Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 20

< September 19	September 21 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Sri Ram Chandra Consciousness

Fails notability test; there are not sufficient reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to afford an encyclopedic article that complies with WP:N, WP:V and WP:NPOV. Renee 22:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated. Renee 22:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I was the original author of this article; can we get a speedy deletion? Renee 00:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same problems as the other related articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on same grounds as for Sahaj Marg article. Duty2love 02:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same reasons as per related article Sahaj Marg Bksimonb 11:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Almost no independent sources exist. Not an educational institute. Bearian 16:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE: The statement in this article and the next comment says it all. ISRC according to Renee (who is biased as a disciple of the SRCM (Chennai) is: "offering a form of Sahaj Marg meditation called Pranahuti Aided Meditation". with Sahaj Marg sending the reader to the Sahaj Marg Page.

THE TRUTH: ISRC is a schism from SRCM (Chennai), and they offer PAM (Pranahuti Aided Meditation), not SAHAJ Marg ("easy path" according to the founder) which is now a registered TRADE MARK (by SRCM (Chennai) meaning "Natural Path" in true SPIRITUAL fashion... These actions are defended by biased admins, also disciples of MASTERs, promoting such ways of LIFE. That's like saying that the protestants (schism) offer a form of "catholic" prayer called "(a different name)...IS THAT NOT OBVIOUS POV push, according to WISER ADMINS?..If there is a revival of these article (SRCM (Chennai), SRCM (Shahjahanpur), Institute of Ram Chandra Counsciousness (ISRC), ADMINS who practice MEDITATION with GURUS should disqualify themselves from MEDIATION on these sites and adding their POV to an already "POV-charged" and vitriolic legal, and even (alleged) violent, dispute... THIS SOUNDS MORE LIKE (DIVISIVE) RELIGION (and it is according to the FOUNDER in his autobiography), not a "UNITING" SPIRITUALITY... WELCOME to the REAL WORLD OF MEDITATION GROUPS...

I looked at the article and there no reason to delete. (no vandalism, not long discussions, not much disagreement that WIKI could surely address. There is much material available that is WIKI acceptable (like a researcher's book from "oxford", books from other individuals,) that Promoters of THE MISSION will not and did not read, so?? And, the article still has "encyclopedic" value in showing the "division" or Seperation of these two groups who are "registered". We can show that these are two seperate groups and schism of the Original Group, without getting into PROMOTING on side of the other, or "maligning".

SUGGESTION Appoint a NEUTRAL UNBIASED MEDIATOR, who would take out all the PR and controversial statements and references and leave the article PROTECTED until the court case is over and ONE SIDE has the NAME, (the claim to the MASTER(s), the registered Trade Mark, maybe even the MATERIAL REAL ESTATE (but that does not matter) and then we can "unlock" it for editors again...

"If WIKI can't deal with this small issue, without deleting it and simply "giving up" then WIKI is not a true "encyclopedia" and is swayed by Religious, Cabals (cross denominational) who have their members become "admins"...(suggested or ordered..to PROTECT THE RELIGION, the COUNTRY, the NATION)

NEUTRAL MEANS a mediator who is:

SECULAR... (not religious, meditator or disciple of a MASTER, at "arm's length" from Religions and the SRCM)
NOT A MEMBER OF THE "INDIA PROJECT" or other "Commercial", anti-FREEDOM OF SPEECH Groups interested in stifling "criticism" of Indian Products, businesses, and organizations.
Believes in the WIKI PROJECT, and its ability to deal with "controversial' and "complex" issues.
Has enough time to read and the ability to evaluate "neutrally", the material presented.
Is able to stand "disagreement" and not so quick to "eliminate" the opposition.

For those who think this is too long, Sorry... Don--don 22:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the article, but I think that Don's ideas for a neutral party to mediate are of central importance. My experience with Renee, when she came to the Alice Bailey article under an RfC, is that while she claimed to be neutral, she was highly partisan from the beginning. So while I can not say that she is wrong here (I do not know), I can say her claims of neutrality can not be trusted. Kwork 16:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add something about the vote of Jamesd1 (below) to 'delete'. If you take a look at his contributions since he started editing on Wikipedia about six months ago, you will see that from the time he began editing up until his 'delete' vote here, he has been a single purpose editor; editing only the Alice Bailey article. With that in mind, it is difficult for me to see what knowledge Jamesd1 could have of Sri Ram Chandra Consciousness in general, or the article about it in particular. On the other hand, considering the enormous help Renee gave to Jamesd1 in his arguments with me about the Alice Bailey article, it is hard not to view his vote here as a pay-back for her help there. Out of fairness, I think he should remove his vote. Kwork 16:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm a non-meditating atheist pig-dog, and I still think your article should be deleted. humblefool ® 22:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' I agree with the deletion reasons of the above editors. James 12:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Ram Chandra Mission (Chennai)

Fails notability test; there are not sufficient reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to afford an encyclopedic article that complies with WP:N, WP:V and WP:NPOV. Renee 22:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated. Renee 22:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request protection against re-creation with opportunity for appeal to admin or arbitration board. Most arguments over the original Shri Ram Chandra Mission page were over (lack of) quality sources with a tendency to disregard Wiki policies. Renee 15:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same problems as the other related articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on same grounds as for Sahaj Marg article. Duty2love 02:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same reasons as per related article Sahaj Marg Bksimonb 11:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE I looked at the article and there no reason to delete. (no vandalism, not long discussions, not much disagreement that WIKI could surely address. There is much material available that is WIKI acceptable (like a researcher's book from "oxford", books from other individuals,) that Promoters of THE MISSION will not and did not read, so?? And, the article still has "encyclopedic" value in showing the "division" or Seperation of these two groups who are "registered" in different countries. We can show that there is a LEGAL DISPUTE without getting into PROMOTING or "maligning".

SUGGESTION Appoint a NEUTRAL UNBIASED MEDIATOR, who would take out all the PR and controversial statements and references and leave the article PROTECTED until the court case is over and ONE SIDE has the NAME, (the claim to the MASTER(s), the registered Trade Mark, maybe even the MATERIAL REAL ESTATE (but that does not matter) and then we can "unlock" it for editors again...

If WIKI can't deal with this small issue, without deleting it and simply "giving up" then WIKI is not a true "encyclopedia" and is swayed by Religious, Cabals (cross denominational) who have their members become "admins"...(suggested or ordered..to PROTECT THE RELIGION, the COUNTRY, the NATION)

NEUTRAL MEANS a mediator who is:

SECULAR... (not religious, meditator or disciple of a MASTER, at "arm's length" from Religions and the SRCM)
NOT A MEMBER OF THE "INDIA PROJECT" or other "Commercial", anti-FREEDOM OF SPEECH Groups interested in stifling "criticism" of Indian Products, businesses, and organizations.
Believes in the WIKI PROJECT, and its ability to deal with "controversial' and "complex" issues.
Has enough time to read and the ability to evaluate "neutrally", the material presented.
Is able to stand "disagreement" and not so quick to "eliminate" the opposition.

For those who think this is too long, Sorry...

Don--don 22:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the deletion reasons of the above editors. James 12:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Ram Chandra Mission (Shahjahanpur)

Fails notability test; there are not sufficient reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to afford an encyclopedic article that complies with WP:N, WP:V and WP:NPOV. Renee 22:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated. Renee 22:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request protection against re-creation with opportunity for appeal to admin or arbitration board. Most arguments over the original Shri Ram Chandra Mission page were over (lack of) quality sources with a tendency to disregard Wiki policies. Renee 15:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't salt titles unless they're being chronically recreated and there's a clear community consensus against them. If this is recreated, the new article is speediable as a recreation of deleted material unless the problems brought up here are addressed in the new article. The avenue for appeal is the talk page of the administrator who closes this discussion, or deletion review.--Chaser - T 19:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So if someone recreates the page with the same name, does it undergo some sort of review or is it just made? Also, since those names of deleted pages are on our watchpages, if they re-appear will they appear on our watchpage again, or how do we know if someone has recreated it beyond a search every day? Renee 20:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same problems as the other related articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on same grounds as for Sahaj Marg article. Duty2love 02:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same reasons as per related article Sahaj Marg Bksimonb 11:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE I looked at the article and there no reason to delete. (no vandalism, not long discussions, not much disagreement that WIKI could surely address. There is much material available that is WIKI acceptable (like a researcher's book from "oxford", books from other individuals,) that Promoters of THE MISSION will not and did not read, so?? And, the article still has "encyclopedic" value in showing the "division" or Seperation of these two groups who are "registered" in different countries. We can show that there is a LEGAL DISPUTE without getting into PROMOTING or "maligning".

SUGGESTION Appoint a NEUTRAL UNBIASED MEDIATOR, who would take out all the PR and controversial statements and references and leave the article PROTECTED until the court case is over and ONE SIDE has the NAME, (the claim to the MASTER(s), the registered Trade Mark, maybe even the MATERIAL REAL ESTATE (but that does not matter) and then we can "unlock" it for editors again...

If WIKI can't deal with this small issue, without deleting it and simply "giving up" then WIKI is not a true "encyclopedia" and is swayed by Religious, Cabals (cross denominational) who have their members become "admins"...(suggested or ordered..to PROTECT THE RELIGION, the COUNTRY, the NATION)

NEUTRAL MEANS a mediator who is:

SECULAR... (not religious, meditator or disciple of a MASTER, at "arm's length" from Religions and the SRCM)
NOT A MEMBER OF THE "INDIA PROJECT" or other "Commercial", anti-FREEDOM OF SPEECH Groups interested in stifling "criticism" of Indian Products, businesses, and organizations.
Believes in the WIKI PROJECT, and its ability to deal with "controversial' and "complex" issues.
Has enough time to read and the ability to evaluate "neutrally", the material presented.
Is able to stand "disagreement" and not so quick to "eliminate" the opposition.

For those who think this is too long, Sorry...

Don--don 22:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' I agree with the deletion reasons of the above editors. James 12:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\^talk 01:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solo One Graffiti Artist

This is a good-faith nomination, that I'm bringing here in order to form a concensus on notability. I don't think this particular arist is notable, although the 'crew' he works for might be. Apparently, He has appeared in the national and local press, most recently on the cover of the Telegraph, and has been interviewed by hip-hop DJ and presenter Tim Westwood on BBC Radio 1 and in radio programmes around the world. While this would make him notable, I certainly don't remember seeing him on the front page of the Telegraph (A major, slightly right-wing UK Newspaper), so I'm a bit iffy about this. Comments? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 00:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found the entry interesting but Wiki demands verifiable and reliable sources. There are no sources provided, not to mention the required secondary sources. With some sources it might be worth keeping but it's weak. Renee 02:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 02:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to re-creation if sourced. I tried a NewsBank (UK newpaper archive) search - one ref to an exhibition. Google finds a couple of e-magazine interviews, but it's mostly forums and blogs. I suspect WP:COI anyway - not that that is reason per se for deletion - but once everything unsourced and unverifiable goes, there's not much to assert notability. Gordonofcartoon 03:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gordonofcartoon, - Modernist 15:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Irish Times (August 7, 2000) Anti-GM message is writ large by artists. by Elaine Keogh mentions "In the middle of it all is a mutant, the work of Solo One, a.k.a. Boyd Hill from Kilburn, London." I could not find any other reliable source material to use in the article. -- Jreferee T/C 15:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing really asserts notability. By the by, there are some very good, rightly renowned graffiti artists. Sadly, Wikipedia seems to allow almost anyone who has sprayed a wall to have an article - which kinds of downs the rest. You might look into it... Marcus22 20:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Although the Keep !voters put forward a strong argument that the article was better-sourced than most articles at this time, there was the problem that all the sources are primary sources (referring directly to songs, poetry etc.) and therefore constitute original research. I considered a merge and redirect, but there is already a lengthy section at Kent_State_shootings#Artistic_tributes. (Note: This closure does not prejudice re-creation, provided that reliable secondary published sources are cited.) Walton^One 14:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kent State shootings in popular culture

A cluttered trivial list of mentions isn't notable. This is yet another "let's move the information to make the main article smaller". Condense! Don't just move the content if you don't have to. RobJ1981 23:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. and tag main article section to be condensed. Mystache 00:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wp:trivia, most notable influences should be mentioned in main article--Victor falk 00:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was prepared to hate this article, expecting little more than "Four Dead in Ohio" and a bunch of movie quotes. However, this actually is well sourced. This event doesn't provoke the emotion now that it did 37 years ago, but it inspired a lot of ballads in the 70s. Mandsford 00:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I dont' know what's going on, but the whole page is back in the main article. Where it belongs, in my opinion. MarkBul 00:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me... Mandsford 01:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge referenced material. Subject has had an influence on popular culture and it is definitely encyclopedic to note that influence. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not the worst IPC article, but as this is already in Kent State shootings there is no use in having a separate article, and this doesn't have to be kept as it was always in the main article's edit history, so GDFL isn't a problem here. Crazysuit 02:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Already merged where it should be. Renee 02:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kent State shootings or Delete.--LAZY 1L 04:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC) sockpuppet GRBerry 03:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As is said above even by those wishing delete, not a particularly bad article of its sort. This sort of topic is notable: the cultural ramifications of major political events generally are.And it's sourced. and notability is permanent.DGG (talk) 05:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a trivia dump. The KSS is one subject where I can imagine there might be published articles about its presentation in pop culture, but the article doesn't cite any. Gazpacho 07:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

added one. This is also discussed in most of the several dozen books about the events. DGG (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mandsford , DGG, et al. Sourced, not overly POV. Needs more in-line cites. Bearian 16:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic by itself is not notable for an article, most of the references in the list are minor and the major things can be widdled and put on the main page. Again, we are not debating whether the shootings are notable, that's a given and it's has it's own article. But a spinoff of trivial mentions, no. This violates WP:NOT in several areas, total trivia. Dannycali 20:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 21:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep a well done example of this kind of page. Artw 05:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dielectric wireless receiver

Also Wireless dielectric receiver.

This appears to be a completely new scientific invention, or relatively new and untested concept [1] [2]. As such, it likely falls well short on the WP:NOR guideline. I cannot find a guideline, though it has to exist somewhere, that says that Wikipedia is not for new concepts which are just being submitted to a scientific journal. The Evil Spartan 23:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This article is well sourced by peer-reviewed journals, like this. I agree that new inventions and advertising should stay out of Wiki, but if this item has been around long enough to appear in peer-reviewed journals I think it's worth keeping Wiki on the cutting edge. Renee 02:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I understand that this has appeared in peer-reviewed journals, but I feel that including this still verges on crystal ballery, and steering clear might not be a bad idea until it garners some more mainstream acceptance. Rackabello 05:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not original research, published in a few articles in good peer reviewed journals. That should be the basis for a decision to keep or delete, not the opinions of Wikipedia editors as to whether it will be important in the future, or whether radios are actually built using it. Frome readin g the Wikipedia article, it seems to be saying that opto-isolation (a well established technique for isolating electronic circuits) could be used to keep high voltage electromagnetic pulses from getting into radios and destroying the transistors. Edison 16:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everything proposed in a journal article is not notable. There needs to be some evidence that others than the authors of the papers think it notable. DGG (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The topic of electromagnetic weapons is notable, as evidenced by the first referenced article in IEEE Spectrum, which only discusses the field generally and not the ADNERF receiver being described in this article. The ADNERF proposal is contained in one conference paper and one journal paper, both by the same authors. There is no third-party commentary on the importance or workability of ADNERF, so I'm voting Delete. (Journal publication of the idea just implies that the experiments were good and the calculations correct, not that the idea is important or ready for general use). The creator of the WP article is named Ayazi, which is the same as one of the paper authors, so there seems to be a conflict of interest. EdJohnston 03:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Explains a valid concept, well laid out and cited. Mbisanz 19:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG & per nom. Literally millions of trial balloons for inventions, products, or other things exist, they're not all notable. Carlossuarez46 20:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Muth

Non-notable. Only claim to fame is his apparent appearance as a talking head in a single documentary. But, although he's listed in the cast, his name doesn't even come up in the plot description at http://www.answers.com/topic/the-one-percent?cat=entertainment. No sources, not much on Google other than his own website. There are more hits for a German soldier than for him. Corvus cornix 23:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Rackabello 23:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Renee 02:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything said above. — Wen li ^(contribs) 02:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton^One 14:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco Rumble

Appears speculative in nature, very little information. No WP:SOURCES, problems with WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL Rackabello 23:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless expanded with sources. If this could be expanded with sources, it's probably worth keeping. In its current state it should be deleted. Renee 02:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as possible hoax, don't see anything about this or these names at the San Francisco Chronicle archive search Zedla 08:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I went to the ABA website to see if this team actually exists, and it sure does. Here's the link: http://www.abalive.com/teams/teampage.cgi?teamid=SAFR--Section8pidgeon 09:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete (per CSD A7 - no assertion of notability). Angelo 23:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Wink and Mr Feeb

Contested prod. Article is about a self-admitted amateur film, with no assertion of notability and even fewer sources. While it is not an all-powerful factor, the fact that a Google search for the title (with quotes) returns 0 results, and without quotes returns few relevant results, shows that this is not well known. The article states that the films are popular on YouTube, where a search reveals that both have been viewed less than 160 times, and no other results were found. I'm all for cleaning up articles, but I don't think this will ever meet the requirements for inclusion on Wikipedia. Ale_Jrb ^talk 22:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete dictionary definition of the {{db-web}} criteria. Rackabello 23:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-Tagged Rackabello 23:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Nadet

Prod removed with the message that the article had been prod'ed before. The article has little to no improvement since the first prod was removed. The article is about a non-notable wrestling ref. Nikki311 22:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Nikki311 22:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although verified by two citations, I fail to see how a ref is notable. Fee Fi Foe Fum 03:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete totally non-notable. The references is to a fan-site and to a trivial mention in passing from an obscure WWE house show (in Italian no less) neither of them help establish notability by the wikipedia guidelines. MPJ-DK 13:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Renee 13:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\^talk 01:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silent clock

Non-notable trivial detail about the TV show "24". The sources cited are not independent and do not even mention this "silent clock" as far as I can tell. The article fails WP:N, WP:NOR and WP:V. Contested PROD. Sandstein 22:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I would say merge, but there is nothing non-trivial or verifiable that I could find, which could be included in the 24 main article. Rackabello 23:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Truly frightening that anyone would even notice this. It does not, however, violate WP:V ... you, too, could obsessive-compulsively monitor the clock ticks by the miracle of videotape. Kww 00:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My head is exploding! MarkBul 00:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article will self-delete in T minus zero five, twenty four, seventy twelve.--Victor falk 01:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. — Wen li ^(contribs) 02:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It would be interesting to merge what happened at different time points into the main 24 article. Renee 13:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Info is on 24's wiki anyway, so it won't be lost. TubularWorld 20:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inner family archetypes

