Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 21

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

The result was delete. Sr13 01:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

No claim of notability in article. 18 non-wiki ghits, none of which seem to be this group. Previously tagged with speedy deletion, but creator of article removed the tag. Creator of article subsequently blanked the article, but I'm not comfortable just prodding it given the previous speedy. Fabrictramp 23:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No references, but also seems to be advertising the group for people to come. - Kneel17 23:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N and WP:V. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Obvious, blatant self promotion.Ravenmasterq 02:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:SPAM. -- MarcoTolo 03:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - founded in 2007, and no references, with an advertising tone - don't think it's going to meet notability. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 03:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Well wide of the notability mark, and looks pretty spammy. Blueboy96 04:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Article creators are not permitted to remove speedy tags, and blanking the article is assumed to be a request by the creator to speedy delete an article. And then there are the concerns listed above. Resolute 05:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Clearly worthy both non-notable, and self-promoting. †Ðanieltiger45† ^{Talk to me} 23:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per above. Also, violates WP:SOAP. Bearian 17:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 22:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is redundant in concept with the set of pages Wikipedia:Multiple-place names; a minor point is that the Wikipedia-namespace page set is far more complete than the article being nominated for deletion. Also, the content of the nominated page is a collection of partial disambiguation page contents and is therefore more misleading of the state of ambiguity than Wikipedia:Multiple-place names, which provides links to disambiguation pages. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom and as listcruft. - Kneel17 23:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I note that this article has had over 500 edits and has existed for two years. I think we need rather good reasons to delete it and these have not been given. The problem with something in the Wikipedia name space such as Wikipedia:Multiple-place names is that most general readers will not find it. --Bduke 00:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But in the same token, what's the point of using this article when most of the time you are redirected to a disambiguation page? Or are able to reach it after reaching the main article? When would a normal reader come in contact with this unless they purposefully search for the article? - Kneel17 00:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at a few links suggests that "most of the time you are redirected to a disambiguation page" is exaggerating the matter. I would guess that in some cases hitting the search button in WP would bring the reader to this page. Note that I have had nothing to do with this page. However, as I noted, lots of editors have over a long period of time, and I'm inclined to trust their judgement. Deleting this would not really improve Wikipedia and it does not harm the project. It is not against policy. --Bduke 01:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominated article, List of misleading place names, has been around since June 2005. The set of pages that I suggest make this nominated article unnecessary/redundant, Wikipedia:Multiple-place names, has been around since Sept 2002. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This would be a very hard to verify list, seeing as "Misleading" would be very difficult to agree on a definition for. I mean, is it "misleading" that neither Saginaw, Michigan nor Bay City, Michigan are actually on Saginaw Bay? Is it "misleading" that Michigan has an Omer and a Homer? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete misleading is a very subjective thing. What's misleading to somebody may not be misleading to somebody else, so I think this is pretty much WP:OR Corpx 03:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; I was planning on nominating this list myself, on the basis that this is Original Research; the intro states "place names that are likely to mislead", which is a subjective criterion. How misleading is Jupiter, Florida for example? Has anyone ever driven through Jupiter, Florida and believed they were on the planet Jupiter, due to the "misleading" name? Or has anyone gone to Italy, Texas hoping to see the Colosseum, because they were misled? Also "other places that are much better known", where do we draw the line at how much better known the other places have to be? More original research is needed to decide. Slightly interesting, but will never be anything but WP:OR. Masaruemoto 03:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's neither here nor there ~ Infrangible 03:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hopeless WP:OR. I wish I could save this article from itself, somehow, by tweaking the scope or whatnot, but I can't see how it would work. It's a fun idea for a list, it just isn't encyclopedic. Maybe some sort of geography wiki could adopt it. --Dhartung | Talk 06:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as worthless crap. Bigdaddy1981 08:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was hoping I'd like this, but it's essentially a list of towns with "famous names". I agree with Masaruemoto on this one, other than the idea that it is even "slightly" interesting. I did drive through Jupiter, Florida, and saw a big red spot, their name for their red light district. Mandsford 00:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above; it's poorly worded. Bearian 19:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom., and as WP:OR and listcruft.--JayJasper 15:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Most comments seem to suggest that the article should not exist in its present form. I am happy to undeleted and userfy in someone's sandbox for improvement, categorization or merger. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 13:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Folk-blues musicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to violate WP:NOT#LINK (specifically item 2). I am not saying it may be considered interesting or useful, but it is not what an encyclopedia is, per policy. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC) (page created to complete AFD nomination by User:Pharmboy)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Listcruft, listcruft, listcruft. Blueboy96 00:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This list is already a Category: Category:Folk-blues musicians, which is what it should remain as. Should be Speedy under WP:CSD#A3. I previously just prodded List of Electric blues musicians. Perhaps somebody can link an AfD there. See also List of Juke Joint blues musicians, List of New Orleans blues musicians, List of New York blues musicians, List of Jazz blues musicians, List of Boogie-Woogie musicians, List of Slide guitarists, List of East Coast blues musicians, List of West Coast blues musicians, List of Jump blues musicians, List of Contemporary blues musicians, List of Detroit blues musicians, List of Swamp blues musicians, List of Harmonica blues musicians, List of Blues revival musicians, List of Urban blues musicians, List of Delta blues musicians, List of Chicago blues musicians, List of Blues-rock musicians and probably more created by the User:Mind meal. Speedy delete them all, please, and most especially Lists of blues musicians by genre, but not before deleting all of the list on that list of list cruft. Hu 01:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, they are all A3s. Speedy delete. MER-C 02:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the way that CSD#G3 is written would imply that hundreds of existing list articles are potentially speedy deletable. Could the article be "saved" by adding information for each musician, such as birth date/death date and a "known for" infobit. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose so (at least from speedy deletion), but in the state I saw them there was nothing but lists of internal links, headings and templates. An ordinary list would have some sort of lead (thus not being speediable) that would define its scope. Either way, should be deleted because it's original research to classify artists by genre unless it is established otherwise by reliable third parties. MER-C 05:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All Music Guide is reliable. Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble, Yahoo, Artist Direct, MSN...they all use their information for categorization purposes. Now that references have been added, the idea that these articles still should be deleted is extremely weak. I hope that people's concerns have been addressed, because as I said below there was no WP:OR that went into the inclusion of even one artist on any given list. They were all referenced. Furthermore, each list appears with the corresponding category I in most cases created. This serves to give broader coverage of musicians in these genres, especially those who do not yet have articles and thus cannot be categorized. What a thankless job. (Mind meal 05:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete Categorizing musicians into genres is WP:OR unless explicitly stated somewhere, and even then there'll be conflicts unless the artist themselves says it. Corpx 03:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC) I still think this should be deleted because this list is no more useful than the category Corpx 09:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. Already 5 musicians that cannot be categorized appear there, and the same can be said of all the other lists mentioned. Each list took a lot of time and effort to compile. If we are to delete them all, at least consider respecting my contributions enough not to insert WP:POV votes about "usefulness". Please see Wp:lists#Purpose_of_lists, especially the development section. These lists are like any other, and I'm still trying to figure out why my work specifically was targeted in this case. (Mind meal 09:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep This is ridiculous. Musicians perform in genres. Looks like you lost anyway. If there is someone inappropriately listed in a genre, then say so. Otherwise, you assume both original research and inaccuracy. I challenge everyone supporting deletion to render a name that does not belong in a list. Anyone? How is placing musicians in their appropriate genres wrong? That takes the cake.(Mind meal 04:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Where does it say that these artists belong in this category? Corpx 04:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree. Izzy007 (talk · contribs)

