know I generally follow keep-all-schools but a school with fifteen pupils needs to make some effort to convince people there's a reason for it having an article - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As failing WP:N. School articles that don't have much more information than a phone book would have (with the possible exception of high schools and colleges) can usually be prod'ed. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as not asserting notability. It seems they are a very small school with about 10 students in each grade. Nothing should be exempt from deletion if it's not notable, schools included. Ohconfucius 02:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Technically a speedy as per Ohconfucious. Too few students, no sources, and thus no evidence of anything. The population of the city it is in is 449,811 in a 2000 census, this school seems abnormally small for a standard school. I don't see any reason it should be kept, other than a blanket reasoning about schools in general. Kevin_b_er 18:19, 18 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 per CSD A7. Judging from the article's content and the impossibility to verify them (and until reliable sources are brought for further scrutiny) the possibility that the assertions made at this entry regarding the subject's sex life and behavior may also fall under CSD G10 must not be ruled out. - Phaedriel - 23:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Weber

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

Asserts notability but the first two pages of a google search revealed nothing about him and to quote the article itself "not well known amoung the general public". I'd like to see some properly verifiable references to allow the information in the article to be checked. Spartaz Humbug! 21:38, 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. WjBscribe 02:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trial With Fire

Trial With Fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't meet WP:BAND. Also, can't see a clear assertion of notability but wish to give benefit of the doubt at this point.  REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  21:43, 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 speedy delete. —Cryptic 23:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CoSM The Movie

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

Lack of third party sources means this doesn't meet the verifiability Policy. This is a self pennedarticle and we certainly do not do autobiography. The film may well be notable by association with the subject but the director isn't unless there are sufficient independant third party sources and I'm not seeing these. Spartaz Humbug! 22:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Somehow I managed to send the wrong article to AFD using NP Watcher. MY apologies. I'm not sure that this article requires AFD given that the subject is notable so I'm leaving this as a screwed procedural nomination because there are already support votes. Check the AFD on Nick Krasnic for the nomination I intended... --Spartaz Humbug! 22:13, 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. WjBscribe 03:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Krasnic

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

Lack of third party sources means this doesn't meet the verifiability Policy. This is a self penned article and we certainly do not do autobiography. The film may well be notable by association with the subject but the director isn't unless there are sufficient independant third party sources and I'm not seeing these. Spartaz Humbug! 22:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.TheRingess (talk) 22:19, 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 keep. I myself didn't believe it when this word made it into Merriam-Webster, but we can't control what our sources choose to make notable. —Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 2007-04-17 00:33Z

Truthiness

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

I have decided to stick my neck out on this article. It is actually is a repost (it kept on getting reposted, and eventually forgotten about). But why should one word in a TV show get its own article. This is the tried and true definition of WP:FANCRUFT. Delete. Part Deux 22:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong/Speedy Keep. Because this one word was more notable in 2006 than Anna Nicole Smith was (she obviously made a splash in 2007). Certainly there's no reason to list all the words that pop up at the start of the show, but Truthiness, with the huge amount of attention this word got (check the scope of the citations) is definitely of note. Deleting something just because it's been deleted before is not an argument that the current article should be canned, and should be counted as irrelevant to the article as it stands. The article is certainly too long and informed to be merged back into the already very long Stephen Colbert article. This reads like you want to set up a set of rules so that should a word or short phrase be notable, it can be deleted, because it's just one word, which would be a really bad precedent. Thespian 22:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
>Editing to add: I also think you need to look into WP:CONS, specifically, "Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome." If the article keeps coming back because people want it, with many people editing it, then arguing it and nominating it for a third time, is ignoring consensus. The initial deletion happened before the word became so popular. The second was withdrawn. The situation is completely different at this time, and this is now inappropriate with the amount of external coverage.Thespian 22:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it was just one word on a TV show, it would indeed be worthy of deletion, but the article is well cited and establishes notability. The term was selected as the Merriam-Webster 2006 Word of the Year and the American Dialect Society 2005 Word of the Year, and has been used on news shows and in the New York Times. That's more than sufficient for an article. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Very widely reported by many news outlets; the ADS and the MW references in particular raise this to a very high level of notability. bikeable (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep With all due respect to the nominator (whose name I have purposely not looked at), are you shitting me? Look at the sources! How many highly-regarded papers and TV news programs need to discuss something at length for it to be acceptable? Whatever the number, I'm sure this article meets and exceeds it. The word is obviously incredibly notable, and there are far more than enough reliable sources to back that up. Jeez, there's a reason articles make Good Article status- not just because editors have spent many hours bringing it up to snuff, but because there are enough sources to make an excellent article possible. -- Kicking222 22:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it's good enough for the American Dialect Society and for Merriam-Webster, it's good enough for us. I would assume that those two organizations have a more rigorous review process than we do. Also, the article was illustrated as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiWorld. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I'll WP:AGF that Part Deux was not actually trying to cause a disruption with this nomination, so that would take it out of the realm of speedy keep. Nonetheless, the nomination does seem to simply be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, since identifying the term as nothing more than fancruft (i.e. non-notable) is utterly absurd given the sources and citations detailed in the article. Mwelch 23:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Its a WP:GA...A good article! How can we possibly delete an article that the community has rated worth of high respect... it has 42 references...it was the American Dialect Society word of the year... the Merriam-Webster word of the year. WP:FANCRUFT doesn't apply because Truthiness is notable. 42 sources and you say it is the true definition of fancruft. I too will WP:AGF... but you almost made me not. MrMacMan Talk 00:21, 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 deletion by myself. I didn't realize that "Hokies" is the nickname for the Virgina Tech sports teams. My deletion reason is that this is a tasteless hoax. If someone can demonstrate otherwise, I'll revert myself.. Dina 22:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putt Putting for the Hokies