The subject of this article comes from the self-help book Why We Do What We Do: Four Pathways to Your Authentic Self. I cannot find any reliable, independent resources to establish notability outside the book; additionally, an editor has voiced a concern that this article's text is a potential copyright violation of this page. Suggest deletion as a theory that has not yet gained sufficient notability to warrant an article. --Muchness 22:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I feel strongly this amounts to original research if it is not a more widely recognized descriptive paradigm. Pig^man 04:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, not verifiable or reliable. Renee 13:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some of this page is very similar to [3]. Possible copyright violation? --Coppertwig 02:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is no sourced information to merge. MastCell ^Talk 22:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bitterman

Bitterman is just a 3-5 window comic that appears in an occaisional section in MAD. I'm not exactly sure this is notable enough. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 22:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with MAD Magazine, I think, or delete entirely. The article's assertion that it's an occasional feature seems to militate against its being considered as notable on its own. Accounting4Taste 00:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mandsford (below) is absolutely right; I misread the article, it's a regular feature but, also as per Mandsford, I think the contributors themselves are notable but not necessarily the features. Accounting4Taste 04:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per 4Taste. I think the article indicates that it's a regular feature rather than an occasional one. Haven't read MAD in awhile, but I'm surprised that the author isn't listed, since articles have been written about Martin, Berg, Jaffee, Aragones. etc. Mandsford 00:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. Is there a 'who cares' category for deletion (for significance of topic)? This falls into that category. Renee 13:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete Not notable on its own. Mbisanz 19:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 21:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Washington (footballer)

Delete. Contested prod. Non-notable footballer who has never played professionally. [4] ArtVandelay13 22:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ArtVandelay13 22:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable footballer. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 22:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete non-notable amateur soccer player who doesn't assert any notability Rackabello 23:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some other notability is demonstrated. --Dweller 23:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as a courtesy, it's usual to notify people when articles are listed for speedy or AfD. I notice that neither the originator, nor the person who claims he's played professionally have been notified of this AfD (nor, in the case of the originator, of the speedy tag that was placed). Note to closing admin - please ensure in particular that the editor who claimed Washington has played professionally has been warned and had some time to respond. --Dweller 23:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at least do not speedily delete. The article claims he plays for a notable football club; that's an assertion of notability. I'll be looking into this a bit more; give me and the user who removed the prod template a few hours. Of course, if the guy is really non-notable, I will not object to the article's deletion. --Ag ü eybaná 23:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I found this, which, although not a third-party source, proves that he played in a game. Therefore, he meets the notability criteria. I will be looking for more sources. Please reconsider your comments, guys. --Ag ü eybaná 23:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See [5]. He played in a game against the Lincoln Moorlands Railway F.C.. Therefore, he satisfies the criteria, which say that for a footballer to be considered notable, he must have played in a fully professional league, which he has done. --Ag ü eybaná 00:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The Northern Counties East is not a fully professional league ChrisTheDude 07:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - that's just enough.--JForget 00:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Northern Counties East is not a fully professional league ChrisTheDude 07:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only sources I can find show him to have played for A.F.C. Emley, which would discount him from the criteria shown at WP:SPORT (which is a proposed guideline and not yet ratified) and also WP:BIO in that he hasn't been shown to play for a club in a fully professional league. He was signed to Huddersfield (a team that does meet the criteria) but only as a trainee [6] and never played a game for them in The Football League (the three leagues that comprise the lower echelons of professional football in England). Wakefield have also never played in a fully professional league. As a side note, the Northern Counties East Football League is a non-professional league and stands at level 10 of the English football league system which is 6 levels below the professional leagues. Nanonic 00:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict with Nanonic) Delete WP:SPORT is a proposed guideline, a work-in-progress, and cannot be used at this time to support notability imo, Agüeybaná. WP:BIO is the relevant one here and the subject must have played in a fully professional league. Your source shows that he played for Emley F.C., who do not play in a fully-professional league. The article does state that he played for Huddersfield Town who do play in a fully-professional league, but on checking with soccerbase[7], he was there for nine months as a trainee and made no first-team appearances. Regretfully, as he has made no appearances in a fully professional league WP:BIO, I go for delete. --Malcolmxl5 00:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no matches ever played at a professional level, and no other claim to notability that I can find. Contrary to what Agüeybaná states above, the Northern Counties East League is not a professional league, as kinda given away by the fact that there's a team in it called Yorkshire Amateur...... ChrisTheDude 07:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, never played for Huddersfield. No reason to keep. Punkmorten 08:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not played in a fully professional league (WP:BIO). Number 5 7 13:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Renee 13:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nanonic, unless and until reliable sources are produced to show he has played in a professional league he is not notable. Davewild 16:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable sports-cruft. I also think the assertion that playing in 'one' game in a sports league makes someone notable. Complete nonsense.Ryoung122 09:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with you completely Ryoung. You know, for Cricketeers and Baseball players a single appearance (no matter how short or insignificant) qualifies as notable under Wikipedia Guidelines, absolutely absurd. Rackabello 00:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton^One 15:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Michael Hensel

Fails WP:BIO, weakly claims notabilty for being the world record holder for most wheelies in a wheelchair, which isn't a significant record, just trivia. Delete Blahblahme 21:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nom, please use {{afd2}} next time.

Delete. I looked numerous places to verify notability as a poet, and while he has published and has even been quoted in a book, he doesn't seem close to reaching WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 22:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Renee 13:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is Robert M. Hensel and I would like to have a chance to defend myself if I may. First of all, I am not in the Guinness Book and Ripley's for the most wheelies in a wheelchair rather for the longest non stop wheelie in a wheelchair traveling 6.178 miles. Far as me being a poet, I have be widely published in print and on the internet with over 900 publications. I have been chosen to be published in The Dictionary of International Biography Which is published through The International Biographical Centre, of Cambridge, England. I am also going to be published in The international Dictionary of experts and Expertees through The American Biographical Institute. Their are lesser notable people than I that have pages within this site. For those who still feel that I am unworthy to be included, I ask for please refer to the following website:

Thank You, Robert M. Hensel

KEVO:

Sudoku Daily

Things other People Accomplished when they were your age(type 33)

INTERNATIONAL POETRY HALL OF FAME!

Selected Classic Poems

Famous Birthdays:

The Australian Poetic Society

Crystal Clouds:

E-bility:

World Poets Society

Atl President's Corner

Time Quotes

Harvey Ball World Smile Foundation:

The Painter's Keys

Special Needs Familys Fun:

Assortment of Quotes

Contact any Celebrity Website

Famous Why

Artslant

Biorythm Chart on Robert M. Hensel

S9.com

Disney Forums

Celebrites Selection out of Britian

Celebrity Black Book

Mail Hollywood

Said What?

Celebrity Zodiac

Famous Poeple & Spina Bifida

Famous People with Disabilities

The Delaware State Rehabilitation Council Newsletter

LeCalandar

Famous Poems and Poets

Northbrook College

North Cape Provincial Government

Famous Quotes/ Famous sayings

PoemHunter.com

Skyline Magazine Pushcart Nominations for 2005

wow4uquotes.com

Out of the Blue Art Gallary

Keep as a stub. The Wheelie world record is not notable enough for me, but the publication of poetry seems to be sufficient, and is demonstrated in at least one reference. I believe that Wheelierecord (talk · contribs) is Mr. Hensel or someone closely associated with him; please see WP:COI. The longer article at Robert M. Hensel should be turned into a redirect. Shalom ^Hello 17:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coment while the wheelie record seems more notable to me than the poetry ... we need to confirm both. I'm afraid the long list of external sites was useless, being mostly self-submitted bios. Rich Farmbrough, 11:06 26 September 2007 (GMT).

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

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

The result was Keep, no consensus for deletion.--JForget 23:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games)

Nothing here isn't already on a list or can't be made into a category DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this isn't a category, it might as well be. That there are individual articles about many of the Sonic characters is nauseating (granted, some of the blue links go to articles such as Other characters in Sonic the Hedgehog). Mandsford 00:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I can see some little elementary school kid first learning how to use library resources being thrilled upon coming across this. It does give a complete listing and would be a shame to go to waste. Renee 13:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment How is that addressing the problems. Wikipedia doesn't keep articles just because an 11 year old might find them useful. notability and verifiability are the top priority. DurinsBane87 22:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:SAL so its a valid list. ~~The characters are just waiting for a motivated editor to make pages for them.~~ Viperix 00:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And why would they make a page for any of those characters if the pages would just get deleted for being unotable, keeping the page for a list of Red links isn't a valid reason. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 12:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just re-checked and none of the links are red, in my opinion they all link to where they should go. and your right, no new pages need be made. Of course the more notable characters deserve their own pages and seem to already have them. Suggesting that none of the characters in sonic are notable would be absurd. This article still passes SAL, is encyclopedic, and (for once) not written in a in-universe style. Viperix 01:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Viperix and Renee. By the way I made the article and it has been on the board for 2 years running (plus it was my first ever edit). This list can be used for reference and a quick shortcut for users who are researching up on the characters and need an easy way to locate the articles without having to go on complicated searches. I stand by what I said and support all Keeps. Evilgidgit 13:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep I say this is a decent and useful page should someone ever want to have a quick check on all the charicters instead of going from one page to another which saves time. Behellmorph 10:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Coment And? This is an example of WP:USEFUL. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 12:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is still better kept as category. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 12:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relevant informationa nd not prone to bloating like product lists. Mbisanz 19:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 19:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki fever

Looks like a dictionary entry for a term someone made up. Kww 21:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:N, WP:OR (possibly,) WP:NOT#DICT OSborn^arf 21:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable neologism, and a dicdef to boot. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 22:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability. • Lawrence Cohen 22:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete wrong on so many levels, WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:N, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, etc.... Rackabello 23:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOT, etc. per above. It follows only one "WP:" abbreviation: WP:INTERESTING. szyslak 23:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why is it that everybody wants to coin a word? The Wiki- variations are the least imaginative of all... I'm Wiki sicky about it. Mandsford 00:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, total neologism, totally unsourced, totally unnotable. But let's admit that we do this all the time. TheLetterM 02:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research and non-notable. — Wen li ^(contribs) 02:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why isn't this being speedily deleted?--Mostargue 09:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWhat category of speedy would you suggest?Kww 09:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How about A7?--Mostargue 00:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't apply. This isn't "real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content". Kww 01:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh well, I recommend Speedy Delete anyways. This is definitely a case of WP:IAR if I ever saw it.--Mostargue 06:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR. --Alksub 22:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of South Korean footballers

List is redundant with Category of same name should be deleted per prior concensus. E.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English footballers Jogurney 21:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Jogurney 21:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. —PC78 23:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The giant nav template full of red links says it all. PC78 23:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant. Punkmorten 08:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent - a category suffices. Plus title is misleading - many of the people on the list are not South Korean... Number 5 7 13:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Akon awards and nominations

WP:NOT#INFO. This article is an indiscriminate collection of information, of a level of detail well in excess of that justifiable in a general encyclopaedia. This list belongs on a fansite somewhere. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The more notable and internationally recognised awards should be mentioned in his article, some are completely non notable and really, where does one draw the line with this sort of thing ? Nick 22:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Why not just add this information into his article...? • Lawrence Cohen 22:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for this as a separate article. FCYTravis 08:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - The deletes have the upper hand, and the issues pertaining to WP:NOT an indiscrimant collection of information and the lack of sources push this over the line.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burger King menu items

rather uncyclopedic, WP:NOT a resterant menu or a indiscriminate collection of information, Delete-- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jaranda. Per WP:NOT, this list of uncyclopedic terms is not really needed. Nishkid 64 02:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft. --Exarion 02:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McDonald's menu items. --- RockMFR 03:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the keep votes came from a WP:ILIKEIT point of view which isn't a valid reason for keeping an article, they should have been discounted. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taco Bell menu. JuJube 03:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless we want to add menus for all restaurants around the world <grin> Jkstark 03:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Only the notable ones. :) --Czj 22:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEANS, <cough><cough> Bwithh 03:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above Bwithh 03:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could be interesting for people who are preparing for their first trip to BK, but still WP:NOT Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 03:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I like it. Kidding! Delete and redirect to Burger King. JuJube 03:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — to Burger King. Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 03:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is way too long for a merge Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Special orders do upset us WP:NOT Jeepday 03:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just checked Special:Whatlinkshere/Burger_King_menu_items a number of the items on this list have their own articles. The status of those articles might also be called in to question. As I think Croissan'Wich might have problems meeting WP:N and/or be considered Advertising signed Jeepday 13:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per McDonald's menu items. While "I like it" is not valid per WP:ILIKEIT, "indiscriminate" WP:NOT is not valid either. It doesn't match any of the reasons given under WP:NOT. "Delete unless we want to add menus for all restaurants around the world" isn't valid anymore than adding one biography means we have to add everyone on Earth. While a list of menu items isn't of value, a list with commentary and with calories would be valuable, since they aren't provided by Burger King in an easy to use format. The list also makes it easy to compare Burger King vs. McDonalds menu items. Its more than a menu when it contains commentary. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:V and I don't see any sources, just a pile of external links. The topic is not encyclopedic and fails WP:NOT (for that matter so does the McDonald's one). And for God's sake, please stop with the "Well Article X is here, so Article Y should stay". It's not a keep argument. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 04:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as there is a page for McDonald's menu items, and the article is more than a run-down of the Burger King menu. It also includes the history of different items, as well as discontinued and international variations. --Mrath 04:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to re-AFD the McDonald's page as for the same reason on this and invalid reasoning on the AFD, just because McDonald's page exist doesn't mean this page has to exist as well. That is clearly not a valid reason for keeping. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's well enough written, but there's still no real reason for the article. Definitely a violation of WP:V.--Wizardman 04:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this ad. Doczilla 07:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; all menu items are listed more concisely on the {{Burger King}} template. Krimpet 07:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Restaurant menus vary from place to place, and from country to country for that matter. The "staples" in the menu (Whopper etc.) can get a mention in the main Burger King article, but trying to compile a full list of items is untenable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sjakkalle, who is completely correct in saying that such a list is either untenable (due to variation) or pointless as the "star items" should be on the main page anyway. It is true that perhaps this information could in and of itself useful and should be kept somewhere. Just very definitely not here. Marm^(t) 09:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Burger King, keeping article history. --Czj 09:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Keep - NPOV, verifiable history of a very notable restaurant's menu. It's not an ad as some have suggested. The info is not all available centrally on the restaurant's site -- what about discontinued items? Perhaps it needs clean-up, but it should be kept. --Czj 22:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a menu. MER-C 10:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic list of food. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. As what Sjakkalle said, BK's menu items varies in every country, so this page is not at all useful. Maybe just list a number of their well known items on the main article itself. Terence Ong 10:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neither Burger King or McDonalds are, by any stretch of the immagination, restaurants! Markb 11:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And get rid of this article, as well. I don't see why a list of products sold at a retail outlet deserve their own entry on Wikipedia, or are we going to have an entry listing all the items that Wal Mart sell? Markb 11:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Looking at the article, it looks like just about every non-generic (i.e. trademarked) item sold by Burger King has an article anyway, and the ones I looked at listed versions and regional variations for those products. This article provides an OK structural context and is NPOV, hence the weak keep. Also as usual, I disagree with the "slippery slope" arguments that "every restaurant in the world will have to have their menu on Wikipedia" if this is kept. Those pointing to WP:ILIKEIT to "invalidate" the arguments of others are, I hope, aware that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is also a shortcut to that page. --Canley 13:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the grounds that it appears there is a consensus to keep the McDonald's menu article, and therefore in order to maintain WP:NPOV we can't discriminate. And yes, I do know that this could result in articles being created for Dairy Queen, Wendy's, Harvey's, White Castle, etc etc but if a precedent is going to be set by keeping the McDonald's article, I can't in good conscience vote to delete an article about a competing company. (For the record I'm abstaining from voting on the McDonald's article because at this point a delete/keep vote will make little difference). 23skidoo 13:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and delete the McDonald's one too. Jefferson Anderson 16:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As-well as the article being irrelevant, you can tell just by the title that it doesn't belong on wikipedia.Tellyaddict 16:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Burger King if there's anything salvagable. Also, please avoid WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments. -Ryanbomber 16:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a logical subarticle of Burger King, which as a major international brand (even if not at the level of McDonald's) receives media interest in its menu changes. The information is not indiscriminate (though much of the other brands section could be trimmed) and WP:V/WP:OR issues may be dealt with through cleanup or dispute resolution. --Dhartung | Talk 18:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McDonald's menu items (2nd nomination). --- RockMFR 20:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the creator and primary editor of this article. (Jerem43)

The are several reasons I created the article:

To help show how BK adapts it product lines for the local taste across the globe. Being a large multinational corporation, Burger King has chosen to adapt its product lines to the markets they are operating in. The Burger King menu items article is in fact showing a facet of the corporate business strategy BK has chosen to employ as it expands globally.
There were numerous commentaries in the Burger King Talk section about article being US-centric, specifically the Products and Advertising sections. Because of the large number of local menus and advertising programs BK has around the globe, to add all of the information from all global menus and advertising would make the primary article too large and unwieldy. With this in mind, I created the two secondary articles Burger King menu items and Burger King advertising to more accurately and thoroughly cover the information.
The main Burger King article was over the 50 KB range, because people had added information to the Products and Advertising sections of the article n an attempt to address point 2.
After seeing the McDonald's, Ford, Unilever and other articles, there seemed to be a precedence of showing products of these corporations. In each of these articles there there is a master list or table of contents listing the products the companies sell or manufacture. Furthermore that list or TOC have links to secondary articles that give more detail on the products. While the Burger King menu items is a separate article from the main Burger King article, it is providing the same function of the lists that are seen in those other articles. Please note that the there is a request to separate the Ford article into a main corporate article and a separate product article, this would follow the same structural pattern that I used in creating this article.
In listing the menu items, I was attempting show how BK uses corporate cross licensing to help grow market share. Specifically, in the Beverages section you will see that BK sells specific products of other companies (Coca-Cola Corporation, Cadbury-Schweppes, Nestlé and Hershey's) to help drive customer sales. It has been shown that people exhibit brand loyalty, and this is one way BK exploits that brand loyalty in boosting its market share.
In listing the menu items, I attempted show how BK targets specific demographic markets. If you read the article, you will see that several, but not all, have the demographic target that BK is attempting to reach with that product. (I had been cleaning up other BK related articles and was going to finish the tagging demographic markets of the products, but had not gotten back to the article.)
Burger King is not in all markets: China, Russia and many other nations do not have Burger King restaurants. The Burger King menu items article could provide people of these regions an idea of what BK sells. This adheres to the mission of Wikipedia in providing an unbiased informational source. If people of those markets went to BK's corporate web site for that data, they would not be getting unbiased information.