Delete indiscriminant collection of info. This could be 30 megs and not cover a third of them. Use a category. This page does not qualify for speedy deletion. From WP:LISTS: "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics", this criteria is far to ambiguous and likely to yield contrary sources. Until(1 == 2) 04:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References are being added as we speak. You will find no discrepency. None of this was WP:OR, for each musician was carefully referenced. If the problem was with lack of references, then the articles should have been tagged with an appropriate tag. Now that the articles are referenced, I believe there is even less ground for deletion of any sort. (Mind meal 04:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I sure hope that people won't just be stubborn here and will change votes accordingly. I know many of you thought you were correct listing these lists for speedy deletion, something adminsitrators have not agreed with you about. Surely with references you are not to be mean-spirited and still vote for deletion? That would really be an ugly thing to do after all the work i put into these. This whole group grew silent once I added references and the speedy deletion tags disappeared. So as they stand now, what are the argument for deleting them? It makes no sense now. I really don't understand the motives of some users. (Mind meal 08:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

A link to a Wikipedia article is not a reference. Until(1 == 2) 13:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : Please sample a few lists from Category:Lists of musicians by genre and try to tell the fundamental difference between them and List of Folk-blues musicians. The only difference I find is that this list is still fresh, and thus rather partial at present. This is no reason to delete it. Lior 09:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• rename and fuse It has come to my attention that folk blues is another way of saying country blues, If you all read the articlecountry blues you will find a list of guitarists already there, if we create a list of country blues guitarist, add it to the country blues article and then redirect anyone looking for a list of folk blues guitarists to the list of country blues article (much like if you type folk blues in the search engine you'll get country blues) that way the article won't look so incomplete because they'll be more guitarists there and country and folk blues are pretty much the same thing.