Putt Putting for the Hokies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I can find no record of this proposed film via google [26] so I placed a "hoax" tag on it which was removed by the creator. I am deeply suspicious that this article is more influenced by recent events in the US but I am not 100% certain, and so this Afd for more discussion. A lot of my suspicion is based on the fact that it's an utterly ridiculous film title, but I recall thinking the same when I first heard Bowling for Columbine Dina 22:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Actually this Virginia Tech Hokies, which I wasn't aware of, might just clinch it for me. Dina 22:36, 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 Keep per consensus. Afd is not the place for resolving disputes. PeaceNT 06:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asian fetish

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

This article is utterly atrocious, full of uncited POV, original research, and continuous edit warring. In my opinion, the title alone makes it inherently POV and unsalvageable. The result of the previous deletion discussion was "keep and cleanup," but, as usual, the latter part hasn't happened – and it's clear to me that it never will. The problems with article ownership are just too severe. It's been tagged for cleanup for nearly a year, but is actually worse now that it was then. It's time to pull the plug. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - In the last few months the HongQiGong, me (Teji), and to a lesser extent Computer1200 have contributed the most to the discussion and editing of this page. Despite intense differences of opinion we have actually made some minor progress. It is easy to come into the article (or back to after a year) and say "delete." But I encourage those for deletion, but especially those who want to keep the article to review the following discussion sections (as consensus on the first few paragraphs has been reached.) Furthermore, the main problems with the article is the use of student opinion pages and internet forums as support for outlandish begging-the-question statements like "Asian fetish as a cause of crime." Half of the article (or more) consists of these unattributable and unsubstantiated statements. To appease Hong, I recommended creating a separate section called "Commentary, Opinions, and Activism" to address the issues to which he is so attached. With support, we can move the questionable material into that section, or remove it altogether. Most importantly is the support of the editors on this page. Please help the article by supporting and enforcing my restructuring effort, or at least the effort to remove questionable material.
[[27]] - Initiation of rewriting, first paragraph
[[28]] - Discussion on terminology section and rewrite of the paragraph
[[29]] - Discussion of origin of term section, rewrite of Hwang's theory, discussion on moving Hwang's theory out of terminology section
[[30]] - Discussion on separating neutral info from commentaries and opinions
[[31]] - Suggestion to remove "Asian fetish as a cause of crime section"
[[32]] - Suggestion to remove "Stereotypical media portrayals" section.
[[33]] - Complaint about racism
In general, removing the opinions would remove any need to balance them or verify them. Most of them are based on student opinion pages, forums, and are generally unrelated, unreliable, and unsubstantiated. Please make support the effort to remove or restructure. With more support, this article can be cleaned up. Teji 23:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The extensive coverage given to Hwang's theories clearly violate the undue weight provision of NPOV. This is a marginal scholar, and yet his views are about the only ones given any room in the article. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:32, 18 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 Interactive voice response. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-17 00:02Z

Guided speech IVR

Guided speech IVR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Relevant content of this article was merged with older article IVR pgillman 22:29, 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. WjBscribe 04:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ma Records