Based on these facts, the 'Burger King menu items article is not trivia or just a list of menu items, but instead it helps to show some of the corporate strategies (e.g. demographic targeting, co-branding and local market awareness) BK employs in competing in the global market.

In addition, I am sure that if you research the Wikipedia database you will find similar precedence of having a separate article relating to products sold by a corporation.

Jerem43 18:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a major difference between a list of products from something like Coca-Cola or Ford from this, the main thing is that it's a store, that the menu here can change all the time and it's different for all parts of the world, unlike ford kraft or coca-cola. You are basiclly saying that you are endorsing articles of a listing of every product for every major brand like Wal-Mart, which wikipedia is WP:NOT for, there is a limit Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is flawed.

Wal*Mart is a retail chain, not a manufacturer. Burger King is a manufacturer, specifically of a food product that is designed for immediate consumption. You do not think of it as a manufacturer, but it is. A store is a retail establishment that usually sells pre-manufactured products, while a manufacturer takes raw or semi finished materials and constructs a product to sell. The product maybe sold at a retail establishment, on on-site or through private vendors. In addition, a restaurant, while not only manufacturing the product (food), it provides a place to consume the product (food), but does not have to.
The menu does not change on a consistent basis, in fact is fairly stable. BK offers special products on occasion (e.g. special Whopper varieties) as does Coca-Cola (e.g. Special flavors of Sprite) and Ford (e.g. Eddie Bauer Explorer). Like Ford, it removes non-selling (Ford Excursion, CCC's Tab product) products from its lines when necessary.
Wikipedia provides an informational source of products manufactured by Hershey's, Nestle and others. They are manufactures of food products designed for resale, while restaurants such as BK or McDs are are manufactures of food product designed for immediate consumption; just because the food is consumed in different venues does not matter, both groups should be treated equally.

Jerem43 22:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a resterant Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. The point is that a restaurant is specialized form of manufacturing with multiple manufacturing locations and whose product is designed for immediate consumption by its customers. Just because it is a restaurant does not mean that it should be treated any differently than the other manufacturing companies listed in Wikipedia. The article is not just a list of products, but a slice of the way BK targets its consumer base: it has data on the demographics the products target, reasons why it chooses to remove products from its menu and what BK does to its menu to compete in "foreign" markets. I fully intend to expand the article further to explain the process BK bring its products to market (I worked in the hospitality industry for 25 years and have experience with market development of products), which will help make the article truly encyclopedic. Please reconsider your request for deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jerem43 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Ah, so you are arguing that Burger King outlets are not the same as other stores, they are actually (manu)factories? I would be interested in some evidence to back this claim up, especially considering that, where applicable, local licensing authorities class them as retail outlets *not* factories, and Burger King agrees. In the UK, for example, Burger King would not be allowed to open one of their factories in an area designated for retail. I suspect the same holds true elsewhere. Could anyone give me an example in the US, say, where a shopping mall contains a mixture retail outlets, Burger Kings and a steel mill? Markb 08:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your are twisting my argument- At no time did I use the term factory. You are seeking to discredit my argument with data that seem to be applicable but are really not. You do not have to have a giant mill or factory to manufacture a product. Examples would the people who make hand crafted jewelery, weavers who make there own cloth for sale, tailors who manufacture custom clothing, potters who make hand thrown stoneware- all of these people are manufacturing products, usually in a small location that also usually serves as their retail outlet. Yes BK is a retail outlet- it serves food products that are manufactured on site, as do brewpubs, bakery cafes, chocolate stores, small coffee roasting houses etc. Look at the definition of manufacturer from Webster's:

man·u·fac·tur·er: one that manufactures; especially : an employer of workers in manufacturing

Pronunciation: -'fak-ch&r-&r, -'fak-shr&r

Function: noun

What is manufacturing? Webster's defines it as such:

man·u·fac·ture

Pronunciation: "man-y&-'fak-ch&r, "ma-n&-

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle French, from Medieval Latin manufactura, from Latin manu factus, literally, made by hand

1 : something made from raw materials by hand or by machinery

2 a : the process of making wares by hand or by machinery especially when carried on systematically with division of labor

2 b : a productive industry using mechanical power and machinery

3 : the act or process of producing something

Notice that it does not say giant factory or mill. Based on the definition, all restaurants are manufactures; just as Coca-Cola, Nestle, Ford, Sony, Dow etc are. Just as these companies' products are important and noteworthy, restaurant menus from these fast food restaurants are too- they affect major societal issues like health (Mr. Spurlock's film showed this), the economy (several million burgers are sold each day generating tens of millions of dollars in revenue) and business practices (these companies spend millions on product development, and the failure of these items can be detrimental to the company). The menu is an integral part of the business operations of these companies and to delete them would be removing an important piece of the main article. I have stated my opinion as why Jarada's argument for deletion is flawed and that the article should be kept. I believe that it meets accepted Wikipedia standards for articles.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jerem43 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McDonald's menu items (2nd nomination). ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 21:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the article, while I'm not sure why it exists, contains useful and interesting information.-- danntm ^T _C 22:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ILIKEIT Jaranda

^{wat's sup} 22:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT, if you actually read it, says that liking the subject of the article is not a recommended argument to keep. Feel free to point to it when someone says "Keep because I love Burger King food, it's delicious." There is no grounds to use WP:ILIKEIT to disparage or invalidate the arguments of others when they say the article is useful, interesting or well-written. --Canley 00:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, see WP:INTERESTING and WP:USEFUL which is about the same Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a directory. Iced Kola^(Mmm...) 22:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete - as a snippet of modern life quite it's an interesting page, but its noteworthiness evades me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kripto (talk • contribs) 23:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory, a menu, or an almanac, all of which this article really is. Belongs in the dustbin with the former article on the A&W menu. Agent 86 23:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Canley-DE SU 03:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hold the pickle, hold the lettuce, hold the onion...hold the burger. See WP:NOT. --Shirahadasha 05:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Dhartung Winterborn 06:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for same reasons I gave on the McDonald's AfD. Wl219 08:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Burger King is absolutely notable, nobody would even consider deleting an article on them. What are they notable for? Serving food. Accordingly, having information on the food they supply is essential for Wikipedia. I suppose this article could use some clean-up, maybe more of a historical perspective, but that's improvement, not deletion. I've said more on this subject in the McDonald's one, but basically, the nomination is flawed, and frankly, I do think any restaurant that gets an article on Wikipedia could quite possibly deserve an article on its menu. Disk space is cheap folks, and if we don't cover the food provided by these companies, well, I'd say that would cause problems. Providing more information is what Wikipedia is about, not less. Yeah, listing everything sold by Wal-Mart or Amazon might be a bit much, but listing all the software made and sold by Microsoft? Or Apple and their computer models? Or Ford and their cars? Or Coca-Cola and their beverages? Of course not. Mister.Manticore 18:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment. So the precedent is set. Every out-let's offerings are to be listed on Wikipedia. What do I care? It's not my disk space that's going to be stuffed full with this. I made my annual contributions for a free encyclopaedia, now that it's become a cheap listing site I known not to bother again. Enjoy. Markb 20:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel you are correct in your understanding. Every outlet will not be included, only the menus of restaurants which are notable enough for inclusion. Thus mom and pop hamburger stand will not be covered, unless for some reason they, and their menu is notable. The same goes with every individual McDonald's or Burger King. Or even some sections of franchisees. I might understand your complaint if this was say a list of a restaurant chain's stores and their menus/addresses. But it's not. That would be a problem. But the overall pattern? Completely reasonable to cover. Also special events, say, if the McDonald's in some special location has some super-food item that gets heavy news coverage. Your arguments about size are also not recognizing something: Wikipedia is not not paper, which explains why it's perfectly feasible to include this information. It's really no different than having an article for each and every member of the US Congress, and every other legislative body in the world. That may not be information you care about, but to me, not recognizing its importance is hard to fathom. Mister.Manticore 22:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am getting so tired of this slippery slope fallacy being trotted out at every second AfD - that if we keep an article like this, then notability gets thrown out the window and every single restaurant in the world will be allowed to have their menus on Wikipedia (or should I say Menupedia!!!). That's just not the case: these articles are easily manageable in size and scope, and the community will quickly act against any non-notable backstreet bistro putting their menu on Wikipedia. --Canley 22:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...right, just like they said with Pokemon, Gundam, and all the rest, one article won't lead to others. Thank you for denying reality and proven history. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 23:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'm not saying that one article won't lead to another of course. I'm saying I have faith in the Wikipedia community to judge notability in such cases where the strongest argument for deletion seems to be "it's cruft" (tantamount to "I'm not interested in it"). Obviously the concept of an article on every Pokemon really rubs some people up the wrong way, but if others want that information and are willing to maintain it, and there's considerable community support then what's the problem? I presuming you're not suggesting that Pokemon and Gundam aren't notable enough for an article. So in this case, McDonalds menu items should be OK because McDonalds is notable. Jimmy's Burger Bar menu items is not and would not survive an AfD discussion, it's that simple. --Canley 01:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And to show that articles on various Pokemon and Gundams haven't destroyed Wikipedia....well, witness the fact that Wikipedia continues to exist and function. Mister.Manticore 02:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that User:Jerem43 is going around user talk pages asking people to keep the article [8] Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One example is not enough to bring me any serious concern, but I'll leave a message on his talk page if it bothers you. Mister.Manticore 04:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I apologize for that. Jerem43 06:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I removed the request from the users page and will refrain from doing it again. Jerem43 10:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After looking over the page again, I don't really see why this should be deleted. If the article were simply "Whopper, French Fries, Soda" etc then I'd understand a delete, but this goes into so much detail that I simply can't vote to delete it. -Ryanbomber 22:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless the McDonalds one results in a delete consensus. Otherwise you're being NPOV :) - Davidjk ^(msg+edits) 22:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT -- also, please note that just because something is interesting or useful does not warrant inclusion (see WP:ILIKEIT). /Blaxthos 00:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, what argument do you have for deletion? WP:NOT includes a lot of things, such as travel guides, memorials and instruction manuals. Or dictionaries or Soapboxes. This is not one of those. So, perhaps you could articulate your issue with this article? Mister.Manticore 02:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\^talk 01:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Svenska poolfabriken

This stub contains too little information about the company - just a definition and a link - and should be removed, since Wikipedia is not a phone book or dictionary For Lise 20:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though the edit history on the article shows that For Lise had difficulty figuring out what to do procedurally with this article, her instincts were absolutely correct as to deletion. There is no reason to have an article about this company-- that article as For Lise found it was nothing but spam and nothing can be done to make it into an encyclopedic article. OfficeGirl 20:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails Wikipedia:Relevanskriterier#Företag--Victor falk 01:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Wen li ^(contribs) 02:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 08:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable company. Keb25 09:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Advantage

Not notable as per WP:BAND. Endless Dan 20:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Keep Easily meets WP:BAND. They have two albums with a notable label (this needs sourcing) and a musician who brings notability from another band. -- Ben 21:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Band's albums have been reviewed by Pitchfork Media ([9], [10]) and have also been interviewed by the same ([11]). 5 Rue Christine is a notable label that has also released albums by Xiu Xiu, Deerhoof and Marnie Stern. Spencer Seim from Hella also plays for this band. This, The Advantage easily meets WP: MUSIC critereon 1, 5, and 6. QED. TheLetterM 16:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 crystal balling. Fram 11:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nas' ninth studio album

No bias against constructing a real article under this album's real title when such is known, but for now this article has almost no real information, and what little is there is very much in the realm of WP:CRYSTAL. For now, with this little useful information availible, an aricle like this is IMHO not particularly useful either. TexasAndroid 20:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, Released at a time according to himself without any real confirmations and not a lot of info.--JForget 00:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It may be released within the 3 month so it should be kept IMO. West Coast Ryda and Talk to Me 17:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it should be kept, as we could add more info about the album as we get it. I don't see the point in deleting it if we are just going to recreate it within afew weeks or so - keep it real - Real Compton G - Holla back 19:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Why should this be deleted? it's only speculation. Nas himself announced he would have an album out probably towards the end of this year. there are no statements of fact in this wikipedia entry. the only thing i can think of the fact that album is given the name "Rhymebook" on the main Nas page (which i think Nas hasn't named). Other than that, whats the deal? the info will change soon enough when things are more concrete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.38.85 (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. You are arguing that totally that this entry violates WP:CRYSTAL, which was one of my original reasons for deletions. :) - TexasAndroid 20:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - U serious? if this is crystall ball then what 'bout "Before I Self Destruct" or Fabolous' fifth studio album and those? And their release time is a year away while this one is just about 2,3 month away. So what is the fact deal? West Coast Ryda and Talk to Me 10:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. And I'll look into those other links within the next few days and see if they deserve AFD as well. Thanks for pointing out other things that may deserve deletion. - TexasAndroid 18:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Before I Self Destruct has been confirmed to be released March 2008, and has sources. He already completed 12 tracks for the album. --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho 01:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that justifies keeping an entry for Before I Self Destruct...but I think I have to send Fabolous' fifth studio album into AFD, as that article's got pretty much the same problems as this article has now. --Andrewlp1991 16:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - actually before i self destruct doesent deserve deletion as the users has done a pretty hard work to get it as good as u may see them now. but the fabolous' article is pretty little. West Coast Ryda and Talk to Me 18:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now Until something is officially confirmed. An artist simply saying they're going to release an album is not enough. Wait until more information comes out. It's too crystal-bally as it stands. Spellcast 08:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it can be recreated when reliable sources actually exists -- Whpq 17:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Real sources do exist, and several have already been cited. What more do you need? Deleting this page is silly. User:dcAjn23 19:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.224.72 (talk) [reply]

Delete - The only 'source' listed is Nas and we all know that he is unreliable with information on his own albums. It should be deleted until official word is given from the record label and title is given with more information. The information on the article now should only be on the Nas article.--Sosa 14:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now until there comes at least a true release date and confirmation from Def Jam Recordings. I, having edited this article before, now see this as reptition of stuff from the main Nas article. --Andrewlp1991 16:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : 6
Keep :4

It has been voted that this page be deleted until official confirmation and information on the album has been verified and referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samil20 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this should be deleted for now. But Wikipedia is not a democracy. You can have 10 keep votes and 2 delete votes and a page could still end up deleted based on the arguments. Spellcast 11:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - one whouldn't put up tally counters as per Afd etiquette. An admin will weight arguments put forth and close the issue as appropriate. -- Whpq 15:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Even coming from Nas this is just speculation. Nas has also talked about Lost Tapes 2, doing an all DJ Premier produced album, Nasdaq Dow Jones, working with Rakim, just to name a few. Point is just because Nas said it, it shouldn't be taken as fact. Deletion for now until more reliable information arrives. P.S. we all know that everytime Nas says its coming, its always pushed back 100% of the time.--Sosa 15:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 TexasAndroid "Yu-Gi-Oh! TAS" ‎(CSD G4: Recreation of deleted material Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series). Non-admin closure. shoy 20:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yu-Gi-Oh! TAS

YouTube based parody video series with absolutely no references, or any other indication, of any real notability. TexasAndroid 19:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to have been previously deleted at Yu-Gi-Oh! the Abridged Series and Yu-Gi-Oh: the Abridged Series, and there is mention of there being a previous AFD/XFD against it somewhere. I would gladly just delete this as a recreation of deleted material if I could find that XFD, but so far I have not been able to find out what name that was done under. - TexasAndroid 20:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian Republican Alliance

Entirely non-notable quasi-political-party. Stood for election once, got 92 votes. Punkmorten 19:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, registered political party, has participated in national elections. --Soman 19:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It only entered in 1 out of 19 counties, so the nationwide part should be taken with many grains of salt. Being a "registered political party" is not in itself notable, you have to achieve something. Punkmorten 19:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My approach is a pragmatic one. This party is obvioulsy, by any standards, small. However, it did participate in the elections, and readers of wikipedia would encounter the party in the election results, and should be able to obtain info on which is the party that obtained the lowest number of votes. After all, wikipedia is not paper. --Soman 20:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletions. -- Yossiea ^(talk) 20:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - all parties that have ever stood for a national election should be considered notable enough for Wikipedia, which is not paper. If someone needs objective information about a political party that doens't get much attention in the national press, Wikipedia should be the place. Also, the NRA is notable as the only party with abolishing the Norwegian monarchy as its main cause. 96T 21:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable by any reasonable standards -Revised to keep per the coverage in Adresseavisen newspaper. I do, believe that an AfD is not the correct place to make policy as 96T seems to want, however. Bigdaddy1981 21:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Make policy? What I said was basically that a party running for a national election should be considered notable. Are there any policies against this? 96T 21:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see Iain99's comment below. The act of standing for an election does not immediately confer notability to a party. Bigdaddy1981 23:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anyone with a bit of money to throw away on lost deposits can stand in a national election and get 94 votes - it doesn't necessarily confer notability. Notability requires multiple, independent sources, without which a verifiable article cannot be written. Google turns up 483 hits, including Wikipedia and its mirrors, but Google News turns up nowt, so it doesn't look promising, but I'll reserve judgement since I don't speak Norwegian, so can't assess the sources Google does come up with. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 22:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No wonder they're not mentioned on Google News, as it searches through English-language articles only. Obviously, a non-parliamentary Norwegian party is of no interest to the English-language press. (There aren't that many results for Norway's largest party either.) But Wikipedia's interests have always been and will always be more international than those of the English-language press. 96T 13:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, fair point - I wasn't sure whether they did non-English language press or not. Obviously I realise that a minor Norwegian party wouldn't expect to get much coverage outside Norway. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 14:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional thought If there are few or no sources, and all that can be said objectively about the party is that it stood in an election and got few votes, then it might be better to merge this and several other of these parties into something like Minor political parties in Norway rather than have numerous perma-stubs. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 22:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment i would urge not to initiate meta-articles on minor parties. It was introduced in swedish wiki, and the result has been a mess, with little encyclopediatic value. What is the problem with having a short article on NRA, if the same lines are copied into a meta article anyway? The only difference is that categorizations and interwikis gets messed up if the merge is pushed through. It's important to understand that notability is guideline, intended to safeguard the quality and integrity of wikipedia, rather than an iron law. The notability guideline is intended to weed out spoofs, hoaxes, purely web-based phenomena and bad jokes, not limit spread of encyclopediatic information (WP:PAPER). --Soman 23:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had to agree with you Balderdash, this party had less then 100 votes in a national election, so it is hardly notable, so I do agree that a minor political party page for Norway may be needed.--JForget 00:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --LAZY 1L 04:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC) sockpuppet GRBerry 03:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all political parties should be considered notable--even one as small as this. Small size does not necessarily correspond to unimportance, and the only way to avoid bias is to include them all, as long as they have a real existence. DGG (talk) 05:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It fails WP:RS though. Punkmorten 08:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sourcing now fixed. --Soman 13:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply to DGG You're absolutely right that small size doesn't necessarily correspond to unimportance; however, complete lack of coverage in the press or other independent sources probably would, so I suggest that should be the bar, as it is to most subjects. However, that doesn't seem to be the case here. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 14:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here and here are two articles on the party and its leader in the major newspaper Adresseavisen. --96T, 21 September 2007
Keep per Adresseavisen's sources. Perhaps a Norwegian speaker could add them to the article. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 14:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adresseavisen is the name of the newspaper - I agree, however, that the anon comment above suggests notability. Bigdaddy1981 18:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Generally would agree that any political party that actually stands in elections would be notable as they can be verifiable from the election results. In this particular case the sources added to the article establish notability anyway. Davewild 16:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7 (Band): Article about a band that does not assert significance). Page deleted by User:Philippe. Non-admin closure. Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 15:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Posers

Delete fails WP:BAND nn group recording on nn labels. Carlossuarez46 19:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating:
Rayny Forster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the band's founder.