If this does go ahead we can all work together so we don't merely have a list of internal links that goes against the poicy of wikipedia (and annoys everyone with slow internet who has to click on every link!) by adding a small bit of information to each guitarist. --Mikeoman 09:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Country blues is more or less guitar-driven, though there are exceptions, ie. some pianists and singers. Folk-blues has many instruments, like guitar, banjo, piano, harmonica and mandolin. (Mind meal 10:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete with reluctance. I'm not unsympathetic with the argumants in favor but there are some problems with assigning particular musicians to particular genres. Just noting the first entry on the list, John Fahey certainly played some things which might be called "folk-blues" but he also played stuff that some would class "Musique concrète" and he himself called his genre "American primitive" (reference provided upon request). People are likely to raise similar arguments about almost anyone on the list. The consequence of all this is a never ending creation of more and more genres with less and less distinction between them. better to have fewer more broadly defined catagories.Darrell Wheeler 12:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, reluctantly. Here I think Mind meal's got a good idea, but not the right way to go about it. We can't just crib from a copyrighted source and call it ours. Unfortunately, some of these lists and categories are so specific that they need backup, and so there's no other easy way to get this information out. So I say delete for now, but I'm not prejudiced against a further re-creation with a different structure.--Mike Selinker 13:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, yes, emphatically Yes, there are paths to finding various artists, e.g., allmusic.com. However, the List is valuable. The list is easier and faster to search through than other lists. Links are faster to download, than, say, www.allmusic.com. There are many genres of music, so it is not appropriate to bemoan the number of lists of types of musicians. Dogru144 15:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning is not logical. The categories function as better lists because articles are added to the categories by editing the articles themselves, to add the category, which is to say that the editing occurs in one place. Hu 16:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Ought to be a category, not a list. SethTisue 15:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Categorize It would be more appropriate to have those with articles being put into an category instead of a separate list.--JForget 16:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It already is a category. Hu 16:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Whenever a category exists that is virtually identical to a list article, the list article should be deleted, as categories are much easier to maintain. Realkyhick 17:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Obvious since I nominated it. It should be a category, not an article, and all the other lists that are similar should follow suit. Pharmboy 17:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Categorize as per all of the above. It would be more appropriate to split it into a category. Greg Jones II 17:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, short-term. First, this list could never be a cat. simply based on the fact that you can only categorize existing articles. A list can include items that don't (and unfortunately may never) have an article on WP. Second, any list of persons would suffer from the same downfalls that are pointed out here. I agree that there should be a brief description after each item, though. The third issue is the length of this list, which I believe is mostly attributable to its age. Unfortunately I do not know enough about this particular topic to know if it can ever be populated. So what to do; The existance of red-link or unlinked (unlinkable) items and a heading rules out both WP:NOT#LINK andWP:CSD#A3. This article (even with recent changes) could still be deleted under WP:OR. However, in a sample 500 lists of people only about 1/3 have any sources and several of those would be considered insufficient. To delete one on this bases means to delete many, many lists. I hope that everyone here would prefer simple citations as opposed to deletion. Lastly, if the article does not grow it could be deleted by WP:N. To prove this would take time. So...The article should be kept to see if it can grow and be sourced. If it does then there is no argument against it. If it does not it should be deleted using WP:OR orWP:N. (Sampm 20:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