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

Non-notable record label. Unreferenced and fails WP:CORP. Also, it has been tagged for notability since October 2006 to no avail. Rockstar (T/C) 22:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The only newspaper reference I've been able to dig up is an off-hand mention in the Pittsburgh Post. Context: "You always train like you're racing the best," said [Marco] Aledia, 27, who runs Ma Records out of his home in suburban Columbus, Ohio. "When you get a shot at one, you've got to take full advantage." Note - Be careful when doing any sort of search, google or otherwise, for MA Records. 'mas records' is a phrase that seems to come up a lot in Spanish media discussions, and I found many, many hits for "MA Records" that had NOTHING to do with this record label. Chris Croy 01:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would hold that the minimum criteria for a record label to be notable would be having at least one notable artist on the books. This one doesn't. A1octopus 13:18, 18 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!) 01:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westock

Non-notable student music festival. 1,990 hits on Google (-westock is in the query because that was included as a 'did you mean' search), many of which don't pertain to the festival. Delete. 1ne 23:16, 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 Keep — anthony[review] 02:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Masterton

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

Article originally submitted for Speedy deletion, apparently because of lack of verifiable sources and other concerns that, however, do not seem to fall under any criteria for SD. Further discussion at the article's talk page. - Phaedriel - 23:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I would strongly encourage people to check out the talk page because this is a classic case of "I don't like it, so delete it!" Now, the AFD. The source for the article is his own brief autobiography. You can confirm most of its truth claims with a quick googling; He definitely wrote commentary on UseNet starting in 1992, he definitely writes for LaunchCast and dotmusic, and his content DID move to Yahoo. The remainder(ie his date of birth) are utterly uncontroversial. I'd also point out that his commentary is considered reliable enough to be cited in six different Wikipedia articles. Finally, I believe he passes notability: Many people really do care and talk about what he says. The BBC has quoted or cited him on on three occassions. Googling for "James masterton" music coughs up 22,800 hits, almost all of which have people actually talking about him and his commentary. Chris Croy 02:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I regard RS as generally destructive nonsense. Apparently, people are reliable sources except when making uncontroversial statements about themselves. Again, every truth claim made in his autobiography, with the exception of his year of birth, can be verified by anyone with an Internet connection and a couple spare seconds. He has been writing chart commentary since 1992, he does write chart commentary for yahoo, and the content was acquired by Yahoo. Finally, if a 'reliable source' discussed him, you know what their source would be for all of the above facts and others? Him. Journalists don't follow up on claims made by subjects unless they have some reason to believe the subject is screwing with them.Chris Croy 01:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if no journalist, anywhere, wants to say anything about a subject, that tends to suggest the subject isn't notable. In any event, neither your opinion nor mine budges the requirements of WP:V a single jot.  RGTraynor  03:34, 18 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 being a Pink Floyd tribute band is not an assertion of notability in itself. —Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 2007-04-17 00:48Z

The Great Gig in the Sky (band)

The Great Gig in the Sky (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable tribute band. No independant sources cited. Fails WP:MUSIC. DES (talk) 00:13, 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 Keep per consensus PeaceNT 06:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puttur,_Tamil_Eelam

Puttur,_Tamil_Eelam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is non-notable, POV plus so poorly written that it makes no sense. It's an article about a place but instead focuses on an educational establishments located there. Additionally, it has an advertisement requesting some university alumni to contact somebody. Qwertyca 00:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. All towns are notable. I removed the request that alumni contact someone by e-mail and added the latitude and longitude. Google has several references to reports of atrocities that are said have taken place in or near Puttur. I would like someone to add the material that usually appears in an article about a town: year of establishment, population, name of the mayor, local industries and infrastructure. And I suspect the article should be renamed Puttur, Sri Lanka since the boundaries of the area controlled by the LTTE are continually shifting. --Eastmain 00:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have been bold and renamed the article per established WP convention. I have also added a reference to the existence of the town; the rest of the article remains unsourced, but all extant towns are notable even if there's nothing much going on there. Carlossuarez46 02:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe that this town, site of the first free school in SL, would qualify as notable, not just for the school, mind you. Ohconfucius 03:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but delete references to non-existent place of "Tamil Eelam" (including the redirect Puttur, Tamil Eelam) and other uncited content. I'm yet to find a citation that it housed the first free school in Sri Lanka, so if not cited that bit should probably be deleted, but I guess that's beside the point of the AFD. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 14:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as towns are inherently notable. Serious clean-up is needed, though. "Tamil Eelam" apparently refers to the Tamil breakaway region in the northern Sri Lanka. Since the state is not internationally recognized, the town should be considered as a part of Sri Lanka.— JyriL talk 23:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Actual town where people live, work and call home. Inherently "notable." --Oakshade 07:56, 18 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_16&oldid=1116878039"