Carlossuarez46 19:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Complete vanity. --Endless Dan 20:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rayny Forster, weak delete his band. They seem to have recorded something, and there are reviews for it, but I still don't see them pass WP:MUSIC. For him independently, Google gives a few passing mentions because he co-founded a record label, but mostly blogs, nothing about him. Google News comes up empty. Huon 20:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I don't think it's complete vanity, it's definitely not meeting WP:MUSIC at present. There's some hints of notability here and there (one of their CDs was released by the label that first released Blink-182, for which I personally feel they should never be forgiven), but beyond that, not much to see here. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are tough! Alright well thanks anyways, except for the vanity comments. How may I delete my profile? MetalPunk013 20:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Place {{db-author}} on the pages that you created. -- Ben 21:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity. My favorite sin. -- Ben 21:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. • Lawrence Cohen 22:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\^talk 01:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swift G

Was a contested speedy, then a contested prod, so now it washes up here. Only two releases, both on indie labels, and nothing to indicate any kind of coverage — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. I was unable to locate any information about his recordings via a Google search. --Bongwarrior 19:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:MUSIC entirely. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, and also the claim about "Gutta Muzic" would seem to infringe [[12]]. I can't find any authority to link "Gutta Muzic" (under any spelling) with Swift G., but I can with others. Accounting4Taste 00:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and fails WP:MUSIC — Wen li ^(contribs) 02:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Skuds

Delete this one is back after having been deleted before - see first afd - and again, the band is nn. It's debut album with a pressing of 500 units (did these even all sell?) also is being nominated. Far short of passing WP:BAND. Carlossuarez46 19:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Not notable in any sense. Revolutionaryluddite 05:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speeedy Delete per CSD G4 as is a repost of a previoulsy deleted page. A1octopus 16:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd (EP)

Unsourced article about an album with a production run of 500 - yes, five HUNDRED, from a band that is either barely notable or nn, whose article was deleted before and the recreation is nominated here too. Carlossuarez46 19:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Speedy Delete No sourcing and no notability. Revolutionaryluddite 05:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD A7 - No notability claimed, no notability that could be claimed. A1octopus 16:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion. Non-admin closure. --Ag ü eybaná 22:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Advanced Research and Technology

Delete. Huge advertisement for an obscure school, no attempt for notability given — Frecklefσσt | Talk 18:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously a notable high school from its program, so sources will be available. Also obviously in need of drastic editing, which I have just done to improve the article. DGG (talk) 05:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it was improved Elmao 05:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Discography articles are very common and legitimate. Discographies that aren't too long may be merged with their main articles, but you don't need AFD for that. Melsaran (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supergrass discography

indiscriminate collection of information _→AzaToth 18:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Discographies are a recognized and discriminate list that are often found as subarticles for notable bands. --Dhartung | Talk 18:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There's plenty of room on the main article page for this information. MarkBul 19:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is nothing remotely indiscriminate about this. Better as a separate article from the main Supergrass article.--Michig 19:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. By definition a discography is discriminate. Smashville 21:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, discographies are discriminate, encyclopedic and useful. There is no doubt they are needed when a band has a large number of releases, and this band has an awful lot of singles. J Milburn 23:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Discography lists are a good idea when the main article becomes large, but that isn't the case here. As far articles for successful bands go, the Supergrass article is tiny. No reason in having this as a separate artcle, other than to force people to look at two pages, which isn't helpful. Crazysuit 06:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tidy it up. It looks like a blind chimp has designed the page. Lugnuts 16:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Mascioli

Unreferenced biography of a nn individual, 200 ghits: [13]. Also violates WP:BLP by noting a recent arrest without providing a reference. Shalom ^Hello 18:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Three or four searches didn't turn up this name in connection with any race car/Indy material... the rest is non-notable. Accounting4Taste 00:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ref is higly dubious. --LAZY 1L 04:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC) sockpuppet GRBerry 03:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to Keep. Walton^One 15:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U-Ram Choe

WP:COI posts of material that is not independent of U-Ram Choe. Talk page asserts copyright approval to overcome CSD G12. Even so, U-Ram Choe has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of U-Ram Choe to develop an attributable article on the topic. -- Jreferee T/C 18:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and overcome any copyright issues. I looked at three sources [14], [15] and [16] that seem completely independent; a couple of the other citations didn't seem to offer archival material and there was one suspicious one (Basel) that seemed to be a pay-to-exhibit show. I think this is borderline and I can understand it being PRODded, I'm not familiar with the specific galleries, but the three sources convinced me. Accounting4Taste 00:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I searched in three languages and I don't see that any reliable source (e.g. a specialised magazine, a newspaper, or a book) has written more than a single paragraph about the guy; basically, there's not enough independent discussion of him or his work right now to write an encyclopedia article. Best sources I could find were the Wired feature already in the article, this piece from a Chinese visual arts magazine [17], and one paragraph in a longer Donga Ilbo magazine article [18]. cab 00:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 02:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - barely clears the notability bar, but issues of COI and copyright remain. -- Whpq 17:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U-Ram Choe is exhibiting at the Liverpool Biennale 2008 and the Asian Art Triennale in Manchester 2008. The Mori Art Museum published a catalog of his work in 2006. In 2007 his art brokes records in the Christie's auction for Asian Contemporary Art. Since he is Korean, Engish his name is sometimes mis-spelled "Choe U-Ram", "Choe Uram" and "Uram Choe". The Crow Collection of Asian Art featured him in Dallas Texas Summer 2007- that was his first US show in an institution where English is the primary language. His reviews are primarily in Korean, Chinese and Japanese. If this page is deleted, it will only get added a year from now by someone new that "discovers" his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalablereau (talk • contribs) 06:08, 27 September 27 (UTC)
- Please add your comments at the bottom of the discussion, not the top, and sign with four tildes ~~~~. I searched in Korean and Chinese and the most I could find written about him was a single paragraph; not enough for us to base an article on. Can you point to anything more substantial in Japanese? Thanks, cab 23:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motorola W375

Contested prod. Another non-notable cellular phone. This article doesn't provide any information which substantiates this phone's claim to notability. With "specifications" table that contains only "yes" answers, this reads like an advertisement. WP is not a product catalog. Mikeblas 18:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, definitely look like a user's guide for the way it looks.--JForget 00:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog. No evidence of this gadget's notability as might be attested by independent reliable sources, such as news articles,or books with substantial coverage of it. A manufacturer's listing does not show notability. Edison 16:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\^talk 01:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suilloux

Patent hoax (there is no letter X in the Polish alphabet) created by an SPA - technically unable to speedy due to WP rules — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original tagger. Complete WP:BOLLOCKS. shoy 18:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly looks like a hoax.--Cube lurker 19:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also some dubious looking activity going on here and on Section sign, reported here — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense. Hal peridol 20:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax and nonsense. — Wen li ^(contribs) 02:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious hoax. Edward321 03:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki 02:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mientka Duo

)

The Mientka Duo has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Mientka Duo or its members to develop an attributable article on the topic. -- Jreferee t/c 17:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since I don't speak or read French, my comment is a comment, but they appear to have won an award at Concours International De Musique De Chambre, which turns up many sources; that would appear to meet #8 at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles Yngvarr (t) (c) 18:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this. The duo have performed nationally and internationally. Also, I believe the award in the comment above is quite notable in the field of chamber music. There's also this. The duo, as Nova Mientka, were featured in an Emmy-nominated documentary on PBS.--Sethacus 18:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In order to be notable one of the requirements is multiple non-trivial sources. 1 is not multiple. My copyvio deletion request was denied, which I believe is incorrect because every single word from the wikipedia entry is from the URL I provided in the request. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 18:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm sorry, but the notability guidelines which is linked above says "any one" of the criteria, "Multiple non-trivial sources" is one of more than 10 listed. Yngvarr (t) (c) 19:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment They satisfy at least two: Touring and Criteria #12: Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. The award, as I stated, is quite notable in their field. These all come from 3 different sources. There's also evidence to indicate that their Washington, D.C. concert was broadcast on NPR, from a fourth source. 4 is multiple where I went to school.--Sethacus 20:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There may not be enough coverage to make it past a stub, however touring internationally meets music notability. The requirement is meet general or any of the specific guidelines, therefore they pass notability. Barely, but they pass. Horrorshowj 19:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please also take into consideration that every word in the article is pulled from this page. Please notice that there is more information on that page that is not on the wiki article, however all of the text from the wiki article is 100% from the test of the page. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 12:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. While information is sourced from the page you indicate, it has not been copied verbatim. There do not seem to be any copyright violation issues. I'm afraid I don't see what bearing your comment on the deletion debate. Bondegezou 11:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per Sethacus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bondegezou (talk • contribs) 11:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see this article being greatly expanded, it therefore asserts its notability to me. Mbisanz 19:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. The local papers cited don't seem to have done much reporting on this duo. It seems possible that the honors mentioned are simply taken from the resume submitted by the group, which works against the 'independent' sourcing requirement. I couldn't find any confirmation on the web that they had won the Concours International De Musique De Chambre, nor that they had been featured on NPR. Presumably they have, it would just add to the credibility of the article if a mention of that could be found on NPR's site. EdJohnston 01:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. -- Longhair\^talk 01:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Rhoma

hoax info, google only returns self refs. This from same user that created this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaydon O'Connor GameKeeper 17:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy for no assertion of significance. Shalom ^Hello 18:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Shalom. Character that doesn't return ghits in a sitcom that doesn't have ghits played by an actor that doesn't have ghits, in a nutshell. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, if this sitcom exists, it's hiding well. Accounting4Taste 00:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and Salted--JForget 23:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Flax

This apparent autobiography, without any independent sources given, has repeatedly been recreated by User:Garyflax, after it had been deleted after an expired PROD, and also speedy deleted under the title GARY FLAX. --B. Wolterding 16:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy, delete, and warn that Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. If, as he claims, his father invented an important jewelry technique, then his father is notable. He himself is not. Alba 17:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete and salt Very few relevant ghits, marginal notability on the invention, which, unfortunately, can't be proven. Google Patent search on Gary Flax turns up nothing. Article has a spammy, self-congratulatory nature as well, for obvious reasons.--Sethacus 17:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt Relentless self promotion, autobiographical. SPAMHorrorshowj 19:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT. I'm suspicious because of all the above and I can't find anything that would connect a Nestle Innovation Award with something mentioned here, as in "one of his companies", or any other independent sources to confirm any of this. Accounting4Taste 00:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom, unreferenced. Visor 22:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 21:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paneru

Theis very short article has no references, and I found nothing relevant on Google. I have no way of knowing whether the statement is true or not true. Shalom ^Hello 16:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, notification of this Afd has been included on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hinduism page. KTo288 18:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note notification of this Afd has been placed on the wikiprojext india talkpage. KTo288 18:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to be a surname, but I'm not finding anything that helps meet WP:NOTABILITY. --Fabrictramp 22:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see nothing to indicate that this is anything more than someone's name, no sources available to verify the information. shoeofdeath 20:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, certainly no consensus to delete. NawlinWiki 02:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Martin

Note to closing admin: this AfD was heavily vandalised/meatpuppet-ed. There were lots of keep !votes (and little more) from spas/meatpuppets on this page, but these were reverted and the page semi-protected after a report here at WP:AN/I. They're now leaving their hundreds of keep votes on this here talk page. Regards, AllynJ (talk | contribs) 21:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm subscribed to a mailing list for Russ's fans. He personally sent out an e-mail with a link to his article saying "I guess we don't matter, go get 'em". All the vandalism and meatpuppetry (whatever that is) was probably from some of his fans. I don't see why they (or russ) would really give a damn about whether or not his page will be deleted, but oh well. Shnakepup 18:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehe...Russ just mentioned this deletion on the air. He jokingly agreed that he's not notable enough for an article, and said something to the effect of "well, I guess we'll see the fallout of this on the Arbitron ratings..."Shnakepup 00:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I will agree there was a time where this page went outside the scope of the Wiki Guidelines. Overall though, he is well known and has been a successful radio personality in North Texas for over 10 yrs. In addition, he continues to do documented charity in the North Texas area for animal shelters and Police/Fire Departments. As such, provided that page is not high jacked and taken off the deep end (when it happened though, it really was quite funny), he 05:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)should have a page.Eroeder 01:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's one of several local ~~DJs~~ radio talk show hosts in the Dallas area, not syndicated. He is mentioned in passing from time to time in the Dallas media (see talk page for links), not unlike local traffic reporters and weatherpersons. There are some brief mentions of charity work he's done, but plenty of people get brief local media mentions for charity work; that doesn't make them notable. The article is all OR, which is not in itself a reason to delete, but the apparent fact that none of his biography or "notable bits" can be independently sourced suggests that this guy just isn't notable enough to merit an article. Cap'n Walker 16:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What exactly are the criteria for entry into the Wikipedia. I submit it would be difficult to argue that Russ Martin doesn't warrant an entry while Geoff Lloyd does. There will no doubt be people who come to the Wikipedia looking for a Russ Martin entry and it seems there should be one in the event they do. With that s*Keep The more I research this, the more obvious it becomes that this user is abusing the deletion process by selectively targeting this radio station and/or the Russ Martin Show. This program is NUMBER 1 in its afternoon drive time slot in the NUMBER 5 radio market in the U.S. And I have found numerous other Dallas/Fort Worth radio personalities on Wikipedia whose ratings pale in comparison and who have not been targeted for deletion for "lacking notability". This luser needs to pull his head out of his ace, get an f-ing life, and leave real articles of interest alone. This luser's intellect and maturity "lack notability", and whose childish requests, if given in to, will make Wikipedia a site that eventually no one will want to visit. J.A.McCoy 01:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)aid, I would have to agree with MarkBul that this does not look to be much more than an attempt at a Wikipedia page put together by a fan or someone close to Mr. Martin. The problem is verification of much of the content through news articles and such is not really possible here because Russ Martin is known for not doing interviews. If we are to accept that news articles based on interviews (in which Mr. Martin would likely not be straightforward anyway) are the only "reliable sources" upon which to base a Wikipedia entry then there needs to be work on finding new criteria. My point is this: just because he doesn't do interviews doesn't mean he doesn't warrant an entry because he does. I've seen the Arbitron ratings and he has ratings in some categories which have never been accomplished in his market or many others for that matter. Problem there is Arbitron ratings are not available to the general public and therefore cannot be cited as a source. I don't have a delete/keep opinion to offer... only my comments for consideration.[reply]
Comment I don't know what the standard is for local media people, but that certainly is a bad page - it screams "fansite". If you edit it to clean it up, the fanboys will just revert to the hilarious anecdotes. If someone can find articles about him in the local media, I'd say Keep. If not, it's a Delete. MarkBul 17:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A few articles, one profiling his show, but I'm not sure it's enough. He is on a notable station in a rather large area, Dallas/Ft. Worth and has gained some local fame as "the guy who came in after Howard".--Sethacus 17:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally non-notable individual - this verges on vanispamicruft. Bigdaddy1981 21:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite notable to people in Texas. I would estimate several tens of thousands of people based on the ratings the show gets. Whether the site is poorly written is a quality issue, not a notability issue. There seem to be plenty of city-centric DJs with articles on Wikipedia (click around here) that don't seem to be bothering anyone. Some quick examples: 669 Radio Show, Matt Casey, William Eric Alexander, Paul Allen (radio), Rocky Allen, Armen Williams, Terry Anderson (radio), Casey Dolan, yada yada. I'm sure the power users will start throwing out Wikipedia guidline links but I'm not interested. I think if this article gets deleted I'll be saying adiós to Wikipedia. It will be one deleted article too many for me. ♫ Bitch and Complain Sooner ♫ 23:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"that don't seem to be bothering anyone" and so it shouldn't. This AfD is about this article not about others. Bigdaddy1981 23:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which means this is a witch-hunt to get rid of this specific article since all the article links I provided (and there are many many others in that category) would qualify for deletion under the same reasoning as this one - but they don't matter, just Russ Martin's article. Even Mark Davis, another local DJ, has an article about him (and his show a separate one). Another prime example of power users here getting to decide what stays and what doesn't. ♫ Bitch and Complain Sooner ♫ 17:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the articles are as bad as you say then chances are they will be deleted as well. But the fact that other stuff exists really isn't a valid argument. Whispe ring 16:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. I'm from Texas, and I disagree that he's "quite notable to people in Texas." He's a local Dallas DJ, syndicated nowhere else in the state. Cap'n Walker 15:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was syndicated in Austin. After the program manager (Dusty Hayes) down there decided to pull Martin, the station's ratings magically rose when the books came out a few weeks later - so he's known outside of Dallas. There are over 6 million potential listeners in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex. Hardly un-notable if his show is number one. ♫ Bitch and Complain Sooner ♫ 17:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think he's notable on the basis of "potential listeners," and a very brief syndication in Austin makes little difference. Cap'n Walker 18:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I noticed you ignored the comment about the show being number one so I thought I would follow up. When a talk radio show beats out every station in the ratings, including music programming, it is significant. On top of that, his show is during afternoon/evening drive time (3-7 PM), so being number one means you're reaching a huge listener base. I will note that "number one" can mean lots of things. Key demographics for advertisers are 18-34, 25-54, and the like; men in these age groups are a sought after more than women because of the reality of their buying power. Between summer 2004 and summer 2005, Russ Martin Show maintained its No. 1 spot with adults 25-54, and rose from third to first for adults 18-34. Russ has been voted "Best Talk Host" by D Magazine and has been Readers Choice for Best Radio Talk Show in the Dallas Observer Readers Poll. All of this seems notable to me. I agree as previously stated that the key to this debate should focus on the article's content and not whether Russ is noteworthy; he is clearly noteworthy if for nothing other than controversy.--Randallking 12:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless the article is sourced to prove the notability. • Lawrence Cohen 06:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly unnotable. Eusebeus 12:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Russ Martin is not only well known, but he's clearly "notable" for his contributions to D/FW. He established the Russ Martin Show Listener's Foundation, which aides the families of fallen police and fire personel. In addition, to honor police, fire and military personel while they are still with us, he established an annual Heroes Parade. He also supports and promotes the welfare of animals. He sits on the board of (and mentions on a weekly basis) Operation Kindness, a no-kill animal shelter. All of this is verifiable through his website: www.russmartin.com. Also visit www.operationkindness.org. Davidetoms 19:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any reliable sources that aren't trivial in the article that prove any notability. Whispe ring 16:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP In addition to being a TOP RATED MAJOR MARKET (Market 5) RADIO PERSONALITY, Russ has been pivotal in pioneering the Russ Martin Show Listener's Foundation, a charity that benefits the families of Police and Fire workers who have selflessly and courageously fallen in the line of duty. That same charity also hosts a yearly parade to celebrate Police, Fire, and Military; a parade that is also listed on Wikipedia: Heroes_Day_Parade. Russ is also on the boards of numerous other local charities and is an advocate for the humane treatment of animals, often donating LARGE sums of money towards rewards for information that can prosecute those who have viciously maimed and/or killed animals in the Dallas/Ft. Worth metroplex. Russ Martin is very much a significant part of North Texas, and not just some small town "local jock". --BlaculaDave —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the other wikipedians here who say we should keep the article. This article has a lot of quality issues -- probably needs a total rewrite with a lot more sources -- but I think it's ridiculous to suggest that Russ Martin isn't notable. A lot of people here seem to be making the mistake of saying "Well, I haven't heard of him, so he can't be that notable..." Shnakepup 18:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article does need more sources. The ultimate irony, however, is that Russ can’t stand excessive praise for his charity work. In fact, he often snubs the news media when they want to mention his name because he thinks it’s ostentatious and that it cheapens his good deeds. Davidetoms 19:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article might or might not need revisions, but Russ Martin is clearly notable, especially in Dallas. Examples of his notability have already been provided above by other users. Rray 16:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Shall it also be noted that Russ was voted number 56 on Talkers Magazine "Heavy 100"? I believe their tagline is "The Most Important Radio Talk Show Hosts In America". Heavy 100 Urgency 02:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep" Quite notable to people in Texas. Russ Martin chooses not to go nation wide - When you have 2 batmobiles and a Mach 5 you have made it in life! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruben7467 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My my, it seems that we have a Colbert Einstein situation here(rabid fans with computers). I am actually a little surprised notability is the major issue here. Having a number one show many years running in the number five market in the country has generated some mentions within the Dallas and larger radio community. Talkers Magazine, Dallas Observer, and D Magazine are all legit sources. If they weren't mentioned before in the article then they should be inserted. I'm all for cleaning the fancruft. But I think this one passes notability...so keep—Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 05:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I havent heard of him before, but he seems famous enough in his area. Mbisanz 19:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same reasoning as Mbisanz Tiptopper 21:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC) 28-Sep-2007[reply]
Keep Since he appears as #56 on the Heavy Hundred list established by Talkers Magazine, which is taken seriously by the Boston Globe in this article. By proceeding down through the Heavy Hundred list I note that many (though not all) of those listed down through the number 60 have Wikipedia articles (perhaps two thirds of them). This list seems to establish that Russ Martin has more than purely local significance. Obviously the article could be better, and obviously not all the Keep arguments make sense in the light of actual WP policy. EdJohnston 02:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The more I research this, the more obvious it becomes that this user is abusing the deletion process by selectively targeting this radio station and/or the Russ Martin Show. This program is NUMBER 1 in its afternoon drive time slot in the NUMBER 5 radio market in the U.S. And I have found numerous other Dallas/Fort Worth radio personalities on Wikipedia whose ratings pale in comparison and who have not been targeted for deletion for "lacking notability". J.A.McCoy 01:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks stripped out of this vote, user blocked for disruption and personal attacks. Viridae ^Talk 02:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Lee Gibson