This list is already a category. The non-existing articles argument you and the creator advance is bogus because there are other places to place such requests, such as WP:MUSICIAN. Further, if you know the person is notable enough, then just create the article yourself. Another bogus argument advanced is that there are other lists that should be deleted but aren't, so let's violate policy and keep this one too. Name the other lists and we'll nominate them for deletion too. Hu 23:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, if a musician cannot at least have a stub with some reasonable reference then I don't see why it belongs on a list anyways. Until(1 == 2) 23:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia still has hundreds of red links about non-current mainstream pop musicians with notability that they can be found in most music encyclopedias covering their type of music, and several individual musicians that I'm familiar with that have entire books published devoted to them. I am one of the many editors who has been gradually chipping away at the red links and stublets for over 5 years. Don't mistake any current deficits of coverage for inherent lack of notability. -- Infrogmation 00:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Please see the parallel nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Electric blues musicians that has 31 similar articles listed for deletion. Hu 23:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Such lists still have value in addition to categories, especially in the red links showing where Wikipedia still has many very serious gaps. -- Infrogmation 00:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The red links argument for lists is bogus. A place like Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians is the appropriate place to request articles. Hu 00:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh should I add 600 names there now? Or should I kick myself for not having added 5,000 names there a few years ago? -- Infrogmation 00:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a look there for a first time in a while. and noted that there are requests for expansion as well. My numbers of things I apparently need to list there was far too modest. I think I could curtail all other activities in Wikimedia projects for a month or so to do nothing but list areas we need work on. I rather think you are vastly overestimating the completeness of Wikipedia. There are many areas of specialized knowledge-- including many significant musical generas-- where we are still in as incomplete a state as we were with, say, world leaders back in 2002. -- Infrogmation 00:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. (Not the kicking, no good kicking yourself). Now that you pointed out that Wikipedia is not complete, we are no further down the road, and the red links argument for lists is still bogus. Hu 01:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is much discussion above about use of a category versus a list. Each article-grouping method has advantages and disadvantages; see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes for an in-depth discussion of this. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't think it should be deleted, however, I am not so much for it. Categorization if it gets too detailed, can be misleading, and many of the artists aren't streotypes anyway. For me, blues is just blues, and no more detailed categorization is necessary. --Sumori 04:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your objections have been heeded, however, there has been no comment on the addition of short biographical content. It seems to me that the difference between some disputed lists and those not yet disputed is that factor. If adding such info would save this list then lets do it. If it would not then nearly all lists in this category and its subcats should be nominated. I'm not saying we should violate policy. My point is that many other lists have survived so there must be some redeeming factor or something different about this list. If there is a difference what is it? If there is not a difference then why have those lists survived? Have they just failed to be nominated? (Sampm 14:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Move all to Sandboxes, delete from categories until ready. What Mind meal is doing with List of Electric blues musicians seems to be very good. But the rest can't stay as content until they're improved in the same way. So I'd suggest moving them to sandboxes as works in progress, and when they're ready, move them out to the main encyclopedic space, where I think they'll pass any AfDs.--Mike Selinker 15:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, sadly, and create a category instead. Also, it's missing some of the living greats of the genre like Pete Seeger and Nick Katzman, and even the marginally notable like Tom Winslow and Thomasina Winslow. Bearian 17:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. Give Mind meal a little time to make improvements to the list as he has with List of Electric blues musicians. Should this take more than few days to accomplish, then temporarily move the material to sandboxes, per Mike Selinker.--JayJasper 20:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Categorize Isn't this the reason we have categories? I  ^{(said) (did)} 20:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into List of blues musicians. There are currently only 16 names on this list, and thus would not overwhelm the current list of blues musicians, which is already structured into sub-genres; a "folk-blues" section would seem to make a perfect addition to that list. Claims of original research are misplaced when All Music Guide and plenty of other reliable sources can be used to determine who belongs in this list. By the way, if "folk blues" is not the same as "country blues", then perhaps Folk blues should not be a redirect to Country blues. DHowell 22:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by Krimpet. One 20:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article was originally speedied but I think it may have some notability although the writing is poor. I rather the community decide if this one passes WP:N.JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 22:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has Craig Malisow won any awards for his writing? (I sure hope he didn't write THAT!) or written for a national paper? --Malcolmxl5 22:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since "He is famous and smart.", I suppose we'd better keep the article.... ROTFL. Delete - no (legitimate) claim of notability (unless you count "is a big-time reporter"). While we can verify that Mr. Malisow is a reporter, I haven't been able to find any valid WP:N reasons to keep. -- MarcoTolo 22:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As I read the article I could not help laughing. "He is famous and smart," "Craig Malisow is a big-time reporter." Certainly does not appear notable per WP:BIO. So I believe we should delete this article and by aideu to this "famous and smart" "big-time" reporter. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 23:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Stating that someone is a "famous and smart" "big time reporter" does not make them notable - they have to have already been notable. He is not very famous and deleted! Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 23:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless notability can be established and article is cleaned up per comment below. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 23:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Be sure you look at the links. This guy was busted because his newspaper was doing a piece on internet drug sales. It may make the article notable if re-written. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 23:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did look at the links - but unless I'm missing something, I'm still not convinced that the subject himself is notable (there may also be WP:BLP issues). If the DEA incident had significant ramifications beyond Mr. Malisow getting arrested, perhaps a citation in the Online pharmacy article makes sense? -- MarcoTolo 00:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 01:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is not an acceptable stub. No prejudice against a re-creation of a real article. DGG (talk) 01:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteThough someone should probably move it to Uncyclopedia just for a laugh.Ravenmasterq 02:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article looks like was written by a fan or something, or looks like an advert and poorly written as well. In addition, fails WP:BIO--JForget 16:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Sorry, Random Editor Person...when you wrote this: "So I believe we should delete this article and by aideu to this "famous and smart" "big-time" reporter," did you mean, "...and bid adieu..."? I have never heard the other phrasing/spelling. Maybe it means something that I don't know, and maybe I am misunderstanding, so if that is the case, then I apologize. I may be confused. As for the rest of the comments, I am sorry, I am probably not as good as a writer as all of you people. I guess I do not know how to write it better. Maybe a better writer could look at Craig's material, and write a better article about him? I know I do not do it justice. Sorry about that. This is my first-ever entry, and I am trying to make it acceptable. Thank you for all your help and patience and assistance and suggestions.SLOW93 20:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:BIO. One 20:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 01:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Minor news flap, consequences minor, forgotten. Clear-cut WP:BLP1E candidate. Page now serves to aggregate further document minor legal whatnots of subject, of precipitously lesser news value than the reason the article exists to begin with. Dhartung | Talk 22:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The conflicting claims are entirely OR. This event led to a 4-minute delay of game. Hardly worth an article in a newspaper - not worth an article here. The arguments in the previous AfD are not very compelling. the_undertow ^talk 22:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's no long-term historic notability here. --Malcolmxl5 22:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Although the video of the incident was briefly entertaining, this article is unwarranted. —Travis^talk 22:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. He's had his 15 minutes of fame. Possible ongoing litigation. Bearian 23:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - No historic notability Corpx 03:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - that definitely doesn't look to meet WP:BLP, especially the long bit about being the "true story" that's not got any sources. Notability is very thin. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 04:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable individual despite the high coverage of his misadventure. It may be briefly mentionned in the Yankees Stadium article though.JForget 16:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 01:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John 14:6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A single bible verse without verifiable citation, which appears to have been written only to give a sermon on its meaning (or rather what it means to the author). While I have no doubt there are individual bible passages that are so quoted and prevalent in western civilization that they deserve a wikipedia article analyzing their historical significance...this article and this passage are not even attempting to be such. WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:NOR and underlying POV Markeer 21:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't want to go to Hell, but Delete This article cites no sources, so it is entirely OR. The words are weasley, the interpretations are not verified, and I don't see any 3rd parties referencing this passage, thus making it notable. Regardless of the subject, the article as it stands, does not satisfy requirements for inclusion. Amen. the_undertow ^talk 21:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator's comments. This is not sufficiently backed by reliable, independent sources and is basically comprised entirely of OR. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Amen brother The_undertow, or if you are a women, sister. I have to agree no Reliable sources, and it is also quite POV. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 23:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, amen. This article takes sides in what was a major dispute in theology c. 1530. Bearian 23:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete with no precedent against re-creation. This is a famous verse, the basis of theological debate for centuries before, and after, 1530. Like all such texts, there is an enormous literature, both from a purely theological and from a history of religion perspective. But the article does not reflect it, and offers little to build upon. So far from being POV, it ignores all the discussion and all the POVs, and is therefore meaningless in an encyclopedic sense.DGG (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - DGG has it about right here - it's not a very good article at all, but could probably *be* one down the road, if someone takes the time to develop it with good critical sources, et al. Hallelujah, and all that. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 04:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as biblecruft. 70.55.91.131 08:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Needs quite a bit better interpretation than something out of any Christian theology book.Ravenmasterq 18:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 01:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP is not a directory of prominent people from a religion/caste. This would be the equivalent of List of prominent Methodists or something similar. Also, none of these entries are cited. A category would suffice if any of these people were notable enough to have their own article, but they're not. Corpx 21:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 'Prominent' is far too subjective to warrant a list. As many people are affiliated with a particular religion, a similar list of Christians, Buddhists, or Muslims would be never-ending. the_undertow ^talk 21:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per above. - Kneel17 23:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unsourced, turn it into a category. Corvus cornix 04:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Mukkulathor article, then delete. Mandsford 00:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous editors' reasoning. Merge only "Freedom fighters" section, if necessary. It is the only section containing substance and may be relevant to the general Mukulathor article. --Evb-wiki 01:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Four Pillars of Alexander Hamilton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The title of this article is a metaphor which the author seems to have invented, and which he intensely overworks. Hamilton's financial program is covered under Alexander Hamilton, without the apologetic here. Delete as neologism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as original research and one person's opinion. Bearian 23:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'delete as essay. More detailed articles on Hamilton's policy are probably needed, but this is not the way to go about them. DGG (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think this could be kept if its removed of the four pillars stuff and renamed to something like "Alexander Hamilton's Proposals" or something of that sort. Just replace the intro paragraph with a couple of lines and I think its good. The actual content of the article is pretty solid Corpx 03:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless thoroughly reworked as an expansion of Alexander Hamilton#Secretary of the Treasury: 1789–1795. For one thing, there were five proposals. For another, I can find no reliable source for the "four pillars" trope, or for any other number of pillars. Finally, we already have articles on three of Hamilton's notable reports (I assume there were many, it's just that these were controversial). What we need is two more articles on the missing reports, and an article that ties them together in an historical context, not as stealth policy-pushing. --Dhartung | Talk 07:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Katherine Tredwell 22:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was unable to find any sources at all for this. Seems to be or-ish. Pats Sox Princess 02:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 01:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY as in WP is not a directory (of Indian last names) Corpx 21:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Arbitrary list with no usefulness. the_undertow ^talk 21:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and as listcruft. Bearian 23:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Saini caste article. Mandsford 00:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There is no substance to merge. --Evb-wiki 01:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted neologism. DS 22:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for neologisms or other new creations, and the website listed appears to be a self-publishing place. Nyttend 21:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; sources were added. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 13:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:NOTABILITY. -WarthogDemon 20:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep as it needs cites, but appears to be notable as leader of a zen monastery, if it can be verified. Bearian 23:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Sure the article does need work, but I've been able to find quite a few articles on him on Google, and he's written a few articles and an audio-book. References just need to be added and cited. - Kneel17 23:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, being the head of a Zen Monastery is no more notable than being the pastor of the church next door to my house. Corvus cornix 04:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete when my Priest and Deacons get their own articles, so does this guy. Pats Sox Princess 02:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've added a couple of supporting references, but it is difficult to find material on-line that speaks about Roshi Kjolhede as required by WP:BIO; the vast majority of available material relates to publications that he has authored as opposed to being about him. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per nom. It is not clear what actually makes this gentleman "worthy of notice". --Evb-wiki 11:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Biography with no sources and no few Google or Dogpile hits. Per WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Author removed {{prod}}. —Travis^talk 20:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy G1 Rackabello 20:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep or hopefully, someone out there would remember the guy and write more about him. He is referenced a few times already on wikipedia though, and I'm not altogether qualified to be able to slot this guy in the right area of wikipedia - thats why I made the article a stub. Maybe someone will be able to reference ARIA charts and pick up the controversial pieces off the net on the words to that song - thoughts? --Rdpaperclip 03:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC) T3Smile (talk · contribs · logs) and Rdpaperclip (talk · contribs · logs) - Blocked as sockpuppets. See SSP Achidiac -- Jreferee t/c 15:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete as nonnotable. I found about 350 low-quality google hits - nothing to serve as reliable sources about him. Shalom ^Hello 04:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all of those aren't this Siew Ooi. I found an Intel employee and a Boon-Siew Ooi who is a university professor, for example. After digging deeper, I was able to find a handful of hits: [1] [2] —Travis^talk 13:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable producer for a one-hit wonder's 12-year-old song. Corvus cornix 04:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep, if considered a keep it may have to be categorised somewhere...Corvus, would an article about "One Hit Wonders" and then categorise those hits to countries be a good idea? I think your take on the 12-year-old song is funny. I hated the song :) I could start up the article but would need a lot of help from lots of people. I know where I can get the List of Australian one hit wonders though. Then perhaps, we could mention this guy in there?--T3Smile 16:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC) Update - found one hit wonders but only reference was the 20 to 1 TV show that lists "one hit wonders" of the world according to a commercial poll, not according to the ARIA charts. I think I found an opportunity to add some verifiable info on Australian one hit wonders, maybe after my thesis work on computer pioneers. Where is Glenn A. Baker when you need him?--T3Smile 16:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC) T3Smile (talk · contribs · logs) and Rdpaperclip (talk · contribs · logs) - Blocked as sockpuppets. See SSP Achidiac -- Jreferee t/c 15:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete Notability cannot be established, and the author has not provided references. I am not necessarily stating that he is not notable. With proper referencing this could perhaps be established, but as others have stated there are no reliable third party sources. (Mind meal 22:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per the unanimous consensus. Early non-admin closure. Shalom ^Hello 04:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Air Lines Flight 2315 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is not a notable aviation incident. – Zntrip 20:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree - All the notable data could be covered by expanding the mention in the Flight 175 article. Regards, Lynbarn 20:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Merge and redirect per Akradecki. Next we will be getting articles on the flights that took off before and after flight 175. Near misses are generally not notable. Trusilver 20:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Merge and redirect per comments per nom and Tuesilver. —Travis^talk 20:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to United Airlines flight 175. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to United Airlines flight 175 per Lynbarn Lipsticked Pig 21:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to United Airlines flight 175. I'm surprised it lasted this long, given there are no in-article sources whatsoever. Had no project tag, so that's probably a big reason it's been missed.