Something went wrong with TW, so I'm starting the AfD page by hand. Possible nn driver, only gets 3 ghits, originally prodded it, but was removed. Article is not particularly well written, with pretty much no sources. OSborn^arf 16:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC) (also a possible COI, since a main contributer to the page is "Andrew L. Gibson". - possibly the same as the person mentioned in the article, who is also Andrew Lee Gibson but goes by Jesse, it seems OSborn^arf 18:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Strong delete Probable hoax. Never played professionally. Also, claims of owning a team with Nicholas Petty...but, wait! "Also note that Carolina Motor Sports, Dose not have a functing website. And Carolina Motor Sports is also just getting off the ground. CMS is expected to be up and running by the end of 2007." That's a shame. If a Petty was involved, don't you think there'd be some press?--Sethacus 18:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing whatsoever checks out in this article. I can't find any references to the championship he allegedly won, I can't find a reference to Kelly Franklin, the ASA driver he says will be driving for them, the Nicholas Petty referred to... Delete as either a hoax or so non-notable it ain't funny. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. Here is a list of every driver that has ever run in the ASA Late Model Series. I find it funny that someone could claim to run in a series that Matt Kenseth, Travis Kvapil, David Stremme, Johnny Benson, and Todd Kluever have made appearances in, but yet no info would exist on said person. Smashville 21:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Reverted the removal of the AFD tag by User:The Sweetesness. Even if any of this were true, the Whelen Modified South series drivers and teams are non-notable except for possibly the top few teams/drivers. Royalbroil 02:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax and advertisement for non-notable person, no sources or such to establish notability. --Kudret abi^Talk 09:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with Black September (group); no prejudice to subsequent creation of separate article on 19 Sept 1972 letter bomb attacks. Espresso Addict 21:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ami Shachori

)

Unfortuantly what Ami Shachori is famous for is for his death. While I realize that there is no biographical inoformation (though hopfully that will be sorted soon, I do think that his death is important enough to gain its own page. Having said that, if one would want to change the title of the aritcle to the assaination of Ami Schahori it would be understandable but to delete it seems antithetical to what the mission of wikipedia is (all due respect of course)--Braunold 09:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article lacks just about all the characteristics of a biography. In addition, while the bomb attack and memorial lecture may have received news coverage, the individual Ami Shachori has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Ami Shachori himself to develop an attributable article on the topic. -- Jreferee t/c 16:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable content under the wrong article title. Move or merge to an article on the 19 Sep 1972 bomb attack, or failing that, to Black September. Alba 17:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Black September (which as of yet does not list this incident). Name is a plausible search term. --Dhartung | Talk 18:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. —Eliyak T·C 22:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 00:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move and merge as per the suggestions of two preceding commentators. --Crusio 06:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No biographical content, merge to Black September (group) and redirect. -- Derwig 07:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Black September (group). Shachori himself is not notable, only the event in which he was killed. Number 5 7 13:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move and expand as article on the 1972 letter bomb attacks. If consensus should be to merge and redirect please consider the featured article Operation Wrath of God as article to point to, as there seems to be more background information then in the article Black September (group), to which I have added information about the 1972 letter bomb attacks. VirtualDelight 21:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect as noted by others above. --Sc straker 03:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as Assassination of Ami Shachori and put a See Also on the bottom listing the recommendations above. Keeper | 76 16:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AJOP

Nothing sourced, and site reads like an advert. Reading the edit history shows a user of ajop613 heavily modifying the article (which reads much better than it did at first) but it still reads like an article violating WP:SPAM. What I would like is either for this to be deleted or for the article to be sourced from external sources. I think an org like this can be on Wiki it just needs to be according to Wiki guidelines. Yossiea ^(talk) 16:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second this request, i was the creator of the article please see my vote to delete.--יודל 14:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yidisheryid: Please see WP:OWN you only started this article as a stub. It was then blocked due to edit warring by you. And it was at that time that it was nominated for deletion. Subsequently it was I who improved the article greatly bringing up to a request Wikipedia level. Since that time, User:Yossiea has asked that his nomination be withdrawn but you have fought it. Your summersault makes no sense. IZAK 05:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Yossiea ^(talk) 16:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ unless it gets wikified. Yossiea ^(talk) 18:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note:Changed to keep below -- Avi 14:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As in all of these cases, there needs to be an assertion of notability supported by at least two sources that have to be independent of the organization and at least plausibly reliable -- can't be a blog or similar. If this isn't arguably met the article doesn't belong in Wikipedia; if the sources are impeccable it's clear it does; we can discuss gray area. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That strengthens the AFD because there aren't two external sources in the article. Yossiea ^(talk) 18:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has more then 2 independent sources--יודל 19:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the article. Yossiea ^(talk) 19:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I created this article mistakenly unaware of Wiki's fundamental principle that a subject which does not attract worldly attention, isn't important to get its article here, after all this isn't yet a Jewish Encyclopedia, we must not push here inside Jewish subjects, which may very well be important for some Jews, but in the context of the broader whole world its sounds very trivial and non-notable. My first inclination to create this article was based on my desire to attract Jewish users, misunderstanding the concept of an inclusionist, believing mistakenly in as many more articles here as possible, but in retrospect i still would like to see the minimal standard by doing business here, and this article hasn't met it in regards of the Notability factor, since no established information or media outlet is on record talking about them.--יודל 14:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Shirahadasha pointed out, there needs to be an assertion of notability supported by at least two sources that have to be independent of the organization and at least plausibly reliable -- can't be a blog or similar. Until that point, the article can't be on Wikipedia. Yossiea ^(talk) 18:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have given no real rationale for deletion, if u agree openly and honestly that this org is notable, you cannot get it deleted on your claim that it reads like spam, please help me fix the language and provide the more sources, it is currently sourced quite heavily and far exceeding the average Judaism related articles in this regards.--יודל 19:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are not valid. The first one is from an internal AJOP person. The second one again, is just a link to a software package sold by AJOP. The article has NO external sources about AJOP. Yossiea ^(talk) 19:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, that individual isn't working with AJOP for ten years now, so he is serving for the source we need him to show u that people indeed do call this subject with the way it is written in the article. And to the point, Third party online business selling all kinds of merchandise is enough reliable and independent to cite as proof that there work is being sold out there and does exist. In Capitalism a subject is always considered notable if a reliable business is selling its products. And this subject does make waves economically so the proofs should not be discounted as biased because they make some money of the work of this subject, while u yourself claim that they are indeed Notable! --יודל 19:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are not making any sense. Furthermore, this is an AFD discussion, not the article's talk page. Yossiea ^(talk) 19:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please let others decide who makes here more sense. Please resist turning to personal insults in order to get this article deleted, You yourself have declared this subject enough notable for a encyclopedia and i ask you instead of getting it deleted because it fails some standard. Rather fix it. Thanks.--יודל 20:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Avruch 20:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spammy and no independent sources to establish notability. Cap'n Walker 21:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To: User:Yidisheryid: Agreed, a newspaper article is notable. Also, to User:Cap'n Walker since you wrote the above I have reworked the article, added info and made it not spammy but more informational. Please read the article. IZAK 05:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, even a simple google search shows it is notable enough, the article could use some improvement and expansion, which of course can't happen until it is unprotected. --MPerel 23:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please reconsider now that it was only closed for a few hours and reputable reliable sources have not yet been added for almost a week that the article exists, i urge you to see that all hundredths of Google results are indeed exclusively from AJOP connected and invested subjects. Wikipedia does not operate like Google's machine, we are real people if notability isn't established by humans, but only search engines it does not match wiki standard of notability.--יודל 16:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this is a very notable Orthodox organization that has been around for over twenty years and it was the first organization of its kind (and still is) that was based on uniting and enhancing the "kiruv" (Jewish outreach) work by bringing together in North America all Orthodox groups involved with the Baal teshuva movement. It is the only organization not affiliated with Chabad that is recognized by virtually all Orthodox kiruv workers and professionals as having served to unite them, particularly throuh its conventions. It was founded through a multi-million dollar grant from the AVI CHAI Foundation and at its annual conventions almost every major non-Chabad "Kiruv" rabbi has been a featured speaker and presenter. If it the article has faults, as do many articles when they are first written, the nominator, in this case User:Yossiea could have brought this article to the attention of other Judaism editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism and there is no doubt that he would have been told that AJOP is a WP:NOTABLE organization that is indeed WP:CITEd on the web and many printed sources. AJOP has also published its own books and tapes. Its website at http://www.ajop.com/ introduces the organization well, and there are many Google references to this organization that make this nomination highly questionable. IZAK 02:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE 1: It is ridiculous to have a vote on this article when it has been protected for four days [19] [20]. How and why did it get blocked? This is not the way to do business! Kindly get someone to unblock it. What's going on here? IZAK 02:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, it has now been unprotected [21] [22]. This should not be happening. IZAK 03:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE 2: I have re-written the article with more information. The article deserves time. IZAK 05:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Yossiea. Fails WP:V, WP:ORG. Zero independant sources. First reference is a Wikipedia article, which obviously doesn't fly. Second reference is the organazation website, also no good. Third reference is WP:SPAM, which is not that great either. The fourth reference is a website that is under construction. Wow! Getting better! The fifth reference, the Baltimore Jewish Times, merely lists the address of the organazation. A no-brainer for deletion. --Yeshivish 04:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet vote, see WP:CSN#Mrs random et al. MER-C 09:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Yeshivish: Are you not familiar with how organiztions work in the Orthodox world? What kind of screaming headlines do you expect? The article describes this 20 year old organization that is well-known to basically every Orthodox Jewish outreach rabbi. Perhaps it is a mark of the non-controversial nature of the organization that it has not generated headlines but is nevertheless well-known, so the haset to delete here, in the context of Orthodox Jewish life in North America, makes little sense the way you present it. Some shikul hada'as ("practical evaluation" see WP:IGNORE) is needed here. If you are going to be so "strict" about it, then prepare to have 90% of all articles relating to Orthodox Judaism on Wikipedia blitzed out of existence. Oh, I have re-written the article, it is not "SPAM". And see WP:LAWYER which you are evidently violating. IZAK 05:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly! An organization that is involved in outreach is connected to the outside world and should have some sort independant sources backing up it's notability. Especially, if as alleged (unsourced of cource), it is around for 20 years. You racked up a long list of references in the article, but most of them are worthless WP:SPAM. Can we get one independant source that discusses the notability of this organazation?--Yeshivish 08:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - NOTE:I am not fond of your underhanded shtick accusing me of violating WP:LAWYER. When the Wikipedia rules for notability are in your favor you use them, and when they aren't you hide behind WP:IGNORE and WP:LAWYER.--Yeshivish 08:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh my, you have been blocked [23]. The histrionics are not appreciated. IZAK 09:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE 3: I have now completely reworked the article, and I have requested the following from User:Yossiea: "Please reconsider your nomination: Please re-read the Association for Jewish Outreach Programs article in its entirety and you will see that I have thoroughly Wikified and re-wriiten it with lots of new info, and moved it in the direction of a more critical article. I have added over twenty new citations including two key ones where AJOP was discussed in major Jewish communal and academic forums, see Association for Jewish Outreach Programs#Connection with Haredi Judaism. I have added an AJOP as an international Jewish resource section, based on painstaking research and not from "spam" or "blogs" and citing each link in detail. I have also added information about AJOP's origins, and where it fits into the broader scheme of things in the Orthodox world. Thank you for giving this matter your utmost attention, and I sincerely hope that based on the latest version of the article you will reconsider and withdraw your nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AJOP which I believe was done in too much haste. Thanks again. Sincerely," IZAK 08:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is only considered a rework that it should not be readable, it was spread out to the point where the article is cumbersome to read filled with heavy anecdotes about its history and office workers, its a downgrade of the article, u have deleted the Baltimore Jewish Times citation, you have deleted the Edah citation, and replaced it with 20 or so Kiruv mirror blogs represented as citations and, but still not one single independent citation that establishes its notability. Since you voided all the non-Kiruv sources and replaced it with clowns Kiruv P.R. blogs citations, it is now virtually Spam by all means and it should not be in the Wikipedia for one second.--יודל 15:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Umm, you make no sense. Your brief version was headed for deletion but I improved it so much that the original nominator agreed to withdraw his original nomination and now agrees that the article is worthy of being kept (something that raely happens.) The article is not about its "office workers" (what a cheek to say that) -- it lists all four directors who head/ed the organization and its three presidents (in a span of twenty years) each directore tried to move the organization in a certain direction which is a key to understanding its history and attempted function/s in the world of Orthodoxy. That is part of a twenty year history, is it not? Nothing made up here and no bias, and no clerical workers or typists and other rabbis who worked for the organization are listed (why should they be?) There are two VERY notable citations especially, from the one from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and Jewish Law Commentary --neither of which is affiliated with AJOP and are very important in their own right. The other refernces and citations serve as an important function of AJOP's notabilty far and wide in the English-speaking Orthodox world. Let's not play mickey-mouse here please. IZAK 09:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user who opened this nomination and later retracted it has opened many other AFD's and has retracted it, look Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orthodox Jewish outreach, look Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yitzchak Berkovits another was deleted after one day so he could not retract it Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moshe Weinberger, It shoes nothing just a pattern that this is what he does all the time. About those 2 links, one is from Avi Shafran the biggest P.R. pusher for Kiruv and the other one is a passing mention in a secondary source, that does not in any way show a sign of Notability at all. As for your request we should not play mickey mouse and we should except all those other 20 English speaking orthodox citations as enough proof that they are notable, i would like to remind you of a double standard here[24] [25] [26], we cannot request strict standard when it comes to other people and when we deal with our own we look the other way and throw those standards out the window, i for one will not be part in this cabal, sorry, rules are rules.--יודל 12:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --LAZY 1L 04:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet vote. MER-C 09:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi LAZY 1L: Since the nom, I have re-written the article, it is no longer "SPAM". IZAK 05:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article improved to point where notability ascertained. Now as for copyediting and prose.... :) Avi 13:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article as improved adequately asserts notability and has enough references to keep. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. lack of independant sources attesting to notability. fails WP:ORG.--Truest blue 04:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet vote. MER-C 09:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Taken Back?

KEEP I take back my nomination of this AFD. I already closed it but user yidisheryid, who at first was the main vocal "keep" person now changed his mind and he is for deletion. Since he can't follow instructions as per a closed AFD "DO NOT MODIFY", instead of creating a new AFD or going to deletion review, he just keeps reverting the AFD. Therefore, I am letting all who need to know that I as the nominator take back my nomination. The article was greatly improved by Izak, and even now after YY has reverted many of his entries, it is still good enough for me to take back the nomination. Furthermore, YY's new reasons for his delete vote is not wiki policy. Yossiea ^(talk) 18:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE You haven't closed it only after i seconded this nomination. You cannot close my nomination, since u r not exclusively the nominator, you can say that Izak has persuaded you, but don't force this subject to be cosed since you are not the only nominater of this discussion. And all the same reasoning i and you gave before was not addressed, i the nominator of this discussion hereby declare that i am not closing this request--יודל 19:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"12:36, 20 September 2007 Yossiea (Talk | contribs) (821 bytes) (Creating deletion discussion page for AJOP. using TW)" (psst, that means that I created the page. That makes me the nominator.) In addition, your delete vote is already on top, meaning you are voting twice which is illegal. Yossiea ^(talk) 19:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I requested this nomination [27] long before u considered to close because Izak has left you some messages. YOU cannot close my nominations.--יודל 19:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general, AfD nominations are only allowed to be retracted if no other "delete" votes have been expressed. In this case, leave it open and let it run, we will see what happens. P.S. I've strucken your vote above to make your retraction more clear to other readers. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 05:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep don't use ADF to clean up articles. Jon513 20:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can use improvement, but the AfD is not the place the deal with such matters. gidonb 14:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep In light of the extensive reworking of the article since nominated for AfD, the article establishes notability for teh subject using ample reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn 14:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki 04:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paintless Dent Repair

Surely this article can be improved, but I don't think it's worthwhile. There's one external link to a commercial website, and I suspect the whole raison d'etre of this article is to advertise that commercial enterprise. If we remove the link, we have an unreferenced article, and that's also a problem. Any ideas? Shalom ^Hello 16:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a sly attempt at advertising. No reliable third party references, and not notable enough on its own to even warrant its own article. At best, deserves a paragraph in some larger article. Nick Graves 16:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete. My gut feeling is that this should be a section of an article on auto body repair in general, but I'll be doggoned if I can find such an article. --Fabrictramp 17:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Numerous body shops do paintless dent repair, and many companies sell kits. Definitely needs referencing, but it's a notable subject. Cap'n Walker 21:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesnt seem to be advertising but the article is nothing more than a definition and thus violates WP:NOT as its not a dictionary. Bigdaddy1981 21:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the external link under the assumption that it's most likely spam. It would be useful to have a consumer-level description of how paintless dent repair works (like whether they use magnets, small hammers, heat, flux capacitors, or whatever). The current article doesn't provide that, though. If it isn't fixed by the time this AFD is done, then delete. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Elkman--Victor falk 01:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A dangerous google search indicates that "paintless dent repair" is a generic term used by body shops in their advertising, rather than a trademark. This article could easily be sourced. Mandsford 00:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikify it, and then get back to me. --LAZY 1L 04:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC) sockpuppet GRBerry 03:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there have been refs in various places, that explain the technique--which I believe is usually drilling a small hole in the middle of the dent and pulling it straight with a special device. i've seen the devices advertised. I'll look for something. DGG (talk) 06:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Strong Keep). PDR is an insurance mandated repair method for auto hail damage. It is a trade-skill and an important modern body repair process. The article, however, needs help. Tparameter 03:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. As Fabrictramp noted, this article could be a section of an article on auto body repair (if we had one), but if not that, keep & wikify it. HornColumbia 17:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per ADVERT or COI Mbisanz 19:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 21:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palmetto Miltary Academy

Article is not referenced, not formatted, not notable, etc. Oh, and there are fewer than 10 Google hits. I don't see a way to rescue it from the trash heap. Shalom ^Hello 16:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The school is probably spelled Palmetto Military Academy, and that gets tons more ghits [28]. However, even with this spelling I'm not finding a lot to show notability. --Fabrictramp 22:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct spelling, then merge with South Carolina Army National Guard. Not independently notable, serves an internal function only. --Dhartung | Talk 22:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikify it, and then get back to me. --LAZY 1L 04:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC) sockpuppet GRBerry 03:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why are OCS schools notable? If there is a notable one, it is the one for NYS where the instructors are from West Point. Vegaswikian 18:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per dhartung. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Wikipedia:Redirect. Its one of the oldest guidelines on Wikipedia, please try to abide by it. Burntsauce 21:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Gandhi

Vanity page most likely created by the subject. Reads like a WP:HOAX and was started by a vandal editor [29], [30], and [31]. Burzmali 15:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable vanity biography. Useight 15:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did some searching and could not find a single reliable source that meantiond the subject. -Icewedge 16:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. WP:NN. --Evb-wiki 16:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete utterly non-notable, could easily be a vanity page or a hoax. Hut 8.5 19:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything said above. — Wen li ^(contribs) 02:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definately Keep Dear all, I am currently living in Brisbane, Australia. Recently I read an article in the Southern Star about this particular student director, I looked him up on Google and found this discussion. I am not experienced with Wikipedia so I hope I am not 'out of line', but I made an account especially to debate this issue. Publicity for our young artists is important so I say keep. However, I am unsure of the nature of this so-called 'vandal editor'. Still, the article seems accurate and is not offensive on any level. It is far from a vanity biography and the youtube link is accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phdfuji (talk • contribs) 11:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definately Keep This is no vanity article or a hoax. I'm the original creator, and am a good friend of Milan. He is quite well known through-out the film and art community in Brisbane. He is constantly asked for information about his other work from a lot of fellow artists. Since he was so popular I decided to make this article for all these people wanting to know more about it. I think it only seems logical.Jaylaw 03:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you say that you know this person quite well (as a good friend), shouldn't you have let someone else write this article then? wouldn't this fail WP:COI Arendedwinter 14:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks reliable sources. -- Whpq 17:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; arguments regarding notability were convincing; many keep arguments were weak. MastCell ^Talk 22:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STKI

Nothing in this long article to indicate why this company is notable. No independent sources. NawlinWiki 14:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STKI is one of the most important and most influential companies in Israel. It's customers are all the largest companies in the country, and it's research has been quoted in the press regularly for the past 14 years. The company's work has a major impact on the IT field in Israel similar to what Gartner has on the global market, and so we believe it is justified to have it's own page. Here are some quotes: http://www.cutter.com/meet-our-experts/schwarzkopfj.html http://analystfirms.tekrati.com/detail/firm/STKI/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erezbenari (talk • contribs) 15:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC) — Erezbenari (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete as reads like an advertorial. --Gavin Collins 09:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. —Gavin Collins 09:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable company. Keb25 10:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it is a very good article! --Visa2007 10:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is a notable company. 81.104.30.123 10:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Our branch of the government has been using their research for years, and it's definetely influential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.178.209.119 (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article lacks any resources, probably self written (to quote a previous comment :"we believe it is justified to have it's own page"). The 2 sources provided above do not provide evidence of notabily. Derwig 09:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - unless some sort of effort is made to show notability and references + Recommend Please read WP:ATE prior to cleanup + article should be Schwarzkopf, The Knowledge Integrators with a redir at STKI Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 17:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This company has been quoted in DailyMail (www.dailymaily.co.il) dozens of times as the leading source of IT info in Israel. Also in TheMarker, Israel's leading business journal. Here are a few links: http://pc.co.il/Index.asp?CategoryID=72&ArticleID=15522 http://pc.co.il/Index.asp?CategoryID=72&ArticleID=15270 http://pc.co.il/Index.asp?CategoryID=72&ArticleID=15112 http://www.themarker.com/tmc/article.jhtml?log=tag&ElementId=skira20070529_2412 http://www.themarker.com/tmc/article.jhtml?log=tag&ElementId=gg20070320_123254 http://www.themarker.com/tmc/article.jhtml?log=tag&ElementId=gg20070318_892144 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.89.150 (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2007

Keep. This is page is an informational page of a well known and respected company. The idea of this page being deleted seems

absurdly biased! Y.S. 9-26-07 (UTC)

Keep. STKI or META Group Israel has and is involved in all major information techology projects in the public, medical, private and entrepreneurial markets. Most international companies use their data for what is happenning in information technology in Israel. Their analysts present in almost all conferences in Israel and many in EMEA. The entrepreneurial research done by them is groundbreaking and was presented at the Academy of Management conference as well as the BABSON BERC entrepreneurial conference (Madrid) this year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrJimmySchwarzkopf (talk • contribs) 06:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was First AfD result was "move to Wiktionary", and should have been implemented at that time. The article is 100% unreferenced violating WP:V, and also violates WP:NOT#DICT. Therefore I close this 3rd AfD with Delete ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore sexual slang terminology

This is a non-encyclopaedic, unverified list of rude words - the online equivalent of children underlining rude words in a dictionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this article doesn't belong here.

This article was nominated for deletion previously at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Singapore_sexual_slang B1atv 14:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there's another, more recent AfD than that one: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Singapore_sexual_slang. Deor 16:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unencyclopedic, unreferenced, unverifiable, unmaintainable list of terms. Last AfD was "ambiguous", which I take to mean "no consensus". The keep opinions in the last discussion were shaky at best, in my opinion. If the list could be expanded upon, it's had over two years to do so, and I don't see any useful improvement. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletions. —Huaiwei 17:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a glossary. --Dhartung | Talk 18:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But Wikipedia does contain glossaries. Nice trick there, pointing to one policy and calling it something else. DHowell 02:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The last AFD was, from my point of view, quite poorly done, with numerous comments seemingly drawn directly from WP:AADD. Best option would be to delete, and transwiki the material to Wiktionary. ~Cr∞nium 19:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a patent nonsense and unencyclopedic article. Keb25 23:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia does indeed contain glossaries (see List of glossaries and Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)), and this one is referenced, and has an encyclopedic introduction to give it context. WP:NOT#DICT was meant to prevent articles from being nothing more than dictionary definitions, etymologies, and/or usage guides. But a list of terms relating to a specific topic is indeed encyclopedic. DHowell 02:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hersfold. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What part of ENCYCLOPEDIA don't you people understand??? Burntsauce 21:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- the vote for deletion here just shows how bad things have gotten here. This article is 2 years old, was written by someone who appears to be a strong contributor, and has every look of being verifiable, and useful, but not referenced well. This could be very useful for people needing wiki, and could be trimmed to be encyclopaediac.JJJ999 22:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:USEFUL. Your argument that because it was written long ago by someone who is a "strong contributor" also falls flat on its face. I probably contribute more in a month than this person has in his or her entire time on Wikipedia but that is neither here nor there. Burntsauce 23:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The point of that observation is that it is not a hoax. It is an encyclopaedic in my opinion to have an article on different sections of languages, if someone had an article on "consonants" or "Chinese Verbs" I doubt anyone would care, the fact that it is rude words should not be decisive, I'd rather it be cleaned up and kept. By all means assert your view, just don't assume I'm going to agree.JJJ999 23:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of glossaries are here; linguistic differences are notable; and WP is not censored. Carlossuarez46 21:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well referenced, IMO. Where else but wikipedia can someone find an exhaustive list of singlish slang (easily)? Great article. Keeper | 76 16:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adre'anna Jackson

Contested prod. Wikipedia is not a memorial, no assertion of notability of this person, and a brief flare of news events doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. >Radiant< 14:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With all due respects for her soul, this subject was not notable when she was alive. Wikipedia is NOT a memorial. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, but she was unnotable. The only memorial location in Wikipedia is Deceased Wikipedians, and even then, they had to be prolific editors. Useight 16:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the record, the subject was not a Wikipedian at all. You may not have intended that, but you had me confused there for a moment. --Dhartung | Talk 18:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sorry for the confusion, I was just pointing out the fact that there is a memorial in existence within Wikipedia. It's not relevant to this article's subject and she does not belong there, I was only mentioning it for informational purposes. Useight 16:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant data to Terapon Adhahn and delete. Sadly, the only thing notable about the poor girl is her killer. Alba 17:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Alba. --Dhartung | Talk 18:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one who de-prodded the article, and I noted then that a merge/redirect was fine by me. Note that Adhahn is still only a "person of interest," though, and that a new article[32] offers a (farfetched, to my eyes) theory linking Jack McClellan to the killing. --Groggy Dice T | C 02:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry state of affairs for her family, but still not notable. Agree with nom about memorials. I will also say, do not redirect to alleged killer. I'm not a big fan of redirecting victims to their killers, seems harsh to me, and disrespectful to the family. Keeper | 76 16:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat^♫ 00:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian profanity

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Being a native romanian speaker, and with good knowledge of english, i can assure you that the words shown here are very accurate, and, thou not always common for most of the romanian native speakers, they are real. Of course it needs a little clean up, that's why i took the liberty of adding a few changes. You have to understand, that, even if the words do not appear offensive in english translation, they sound a lot different in romanian. Try for example using "fornication under consent of the king" as a profanity in romanian(the origin of "fuck" in english), and notice the inexistent consequences. Of course, "fuck" has a lot more sense, the same as "floci" has in romanian as a profanity, than "pubic hair" would have in english. I also read a lot of materials that try to explain and translate romanian profanities in english. Most of them are wrong or have a very simplistic approach, and almost under 10% truthfulness. You have to understand, new profanities are invented almost daily in romanian, and no one really knows them all. What you can read in this article are just basic words that compose every day profanities. Try upsetting a taxi driver in Bucharest, and he will curse you for minutes without repeating the same profanity. It is a method for releasing anger that other languages do not have. I personally find it frustrating to do the same thing in english, as most of the english profanities tend to be repeated, cannot be multiplied by making different combinations between them, as in romanian, and..most of all, tend to be pathetic (for a romanian) and do not reflect the real level of anger you experience. Trust me, i have heard most horripilating profanities in romanian, that in english cannot even be imagined. I consider the article should be kept, but with a proper cleaning. It's a good starting point for such a subject.

Oh, and "draco" ("dragon") in latin, IS the origin for "dracu" in romanian, wich means "devil". Due to christian mysticism, "draco"-"dragon" became "the beast" slaughtered by St. Michael aka "devil". Please try to avoid giving wrong explanations for a language that you do not know, or it's linquistic origins.

There are a number of reasons for proposing this. Firstly, this is completely unverifiable. Secondly, who decides the criteria for inclusion. For example: "floci = pubic hairs". Since when has "pubic hairs" been a profanity? I know kids tend to underline rude words in dictionaries - this appears to be nothing more than an online equivalent and should be deleted. B1atv 14:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not at all unverifiable, you dumb fuck (see? now you could translate that in Romanian), as there are many Romanian speakers on English Wikipedia. "Floci" is a profanity, trust me (although you don't have in English any equivalent word (that I know of)). If you want to translate pubic hair in Romanian that would be "păr pubian". That's what a gynecologist might use. Never "floci". You may object that there are many rarely used curses there, but "floci" in not one of them. Deleting the whole article is stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.120.236.174 (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

——————————————————————————————————

"draco" does not mean devil in latin. It means dragon. But all in all it presents many real Romanian curse words, although I'm sure some of them are never used and the translations are not perfect either, which means that the author doesn't master the Romanian language very well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.36.119.100 (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"floci = pubic hairs" actually qualifies as a profanity, at least in Romanian, the same way "Fuck" is a profanity in English as opposed to "having sexual intercourse". Although they mean the same thing, "Fuck" is a profanity. There is no word in English that would mean pubic hairs and be a profanity at the same time, that's why this entry sounds weird to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.85.252.100 (talk • contribs) 10:46, September 20, 2007

Delete just seems like it's unmanagable, there's going to always be new words and phrases to swear with... Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep + rewrite: As was mentioned above by our IP friend, we might also be failing to realize that just because a word doesn't necessarily mean something horrible in English that it doesn't in another language. Completely unverifiable is a bit of a leap. There are dictionaries of Romanian slang (and here's one of them.) Note also: Category:Profanity by language& Category:Slang by language —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opiaterein (talk • contribs) 15:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although a book subtitled "A Course in Modern Romanian" is cited as a source, and that book is in college and public libraries, something doesn't ring true. I seriously doubt that its author, University of Washington linguist Professor James E. Augerot, devoted that much of a reference book to the lengthy string of profanities that make up this article. More likely, this is original research. Of course, maybe Romanians do swear out long sentences like "Dute in pizda matii, cu curu inainte, sati dau si o muie cand o fut pe mata!" which describes a rather complex incestuous menage a trois. Or maybe it's the answer to "What's the dirtiest thing you can say in Romanian?" Mandsford 01:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If you take a quick look at the history, you'll see that anonymous users have been taking a great deal of interest in the article. It requires cleanup and probably a protect, but that doesn't mean that it has any less value than the articles on Spanish or Latin profanity. (Latin especially, and I don't think it takes a great deal of thought to tell why.) Deleting articles instead of making them better is not what makes a good encyclopedia. — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 01:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only on Wikipedia can an article on profanity get a "cleanup" Mandsford 01:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say that like it's a bad thing. --Kizor 02:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, dictionary material to the extent that it is accurate. Gazpacho 02:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. as it has already been Transwiki'd Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 17:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Hello I am the article's author. I strongly oppose any deletion. Swearing and cursing is a part of every day life both in Romania and everywhere else. I encourage any constructive criticism and any modifications but I must say that the modifications made so far have in my opinion made this article worse. If there are articles on spanish, portughese and italian profanities why can't there be one for romanian profanities as well? This looks a lot like censorship to me. I would be very disappointed should this article be removed and I would start to question the nature of wikipedia as a whole. Note also: I AM A NATIVE ROMANIAN SPEAKER comment added by para15000 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep | It's reality, it's part of us and it's a bridge between the daily spoken romanian language and the rest of the (english speakin) world. It should stay! AlinCiortea 21:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC) — AlinCiortea (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete: unverifiable, although I'll change to keep if we get sources for the words. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 22:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable concept and no less relevant/encyclopedic than profanity in other languages. It can be sourced even if it isn't: see WP:DELETE for that concept. Carlossuarez46 21:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite verifiable, or at the least worth the benefit of the doubt - I know of profanity compendiums in other languages, and have consulted them for Wikipedia before, so we can't dismiss the possibility of there being one for Romanian out of hand. The place of profanity in a culture goes beyond simple dictionary definitions, and it is feasible to restrict a list of examples to the most prominent ones (for instance, one of said compendiums had a list ranked by significance, well usable as a basis for inclusion). Lastly, I happen to speak a non-English language and what's profane in it need not be profane in English, and vice versa. --Kizor 02:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is absolutely dictionary material, and should be transwikified if anything. A list of words? Enough with these "list of profanity words in X language" articles. The Evil Spartan 00:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

good afternoon > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_profanity > > the link above is an insult to me, my country and my ancestors > > it is not relevant for Romania or Romanians. there are many other countries more dirty, obscene and sinner than us > > can you tell me the author of this shit? is " it= the author " paid by foreign pagan mason money > > the article contains false info ( The Romanian language is considered to have a huge set of inflammatory terms and phrases, etc. ), fake expressions, unused phrases, slang, etc. > > please, keep Wikipedia a clean environment. and respect any nation, tradition and culture > > thanx