- BillCJ 22:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as suggested by three comments above.--JForget 22:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as copyvio of http://sunfairrun.com/xccoach.html. W.marsh 20:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coach Phil English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced biography of a non-notable high-school level track coach. Fails WP:BIO. Trusilver 19:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Also lack context. Where is the alleged school? --Evb-wiki 20:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. I think there's just enough assertion of notability that I didn't speedy-delete it. However, I don't think it satisfies WP:BIO (not a top-level amateur coach and no independent sources). A Google search didn't turn up anything that was primarily about him, other than a speaker bio at a conference. —C.Fred (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable, autobiographical entry. While he does have some media links, that's pretty much only because he's a journalist: they usually do get such links. Severe WP:HOLE issues. The Evil Spartan 19:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable - and mostly edited by a user named Jimschembri... Hm... Wonder who that could be? TruthGal 21:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I tagged it to verify and for stubs. I'm not sure he's notable, and I did not pick up on the COI. Duh. Bearian 23:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 05:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Prominent and notable Melbourne-based journalist and film critic, long-time writer for The Age. Has 44,500 google hits. Any perceived COI/POV can be dealt with on the article page/article talk page.Melburnian 08:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the majority of the Google hits are for online forums and articles by him; not the required reliable third-party sources about him. Gordonofcartoon 13:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Melbournian. Twenty Years 13:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - could those supporting Keep show us RS demonstrating his notability? Mentions in books, newspapers, press awards, etc? Gordonofcartoon 14:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Amazon.com shows that Schembri is an internationally published author of young adult books, and his writings on film have been widely cited in numerous books. --Canley 04:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional keep - prominent and notable but suffering from COI edits. Keep pending cleanup by independent editors. Dbromage 05:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete based on only reference to date being a letter to the editor, albeit from George Miller (apparently) it still doesn't meet my reading of WP:RS. I agree with the comment by Gordon, where are the reliable sources?Garrie 06:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 6,150 articles[3] on the web site of The Age, the major daily newspaper in Melbourne which does not put all its articles online, including 767[4] news section articles and 433[5] op-ed pieces plus all the movie and TV reviews. A further 168[6] in the Sydney Morning Herald. 4 recent articles plus one other mention from the last month on Google News.[7] 21 citations in Google Scholar.[8] And the non-self published books going back to at least 1994 mentioned by Canley, most of which are in the State Library of Victoria[9] and National Library of Australia[10] ("permanent collections of several ... internationally significant libraries" - WP:BIO). I do not see notability as an issue but the autobiographical/COI nature of the article certainly is. However this can be cleaned up by independent editors. Dbromage 06:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty is, though, what can be said about him, when nothing reliably sourced is written about him? Certainly any kind of analysis of his review style/content would be OR. BTW, he appears not to be taking WP:COI seriously; I just had to revert his removal of the tags and reinstatement of the COI material. Gordonofcartoon 11:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete, appears to be prolific, but there seems to be very little material written about him, as opposed to by him. In the absence of reliable sources... (the COI doesn't help either) Lankiveil 12:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dr. Phil (TV series)#Spoofs. I think the little blurb on the muppet is sufficient. Sr13 02:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable character. A parody of Dr. Phil that has not appeared much on Sesame Street. Only noteworthy characters such as Elmo or Big Bird should have articles on Wikipedia, for minor characters such as Dr. Feel, they should only be on the Muppet Wiki. RandomOrca2 18:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Into Dr. Phil (TV series), I think. The Evil Spartan 20:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No merge needed, he's already noted adequately at Dr. Phil Rackabello 20:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge - Fuzheado | Talk 20:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Sesame Street. He's just not ready for his own article. the_undertow ^talk 21:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete based on lack of notability for minor characters WP:FICT Corpx 21:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - I reccommend merging the article into several different articles. The articles would include Sesame Street, Phil McGraw, and Dr. Phil (TV series). Just add a short section in the above articles about our little friend. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 23:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as suggested above which means to Dr.Phil.--JForget 16:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. As an editorial action, I'm redirecting it to David Fonseca until somebody bothers to write any non-crystalball content for this article. Sandstein 07:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per WP:MUSIC, individual songs do not require separate articles unless they are unusually notable and have sources to demonstrate that. In addition, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Prod removed without comment by creator. FisherQueen (Talk) 18:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This article is about David Fonseca's third album first single, that will be hitting the stores this monday! Till then I will not have more info! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mddms 88 (talk • contribs)