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

The result was delete. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organizational Order of Battle

I believe this article should be deleted because it estoterically duplicates information available at a whole host of other Strategic Air Command pages (see Category:Strategic Air Command. For example, Strategic Air Command divisions. Buckshot06 14:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Delete wikipedia not a directory--Victor falk 01:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —Buckshot06 18:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. EdJohnston 02:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\^talk 01:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political humanism

Unreferenced WP:OR. Appears to be a WP:POV-pushing neologism. Evb-wiki 13:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. This is the first instance I've seen of Wikipedia is not for things made up in an NGO conference one day. Alba 17:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delet for violation of policy on neologisms. Shalom ^Hello 18:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. --TheEmoEater 00:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, alba & shalom.--Victor falk 01:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Wen li ^(contribs) 02:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fuzzy NEO. Pavel Vozenilek 02:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 23:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buddha Wild: Monk in the Hut

NN movie - all of the sources are listings or press releases, no significant source or evidence of the multiple WP:RS that we would expect to see. Fredrick day 13:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same non-notable reasons given in the snowballed Anna Wilding AfD. Tarc 13:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All sources are not listingss of press relases at all.SAG FOUDNAIOTN,ACADMEY FO ARTS AND SCINESE,LAMMMEL CINAMS,BUDDHA WILD.OCM and there are dozens of others.These are NOT press releases.This film played for over six weeeks in public cineams.very few film do that and we note only a few films on Wiki have done that.Any film tha plays in a cinema to gain theatrical release must be of certain standard.TGhere are dozens of links verfying this film and its established track record and high ranking.You are to stop taking down the links that are put up and stop defaming this film .You are in fact,as what you say is preposturely untrue showing relgious or racist bias.In regard sot press releases,so what.In order for press releases to be published and approved they have to go through several filters....We also not e there are several newspaper articles for this film wtaht were also taken down.There is so many significant soures and evidince.You or someone jsut keeps taking the links down.i ahve refered the mater to the wikipeda foundation and office a this is is blatent vandalism of this page.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.29.208 (talk • contribs)

— 24.189.29.208 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please stop making wild and unfounded accusations. Sarah 13:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable and unverifiable. even if this film is borderline notable, the outrageous ongoing disruption and promotion by the film director's friend is untenable and just not worth it. It is very difficult to find reliable, non-trivial sources which are third party published, rather than self-published pr releases written by our friend below with his very distinctive writing style. Delete. And for our sanity, salt both this and Anna Wilding. Sarah 13:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOT TRUE>There is no distrubtion.Someone just keeps taking the links down straight away that are verfiable.You have no right to intefere with a studios film or anna wilding's work. This matter has been refferred to the Wikipedia Foundation. We ask you stop trying to destroy the credibility of Anna Wilding publicly,and staff her third party person who actually do know her.And her work We note all coporations, studios and distribution companiues and talnet issues press releases,through lawyers or otherwise.In order for them to be released they have to go through various qualifying filters.YOur arguments there are invalid.So take heed.This is valid work and we aks you stop removign links and newspapers articles and refernces on the film ot make it look like there are none.There is much.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.29.208 (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an incredible amount of abuse and disruption and for the sake of your friend, I strongly urge you to stop. What you've posted above is exactly what we're talking about: self-promotional articles, not independent, verifiable reliable sources. Sarah 14:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. This is not notable. The efforts of many while trying to get WP:RS for Anna Wilding also failed to establish notability for this film. I asked the closing admin for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Wilding if they had WP:SALTed Anna Wilding and he said he had. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 14:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above press release is irrelevant to this discussion, as it does not in any way pertain to Buddha Wild. Furthermore, it wouldn't have been appropriate for anything concerning the Anna Wilding article, because it is a press release and not a Reliable Source. It is strongly suspected that IP 24.189.29.208 is a sockpuppet of Real77, who has been banned indefinitely, and the closing admin is requested to ignore all remarks from that IP address. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 14:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I hoped that our efforts hadn't been in vain, but in the end I don't find enough to convince me of notability. Itsmejudith 16:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I spent the better part of the last fifteen minutes trying to figure out if this film was notable or not. I started by checking on the external sources in the article. The links provided me with a couple of brief summaries and promoted the films as well. There was not anything in the external sources that could really be viewed as asserting notability. The article itself is completely unsourced, and in my opinion that is the biggest issue. If the the film was as widely shown as it was purported to be, there certainly there would be more information about it. Next, I went online to find my own reliable sources, and I could not find any. All I found was short blurbs or reviews. The article was created in April and we still don't have any sources five months later. As far as I'm concerned, this is a non notable film that was produced by a non notable director. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I think this should be deleted. --Cyrus Andiron 16:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete no actual assertions of notability. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, insufficient attribution of notability to independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 19:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above. Unnotable 60 minute "film" and unnotable director. --David Shankbone 19:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per directors comments above. Tonyx123 22:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The concerns regarding sourcing, original research and notability remain largely unaddressed.--Kubigula (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current and Voltage Surge Suppressors (CVSS™)

Apparent blatant advertising. Not speedying, as there's potentially a valid article about the technology buried in the puff-piece; however as it stands this is unkeepable, and I'm not in a position to clean it up — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to contain much original research Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly (not to be biased), it is not apparent to me that the content included is advertising. But I am willing to learn why and how. Is it because I have not explained the technology detailed enough? Or that because it is still a new thing, not many people have heard/written/researched about it, hence the content is deemed less "reliable" and more "advertising"? I'm not trying to pick a fight here, I really just want to find out how I can contribute better. And I'm raising these questions because it really is not obvious to me how the content is considered as "advertising". So please enlighten me. Thank you. Ryantan 14:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Article appears to contain much original research, and does not cite reliable sources. Article needs to be wikified, as well. All third-party sources cited are for other technologies, and not the subject at hand. Give author time to clean it up. If concerns cannot be addressed (especially OR and NS), will switch to delete. --MikeVitale 16:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments. I will try to work on it. Ryantan 19:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Ryantan... this isn't advertising. If it is advertising, it should at least have mentioned that a company called "Innovolt" is marketing this. A news release from Georgia Tech, where Deepak Divan designed this partiuclar suppressor, speaks to the marketing. Mandsford 01:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of establishment of notability through the provision of multiple, reliable, independent sources. Skimming the ghits, I see nothing outside of blogs, wikis, and official documentation/press releases. I'll be pleased to change my vote if someone can show otherwise. This is an emerging technology though, so I also have no prejudice against letting it sit in userspace until notability exists, if ever. Someguy1221 02:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepIt was an interesting article, and I can't see what the fuss is about. Bugsy 14:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some information ,but intended as advertising a particular commercial product. The TM in the title is indicative.DGG (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of this TM-splattered article gets almost no Ghits, indicating that it has not become a notable product. --Groggy Dice T | C 03:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly advertising doesn't the ubiquitous TM make it blatant enough for everyone? Carlossuarez46 21:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds like advertising, and this is apparently not a widely-known product, according to Google. This topic area may be worthy of being covered, but not in a way that restricts the article to covering a single product. Also we have no third-party sources, independent of the maker, to show that this particular product is notable. EdJohnston 02:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward DeVries

Biography of a living person that does not seem to satisfy notability for academicians. DeVries' texts seem to be published and vended by his employer, and I've found no evidence that they are significant or well known (criteria #3). I did a Google crawl on Edward DeVries and found nothing to substantiate notability on this particular individual. The University of which DeVries is president seems to be a homestudy program. It is a very general term, so difficult to search individually (many schools have departments named this), but I can't find any evidence of encyclopedic notability for the school. Moonriddengirl 11:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 14:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --Fabrictramp 17:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Crusio 21:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Steve Carlson^Talk 23:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smite, per nominator. Pretty straightforward. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 05:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed a number of biographical entries about people who have far less than Mr. DeVries. If his article is deleted certainly at least 1/3rd of all wikipedia bios will need to be deleted as well. Is not the internet a big enough place?

And why should people in Germnay or California even care one way or another? What is the personal nature of the interest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.164.204.80 (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User 70.164.204.80 has only made 2 other edits, both to the article that is the subject of this AfD. A large amount of text was added, all of it unsourced, nothing of it establishing notability. The fact that there may be other entries that are even less notable than this one has no merit. If it had, we would risk a huge case of inflation on Wikipedia each time somebody would ad a non-notable entry. --Crusio 20:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If the school were regionally accredited, as president he might squeak by as notable. But there's just not enough to pass WP:BIO standards. Ward3001 22:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G1 Utter nonsense. Pedro | Chat 12:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declan Coyte

Disputed prod. Fails WP:BIO. No serious assertion of notability. No WP:RS provided. Probable WP:HOAX. Evb-wiki 11:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible delete. I know for a fact that Declan Coyte didn't destroy the Death Star and rescue the Mushroom Princess, because I did those things. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. --Tikiwont 12:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Come on, speedy this under G1 or A7. Carlosguitar 12:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Surely there must be some speedy criteria this can be squeezed into? — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A little insidious, too. Might want to check [33] and also Special:Contributions/58.172.146.235, most have been removed. Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I originally considered tagging as {{db-nonsense}}, but the claims weren't nearly as outrageous when I prod'd it. It definitely meets WP:BOLLOCKS now. --Evb-wiki 12:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Friday (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obesity in Applications

Cannot find reliable source from Google, spoof of Body Mass Index, formula is not recognized in any computer science text, fails "general notibility guidelines" WP:NOTABILITY, and is possible hoax article since the references do not meet WP:RS quality standards... blogs are not a reliable source. — 6etonyourfeet^\t\c 03:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as borderline nonsense/hoax. A Google search for "bloat index" turns up items unrelated to computing. Shalom ^Hello 18:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be based an a spoof article I will copy this into a private wiki though it's rather a humorous piece. Just does not belong here. Phatom87 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. Gazpacho 06:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with deletion of material in copyright violation. Espresso Addict 03:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Mink

This article was nominated for speedy deletion per A7, non-notability. While the article is highly advertorial and needs cleanup/rewrite from scratch, Oscar Mink might be notable enough for Wikipedia, through his involvement with the University of Texas and Motorola University and through the awards he has received. Procedural listing, no opinion for the moment. A ecis^Brievenbus 11:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as has enought references, books, but needs little cleanup Elmao 11:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The entire article is pretty much copied from here [34] (you may have to scroll down a bit). This could be speedied as CSD G12, or just tagged as a copyvio. --Cyrus Andiron 16:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 14:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite based on his accomplishments and the books he's written, quite a handful from notable publishers and university presses. Rewrite to get rid of copyvio issues.--Sethacus 18:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be notable enough. • Lawrence Cohen 22:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable though the article needs rewriting.It's typical of COI that while they engage in puffery, they dont get specific about he actual notability and the references for it. The link to the memorial says he wrote over" thirteen published books as well as over 100 articles, monographs, and book chapters.." Tha'ts enough, though we have to find them of course. Needs rewritingto eliminate the copyvio; I've started. DGG (talk) 07:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Whitcomb

While this person does seem to be a candidate for office, I cannot find any evidence that he meets the notability criteria; my google search turned up only his own publicity materials. Prod removed by creator, after some discussion but without the addition of any sources but Whitcomb's own campaign page. FisherQueen (Talk) 11:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge+Delete into Democratic Party (United States) or the relevent State Party article - Creation of a independant Article prior to an election seems to violate the spirit of NPOV Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 18:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless he wins he will not be notable. Eluchil404 21:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Communist-led riot

Article is simply a list of links to other articles with no additional information. No reason given for article focusing on this one sub-section of the wider Riot and List of riots articles. Black Butterfly 10:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most articles are in Category:Riots in Singapore, but "Communist-led" is inherently difficult to define and POV prone.--Tikiwont 11:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Ultimately, it makes little difference to a burning neighborhood as to who started a riot. Mandsford 01:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 02:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 21:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of ATC squadrons

This article is a link farm which appears to exist solely because we keep removing squadron websites from the ATC article. I think we can safely leave the directory of squadrons to the ATC webmasters. Guy (Help!) 10:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pure directory. Personally I wouldn't even list the 'wings' in the main article. --Tikiwont 11:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 21:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Kewanee

Not-notable sleep-away camp; fails WP:ORG. LAZY 1L 09:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above.--LAZY 1L 09:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC) sockpuppet GRBerry 03:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Claim to notability is that aunt Esther wanted everybody to drink her prune juice... I wish there was a WP:CUTE policy to let this article slip through...--Victor falk 10:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smite but I do wish there was such a policy, Victor. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 05:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another summer camp with no notability. Vegaswikian 18:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No objections, no sources, WP:NFT. >Radiant< 14:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tour de franzia

Drinking game known only on myspace and to very few others. No news articles, no books and no interest in the world. Fails WP:V and WP:RS - cannot every be an encyclopediac article. Peripitus (Talk) 23:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 09:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what's to add? Unlikely but plausible redirect candidate to Tour de France; if this is truly widespread drinking game, but unverifiable in reliable sources, as opposed to something made up in a single sorority house, a redirect might be worthwhile if only to prevent re-creation. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MastCell ^Talk 22:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal's Next Top Model

Hoax. Not a single hit outside of Wikipedia for any of the winners mentioned. In fact I could not find a source that there is/was a franchise for America's Next Top Model in Portugal at all. The information on cycle 4 is clearly nonsense. Also no really better version in the history.VirtualDelight 08:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviousWP:HOAX.--LAZY 1L 09:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC) sockpuppet GRBerry 03:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete hoax Fosnez 09:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ You just can't find it because its not usually mentioned in English. Look here[35] --RucasHost 10:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand this message-board posts right it is suggested that making a franchise of America's next Top Model would be a good idea. Could you give a link to the show on TV in Portugal or its name there? --VirtualDelight 11:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete No I can't. --RucasHost 11:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- abstain- no evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJJ999 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Will leave merge suggestion on article page. CitiCat^♫ 01:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fate/stay night scenarios

Delete or Merge into Fate/stay night - The article is in violation of Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries. 十八 21:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 08:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need an AfD to do a merge. Be bold. Corvus cornix 23:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. jdstroy 19:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting situation. I could see this as basic info for the game if cut down a lot, and possibly staying as an independent article. A sort of "list of episodes" but for the game. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 04:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Ned Scott 04:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MastCell ^Talk 22:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State Of Mind

Does not appear to satisfy criterion laid out in band inclusion guideline. CygnetSaIad 08:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not A7 (claim to be signed by major label) but not notable either. Eluchil404 21:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BAND. After deletion this should redirect to State of Mind. shoeofdeath 22:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:BAND. Carlossuarez46 21:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MastCell ^Talk 22:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

411mania

Kept by default last year, but no evidence of continuing notice. The cited mentions are trivial (and two of them are now 404). Does not appear to have been the primary subject of any non-trivial independent coverage. Notability is not inherited; participation by some people of some degree of notability does not confer notability on this site. All content appears to be written from personal knowledge of the site, not from any external analysis of it. Guy (Help!) 08:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The previous AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/411mania. I've renamed this nomination accordingly.--Tikiwont 09:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)--Tikiwont 09:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish delete Only passing references (not primary subject) at cited sources. Notability claims based on primary source Web traffic report, thus fails WP:N. I don't like the idea of deleting as it does seem popular. -- Kl4m ^{T C} 16:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sourced claims to meeting WP:WEB criteria. Eluchil404 21:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB the passing mentions in mainstream media come nowhere near that threshold, which we have for a reason. Carlossuarez46 21:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Mr.Z-man 01:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bBlog

This is an article from 2004, and unreferenced ever since. I stumbled upon it when it was mentioned in the context of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS elsewhere. Some research of my own revealed [36] as an independent reference, a not-so-notability-proving SecurityFocus vulnerability entry, and a ton of... well, blogs. Lots of Ghits, but little WP:RS and I'm not so sure about WP:N No opinion from me, but I'd like that the community evaluates the product's notability. Duja► 08:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a great article, but pretty standard for Wikipedia software stubs. If a bunch of people use it, there's a good chance it's notable. Shalom ^Hello 18:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as a note: the post-id vulnerability was fixed in the last release. thoughm as a former developer, i do not recommend to use it any more; still, some people do. Pixelpope 10:33, 24 September 2007 (CET)

Weak Keep. This article illustrates the difficulty of proving notability for software. It seems to be fairly widely used, but it's hard to find independent reliable sources to show it. I'm defaulting to 'Keep' here out of uncertainty more than anything else, but would have no objection to seeing the article deleted instead. Terraxos 23:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 13:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
Keep. Just notable enough. • Lawrence Cohen 20:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete posibility of notability has come and gone. Time to let go. --Gavin Collins 20:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N. Carlossuarez46 21:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources that would help to show notability. It is hard to justify extensive Google searching by AfD participants to evaluate the impact of software that seems like it hasn't been maintained or enhanced in a long time. The above note by User:Pixelpope says that the last release was in June 2005. At bblog.com, the Forum doesn't work, so it's impossible to know if there is any current activity. bBlog appears to have been superseded by Loquacity. EdJohnston 03:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, due to lack of independent sources. What standard do we want to use for saying it's "fairly widely used"? Unless there are secondary sources to prove notability, the article should be removed. --B. Wolterding 16:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In 2004 I mightve given it the benefit of the doubt. In 2007 its an easy choice. Mbisanz 22:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\^talk 01:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonothan Ryan de Alwis