• Then you should have waited until Monday to add the article. It's not like Wikipedia's going to disappear by then. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, actually... the originator should have waited until the single came out and it was demostrated that this particular release is notable enough to warrent an article on the individual song.--Isotope23 18:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, based on what i saw, it's common to have the single info placed here before the single is out. The song will be out in 3 days, then I will be able to complete the article. I think it's not necessary to delete it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mddms 88 (talk • contribs).

Comment That only happens when it's 99% confirmed and has notability via WP:MUSIC. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We only establish future articles when nothing short of a nuclear holocaust will interrupt it. -WarthogDemon 18:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's verifiable. You can check the artist official site. It's relevant, because it will receive extensive airplay in Portugal during all the summer. -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mddms 88 (talk • contribs).

But does it meet the standards in WP:MUSIC? Just because the main site says so, doesn't necessarily make it verifiable. -WarthogDemon 19:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"has been covered in sufficient independent works." Saw a reference in two newspapers and heard in on one of Portugal's major radio station (antena 3). "has been ranked on a national or significant music chart" Surely will be soon on Portuguese airplay top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mddms 88 (talk • contribs)

How good a reference was it? And notice that the criterion is "has been ranked", not "will be ranked". And please sign your posts. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not a fan of articles for individual songs, but it appears that this is likely to chart and prove its notability under the current guideline. Keep for now and move to Superstars (song). Maybe this "should have been added Monday", but under the same reasoning, deleting it now is an unnecessary process. The artist is clearly notable, and it seems likely that the song will be notable, and we'll surely know better in a little while. Dekimasuよ! 03:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The song is not notable at this point, based on any information in the article. Except that David Fonseca is involved, and the song will appear soon, there is really no other information. I have no objection to recreating the article later after the song comes out, there has been a chance to add third party commentary, and the song can be judged notable based on the independent sources. EdJohnston 15:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ^♫ 18:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've relisted due to the release date having passed. Previous rational for keeping or deleting may no longer apply.
• Comment Still no sources to demonstrate notability, but that applies to about a million song articles by notable artists which tend not to get nominated for deletion. WP:CRYSTAL is obsolete, and I can't fathom why the nom would start a process one of the rationales for which would change halfway through. WP:CHILL applies here as well. Weakest possible keep as it seems it will be sourceable. --Dhartung | Talk 19:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral but I added the future tag. Bearian 23:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense, the Supreme Court doesn't hear trials. :) NawlinWiki 21:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney Murder Trial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

obvious hoax; was prodded a couple times, author reverted NeilN 18:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, G3 My suggestion--do it now. Blatant hoax. Blueboy96 18:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, even the creator of the article says it's a joke. --RandomOrca2 18:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, I often say that hoaxes do not qualify as nonsense. This is both a hoax and nonsense. --Dhartung | Talk 19:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, obvious hoax. --Theunicyclegirl ^talk 19:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Its obvious that this is a hoax. Why would walt disney be put on a murder trial for killing characters in their films? (Woggy 19:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Super Duper Speedy Delete Unencyclopedic bullocks Rackabello 20:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per all of the above. —Travis^talk 21:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete no need to take this to AFD, nominate nonsense like this for speedy. --Android Mouse 21:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nonadmin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Boy Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No independent and / or reliable sources, no indications of notability. High on a tree 18:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete G11 and A7 Vanity page, as well as notability issues. We don't need to waste our time with this one. Rackabello 20:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Interesting. Sr13 02:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Prod contested, taking to afd at DGG's suggestion. Currently a college player, he has been a member of notable teams. BUT just because one is a member of a notable team doesn't mean you yourself are notable. As I said in my prod, there is no indication of his contribution to the team's success. For all we know, he spent more time on the bench than on the field. Unless someone can demonstrate notability - and include it in the article and not here or on the article's discussion page - I say delete as nn athlete. Postcard Cathy 17:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No notability established. Corpx 21:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• ? - What is the relation between Corben Bone and Alexander Parker? the_undertow ^talk 22:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I forgot that part. Delete because author is seriously confused between title and subject and notability of team vs. notability of player. Cathy

• Good question Corpx 22:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• They're both U.S. soccer players, it seems, though your guess is a good as mine as to why an article about Alexander Parker is titled Corben Bone. --Malcolmxl5 22:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The content refers to a completely different person (Alexander Parker) and there is no evidence that Corben Bone is notable <will that do?>. --Malcolmxl5 22:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Well Then Strong Delete If the subject is not in agreement with the article title, there is a huge problem. In any event, there are no references so there is no way to verify if they (which one, I don't know) pass a sports bio. the_undertow ^talk 22:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say huge problem. Just an annoying problem. Someone who thinks Corben Bone is notable can blank the page and write an article on Corben on this title and if it turns out Alex is notable, then a new page can be started. But that is IF either are notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.146.136.185 (talk • contribs)

I was referencing the fact that it adds immense confusion as for which player we are trying to establish criteria for inclusion. Please remember to sign your posts ;) the_undertow ^talk 00:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Corben Bone is Parade magazine's High School Soccer Player of the year. Corvus cornix 04:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May or may not be notable. I don't know how presitgious of an honor that is so I won't comment. But anyway, if you read the article, the author wrote about Alexander Parker, NOT Corben Bone.

No, I understand your point. Parade always issues a player of the year for all major high school sports, so it's a pretty prestigious award, even if the magazine is free with your Sunday newspaper. Corvus cornix 19:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Parade does that. But I am still not convinced it is a prestigious award. Besides, Corben Bone received the award, not Alexander Parker who is the subject of the article.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default is to keep. Carlossuarez46 18:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

article was initially prodded, but as that has been contested, i have brought the article to be discussed here. i believe it fails WP:BK criteria, and as i wrote on the talk page: there are no apparent reliable or independent sources offering non-trivial review of the book. the only information i could find in the first 100 ghits or so was standard unauthored summaries plastered on retail websites(i.e. [11],[12])- thus no independent review from anyone not actually selling the book- and the only other mention was a trivial title-mention in a Haaretz article. hence, Delete. ITAQALLAH 17:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 17:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 17:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in the absence of reviews showing notabiity. DGG (talk) 02:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. I agree, we don't have enough data to judge notability. ZZ 15:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Book is a collection of writings from very notable experts on radical islam . The book page is also part of David Bukay's bibliography.--CltFn 12:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and DGG. → AA ^(talk) — 12:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As CltFn pointed out, some of the writers are highly notable. -- Karl Meier 21:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • that may justify articles on the writers themselves. there is no reason to believe the book itself is notable as per WP:BK. ITAQALLAH 21:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed - If the individual authors are indeed notable in and of themselves, then saying so in the article (via a sourced statement) would be sufficient to assert notability. The book could be notable due to its content, but notability is not inherited from the book's author(s). Reading the article itself, I have no means to judge why this collection is notable in and of itself - it's just a table of contents. ZZ 23:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, as article now passes WP:BIO. ~ Wikihermit 00:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

She fails WP:NOTE. A Seattle city councilwoman who was appointed, not even elected. Clarityfiend 17:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Although I have seen articles for members of major city councils (e.g. NYC) I am not thrilled with them, unless it's a council/manager form of government, which few major cities are. In most cases the mayor holds the vast majority of the "notable" power in US cities, i.e. appointments & budgets & policies. In such cases I'd like to see real notability established, and WP:BIO does agree; beneath state legislature level, politicians should have substantial coverage of their activities to be notable. That means interviews, initiatives, etc. --Dhartung | Talk 19:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't believe local (as in city-level) politicians are notable. Corpx 21:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete as some city councillors can be notable, but I am not sure that she is notable. Bearian 23:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep if there are more sources. in this particular case, there are no sources given except the appointment. From the one source there is, there seems to have been considerable previous controversy, so perhaps more sources can be found. I dislike blanket statements about local politicians. Some are nonentities, others notable. DGG (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - article is now better sourced. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is not the strongest keep motion ever, but it barely satisfies the goals of WP:BIO by a smidge. Burntsauce 18:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (Copyvio G12) by User:John. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 23:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007/08 Premier League Results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is no need to have a page detailing the results of every Premier League game for the 2007-08 season. The resulting page would be huge, and it is also a violation of the Premier League's copyright over their fixture lists. - PeeJay 17:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Very crufty and Wikipedia is not a sports almanac Rackabello 17:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete' Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Blueboy96 18:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to the copyright issues. I'm sure we deleted monthly result lists several months ago, and this is no different. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a webhost. --Edokter (Talk) 19:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 20:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Un-needed concept, and a terrible article to boot. Copyright violations, fair use violations, the spelling, just UGH! - fchd 20:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete CSD G12?. There is a copyright infringement issue here. Wikipedia is not immune from copyright litigation and this should be speedy deleted. --Malcolmxl5 20:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, no content whatsoever (and possible copyright infringement). --Angelo 21:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment sports results are a matter of fact, and therefore, no matter how much the sports associations that arrange the matches might complain otherwise, are not copyrightable. JulesH 22:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Tell that to the Premier League then. We're here to debate the validity of this article, not copyrightability of sports fixtures. - PeeJay 22:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seriously, this is a copyright infringement. It's the fixture lists that are copyright - see this - and the Premier League is very hot on this issue (though what leverage they'd have on a website outside the UK is another question). Regardless, this should be a speedy G12, and I've tagged it as such. Note that once played, the results are copyright-free. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 22:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the speedy tag; The page in itself is not a copyvio, and hence does not fall under the G12 criteria. Once an article is listed for AfD, it can only be speedy-deleted with a valid reason, and you should not try to derail or speed up the proces to further you point. --Edokter (Talk) 23:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is as blatant a copyright violation as you could ever get. I don't understand your point at all here. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 23:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is, maybe not. Fact is, you should not have replaced the tag: Once removed, the next step is AfD, where it already is. The closing admin always has the option of speedy-deleting it. --Edokter (Talk) 23:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]