Hoax, not on the Forbes list, in fact there are no Google hits at all. Also no hits at BBC. And the third link is to an article about Branson. VirtualDelight 08:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. --LAZY 1L 09:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC) sockpuppet GRBerry 03:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It does say it all. No ghits, even using the most general possible search terms FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bfigura ^(talk) 01:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This and other bio referencing "Heavenly Pictures" e.g. Harrison Christian appear to be hoaxes, using non-existant references (shortfilms.com does not exist). dramatic 09:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a hoax, and well done VirtualDelight in its detection and exposure. Sam Blacketer 09:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously a hoax. No Google hits, and the one online reference doesn't mention Alwis.-gadfium 09:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. —gadfium 09:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete more hoaxage from kiwi vandal, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amir Razjou & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harrison Christian. Pete.Hurd 03:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 histamine. Espresso Addict 04:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

H substance (inflammation)

This usage appears to be a rarely-used term only found in a few medical research papers, compared to the widespread mainstream use of the term "H substance" to describe the H antigen. Given the very small base of cites, does this pass the notability criteria? If not, should this article be deleted, and the H substance disambiguation page converted to a redirect to H antigen? The Anome 08:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, you assertion that it as been used in "few medical research papers" would signify notability (although the article is not sourced) if this is true, then the article should be kept. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources says that papers are "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources" Fosnez 08:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Pete.Hurd 08:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Fosnez, Pete.Hurd 08:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete The standard is not being mentioned in a few scientific papers. The standard is being the usual term for something notable. Anyway, I'd like to see the papers--PubMed gives zero hits for "H substance" and "inflammation." It seems to be an older use-- I see it mentioned in "A brief survey of the history of inflammation", Journal of Inflammation Research 43, Numbers 3-4 / December, 1994, Notability is permanent, but we're not a medical dictionary and unless the earlier terminology was notable in its period it doesn't belong here, except as a mention in the article on histamine. DGG (talk) 07:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, change to redirect to Histamine. Tim Vickers 23:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to H antigen. [37], [38], [39], [40].--Nick Y. 17:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Freedom of the press to avoid confusion; the preface in question is already covered at Animal Farm. Perhaps a disambig link from Freedom of the press is warranted, though the preface may not be notable enough. MastCell ^Talk 22:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The freedom of the press

Contested prod. Subject is not notable enough for a stand-alone article. It does merit a section in Animal Farm -- and it already exists: see Animal Farm#British censorship and suppressed preface. Additionally, the link supplied as a reference apparently does not work. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge per nom.--LAZY 1L 10:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC) sockpuppet GRBerry 03:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect but to Freedom of the press, it is a notable concept which has preoccupied politicians and voters especially at election time. KTo288 11:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just to clarify: We're not debating the concept of "freedom of the press," nor the article that addresses the concept. It's just this article about the deleted preface to Animal Farm that we are discussing. (If we ever discuss deleting the concept of freedom of the press, I'm in big trouble.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; not sufficiently notable in context of the book. Shalom ^Hello 18:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to Animal Farm, but redirect to Freedom of the press, as the title really should go to the main concept and not to a preface discussing that concept. Alba 20:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Alba's suggestion. Bearian 02:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per Alba. Chubbles 19:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill White (neo-Nazi)

Biography of non-notable racist. Although the article does have a few references (including one from the SLPC) they all seem to assert notability of his website Overthrow.com. I suggest deleting this article and making another article to cover his website. RucasHost 07:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has 15 inline citations, another 15 end references, and 9 external links. When the subject was involved there were well over a hundred sources listed.[41] (He's an avid self-promoter). It took work to get the list pared down. Overthrow.com is just one of his many notable and non-notable endeavors, including founding at least two political parties and trying, with some success, to start several riots. I'm afraid to say that this is a notable racist. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The fact that he's an avid self-promoter seems to be argument for deletion. It's almost certain he's editting his article a lot (in violation of Wikipedia policy) to generate publicity. Many of the citations are junk (references to racist essays written by him and his friends) and those which are good have more to do with his website than him. --RucasHost 08:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as long as it is written in a neutral point of view, the subject is notable, and verifiable then it get an article. The original author is irrelevant - as long as it is now neutral. Wikipedia is not censored. I personally don't like the subject at hand, but thats my personal opinion, and is not a valid reason for deletion. Fosnez 08:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Like I have said many times, the subject isn't really notable. His website is notable, he is just the man behind the website. --RucasHost 08:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain ~~Weak keep per footnotes sources, he is notable. [42] [43] With WP:AUTOBIO alone we cannot delete. Carlosguitar 08:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment. I'm torn on this: I checked several sources and the most he gets is a passing mention, either as spokesman/commander of "American National Socialist Worker Party", involved in several incidents, or as the author of the website. Only the local Roanoke newspaper article ([44]) is about him, sort of, as well as SPLC Intelligence report (but then, they cover just about every racist group in the US). Apart from this, the article suffers from a lots of quote mining. ~~Weak delete~~, I think, and I might change my mind if anyone finds more substantial coverage. Duja► 08:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I think that Will Beback below made it. Keep. Duja► 09:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and unsubstantial coverage (is only mentioned in passing as Duja pointed out) by any independant sources.--LAZY 1L 10:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC) sockpuppet GRBerry 03:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- not only is he self-editing/promoting, but he is doing it to promote his cause. Strong delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJJ999 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject hasn't edited the artilce in a long time, and it has been heavily edited by other editors since then. This article has been stable for over a year. I've done a search of a newspaper archive and have found several articles that are mostly about the subject:.
- "NEO-NAZIS VOW TO RETURN TO OHIO TO STAGE RALLY" The Associated Press. Richmond Times - Dispatch. Richmond, Va.: Nov 10, 2005. pg. B.4
- "Landlord is victor after long battle" Carol Hazard. Knight Ridder Tribune Business News. Washington: Nov 3, 2005. pg 1
- "Anarchist Web site salutes 2 killers" Robert Stacy McCain. Washington Times. Washington, D.C.: Apr 30, 1999. pg. A.10
- "FBI PROBES DEATH THREATS AGAINST MIAMI COLUMNIST" Greg Gordon McClatchy Newspapers. Daily Press. Newport News, Va.: Jun 21, 2007. pg. A.2
- "NEO-NAZI SITE POSTS ADDRESSES OF TRUTH PANELISTS ; ALTHOUGH SOME SEE A THREAT TO THE RECONCILIATION BOARD, POLICE CHOOSE NOT TO CONTACT THE MAN WHO HOSTS THE PAGE" Lorraine Ahearn Staff Writer. Greensboro News Record. Greensboro, N.C.: Jul 3, 2005. p. B.1
There's even a profile of his former girlfriend:
- "Female neo-Nazi seemed carefree at arraignment", PETER GELZINIS. Boston Herald. Boston, Mass.: Jun 26, 2001. p. 008
I also should mention again the long list of media mentions that was once in the article: [45] So to the extent that notability is established by substantial coverage in mainstream press, this subject easily qualifies. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User talk:JJJ999. --TheEmoEater 00:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - What does JJJ999s talk page have to do with Bill White? I don't see anything there at all Kuronue |

Talk 04:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I meant delete per User:JJJ999. --TheEmoEater 05:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are apparently at least a dozen reliable sources for the article, so I don't see what the problem is. If you want to stop a single user from editing a page about himself, there're other ways to do it besides deleting the entire article. Kuronue | Talk 04:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From what has been said during this discussion , there re clearly enough sources for notability for him & his website, and the article is probably better here. We won't really need two. COI is not a reason for deletion, just for neutral editing. DGG (talk) 08:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Truest blue 03:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC) sockpuppet GRBerry 03:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's certainly notable; this article lists several references to the fact. As for the question of whether or not he's more notable than his website, I really don't understand the arguement. His website is just a collection of his nonsensical ravings; this page covers basically the same subject matter a page on his website would. Revolutionaryluddite 04:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's no notable enough to deserve an article here. --Tesla55 06:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Freedom of Speech FTW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.60.79 (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Associated Press has an article about the subject today: "FBI Reviewing Anti-Jena 6 Web Page". Also covered in the local media: "Roanoke neo-Nazi condemns Jena Six" (Roanoke Times), "FBI Investigates Local White Supremacist's Website" WSLS NewsChannel 10. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the whole Jena 6 thing; he's now a notable wart on society. Regretably Keep. Cowicide 06:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, depressingly enough. Yes, he has edited his own page (and other pages on Wikipedia) in an attempt to raise his own profile; but it appears he's received enough coverage in mainstream sources to become notable by now anyway. How I wish it were otherwise. Terraxos 23:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Odious though this person may be, he is adequately notable per WP:BIO. A1octopus 16:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 19:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Farrell (Roman Catholic Bishop)

Page gives no reason for notability. There are about 5,000 living Roman Catholic bishops[46], so we cannot include them all. SolidPlaid 05:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why can't we include them all? Wikipedia is not paper. There are plenty of sources for him [47], [48], [49] etc. If a footballer who's played one match for Raith Rovers is automatically notable then how can a Bishop not be? Nick mallory 05:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete- per remarks from nom —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJJ999 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nom says there's no assertion of notability - I would hold that being a Bishop is automatically notable. The nom says 'we cannot include them all' which is obviously untrue. The notability guidelines say that someone is notable if "The person has been the subject of published[1] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." and that is also the case. How can you argue 'delete per nom'? Nick mallory 06:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The importance of a position is in part dependant on the difficulty of attainment, and the dilution of it's merits. for example, Order of Australia is a real, serious award, but we could hardly award everyone who got one based purely on that. 5000 Bishops seems just too far to use it, we might equally have a page for every Sheriff in Australia.JJJ999 06:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What about every baseballer who's appeared in a major league game or every professional footballer who's played in a national league? Should we get busy deleting some of them because there's too many? How about villages or species of beetles? The whole point about wikipedia is that it can be truly encyclopedic because it's not paper. Nick mallory 07:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's right!, being a Bishop is automatically notable as Nick said Elmao 07:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Nick mallory. --RucasHost 07:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a combination of factors, from fame to significance. I have no idea who founded the MCC, but they are significant because of what the MCC later went on to become, even if almost nobody has heard of him. On the other hand, there may be heaps of sporting stars, but because so many of them have considerable notability, they are all eligible. For example, most people on wikipedia would probably consider Speedy Claxton to be an insignificant NBA player, but he has alot of fans, he is famous among thousands of people, he earns millions of dollars per year. Many Spurs fans could think back to his useful play against the Nets in the 2003 finals, even if most people have forgotten him by now. For this he is sufficiently notable. I am not convinced a Bishop is closer to an NBA player than to a glorified sheriff.JJJ999 07:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a feeling I would disagree with the argument you're trying to make but, as I can't make head nor tail of it, let's see what other people have to say. "I am not convinced a Bishop is closer to an NBA player than to a glorified sheriff"...Um, you do know what a Bishop is, right? Nick mallory 08:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All Roman Catholic Bishops (and analogous positions in similarly well-established denominations or religions) are in principle notable simply by virtue of their office. Persons below that rank (or equivalent ranks in other denominations/religions) are not notable (according to their office), although they may be notable for other reasons. --SJK 08:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability as a concept, is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". The article has citations of relevant sources. Also, yes, every person that got an Order of Australia should get an article. Not because they got one, but rather because they did something notable to get it. Fosnez 08:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Quite high up position in fairly well known world religion. -- GWO —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 09:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable person. Andrew₁₈ ^@ 11:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - yes we want them all. Worse, we want all that ever lived! Not just bishops BTW. Another editor is trying for all generals, so not confined to bishops. I assume 1-term (or less) congresspersons, too! Student7 12:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to get excited about something, try Jessamyn West (librarian) which has survived two or more afds! (I was about to try it myself but want daunted by her claque. Student7 12:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 5000 is not such a big number. I think it compares well with the number of state (or similar country subdivision) governors in the world, or with the number of football players on national teams, or with the number of notable actors in Hollywood movies, etc. and I think that Wikipedia aims to list all these people. --Itub 13:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily meets WP:BIO. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - clearly notable by dint of his position. If there are 5,000 RC bishops in the world and there are 1,114,966,000 RCs [Roman Catholic Church] then each RC bishop could be spiritual leader to 222,993 people. I'd say that's pretty notable. B1atv 14:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - I tend to the view that bishops of major denominations are notable ex officio, in this particular case his responsibility for ecumenical dialogue also makes him potentially highly influential. David Underdown 15:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I know how to get something deleted in future... make sure the guy isn't religious.JJJ999 15:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No - make sure they aren't notable. Smashville 18:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This nomination doesn't make sense. I mean, seriously...the reason makes no sense. "There's a lot of them" is not a reason to delete. See WP:NOTPAPER. I mean, the reason for this nomination goes against the entire point of Wikipedia. Smashville 18:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep but only because there are now enough references to pass WP:N. When initially nominated, the only reference in the article was proof of subjects ordination as Bishop. I don't agree that RC Bishop automatically passes notability. Archbishop and above sure. If a city's mayor isn't automatically notable, then it doesn't make sense for the Bishop of the same area to automatically pass. Titular Bishop's seem even more problematic which is the case here. Horrorshowj 20:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 22:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Taylor

Non-notable actor. Acted in several non-notable films, as evidenced by the plethora of redlinks. Article is too promotional in nature. Notability nearly impossible to verify. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete- agreed, non-notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJJ999 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The role he played in Night Sins based on the Tami Hoag novel was pivotal -- the kidnap victim -- but he was on screen for only a few seconds, and completely mute, as I recall. I traced IMDB links and his career hasn't progressed beyond "Student #4"-ish stuff since then except in indy films that haven't seen wide distribution. May be notable some time in the future, but not quite yet. Accounting4Taste 00:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO, minor actor with no significant appearances. shoeofdeath 20:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maxim_(talk) 22:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Victoria's Secret fashion models

content not verifiable in a reliable source Number1spygirl 00:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 04:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC) c'mon folks, doesn't anyone have an opinion on this? Carlossuarez46 04:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is more of a cleanup issue, isn't it? Perhaps it would be best to tag it with {{unreferenced}} and keep an eye on it, at least for now. PC78 10:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Here's the problem - there are no refereces at all. I looked at the link to the Naomi Campbell Wikipedia page, and there is no mention of her modeling for Victoria's Secret. So the entire page is original research. If you tag it unreferenced and no one adds refereces, then what? MarkBul 16:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If references aren't forthcoming, then bring the article back here and we can vote to delete, saying that we gave it a shot. But let's give cleanup a chance first, eh? This article gets plenty of traffic, so perhaps some of those users will be interested in addressing this problem if we draw their attention to it. I googled "naomi campbell" & "victoria's secret" and got 337,000 hits, so I can only assume that references are there to be found. PC78 22:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - How do you suggest we reference this, by pictures? Victoria's Secret has never released a roster of its modeling team except the 'Angels', the main models for Victoria's Secret. An example would be Cindy Crawford. Was she or was she not a model for Victoria's Secret? We can't tell, can we? Number1spygirl 01:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Of course we can, from a reliable independent source which confirms this as fact. PC78 23:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is merely an editing problem. DGG (talk) 23:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added a couple references for a number of the models and an external link which also lists a number of them. It's a start and shows that the list can be improved, so should not be deleted. DHowell 03:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and DHowell - Bagel7^T's 07:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Snow - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez 08:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black box

Fails WP:NEO, no references. I suggest deleting this article and redirecting to Black box (transportation) RucasHost 04:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Not a neologism,~~ While it is a Neologism, which are to be avoided, it does have widespread usage and is established. EG: Black box testing is found in many Computer Science books, as well as all the other disambig entries Q ^{T C} 04:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Really?! Maybe you should add some references to the article. --RucasHost 04:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, NOT A NEOLOGISM. A scientific term with many years standing. The airplane black box is not the source of the name (they're orange, actually); it derives its name from the concept. I'm astonished people have not learned this in school, although it is true that the article needs references. --Dhartung | Talk 05:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Heritage Merriam Webster Encarta --Dhartung | Talk 05:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do want to note that the origin is in fact slang for WW2 avionics, but it is cited as having the generic conceptual meaning as early as 1953, whereas the first flight data recorders date from the late 1950s. All that said, I'm not 100% sure how to organize this page better. Right now it's a bunch of uncited bullet points, but at the same time it isn't appropriate to move (most of) the material to the disambiguation page. Pondering ... --Dhartung | Talk 05:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sheesh. SolidPlaid 05:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Per Dhartung's sourcing. I was going to be lazy and just say it's clearly notable, but this is a much better solution. Bfigura ^(talk) 05:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The concept is obviously notable, if the article needs renaming, redircting, amalgamating, improving or disambiguating then do those things, it's no reason to bring it to AfD for deletion. Nick mallory 05:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This concept is used all over the place. — xDanielx ^T/_C 07:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep! Good grief, this term is used all over the place. No-brainer here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NawlinWiki 04:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobita's Adventure: Drifts in the Universe

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nobita's Adventure: Drifts in the Universe

Doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability (films). I have no way of knowing if this movie has received a lot of attention in Japan, but if it were notable enough to merit inclusion in the English language Wikipedia, I'd expect to find more English language sources on the net... Marked for cleanup for two years, without receiving much attention. --PeR 19:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doraemon is a massive kids' cartoon character in Asia, and his films are big enough that they've made one a year since 1980. Lack of English sources is no objection, since I'm sure it could be sourced to the gills with Japanese sources given suitably motivated editors. Thomjakobsen 19:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 04:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to have a fairly decent article on ja-wiki. Notability is not bound by national or ethnic borders. Burzmali 14:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 11:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smith Middle School (Troy, MI)

No claim is made to notability, as most people would understand that term. However, because the word "notable" is used in the article, the speedy request was declined. There are no references in the article, perhaps because nobody has ever written about this ordinary school. Matchups 03:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. SolidPlaid 03:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another of the myraid non-notable schools. —i ^said 05:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nn. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. Punkmorten 19:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 17:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huse Kindergarten Center

Non-notable school for 5 year olds. By "Center" I think they mean stand alone kindergarten. SolidPlaid 03:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable day care/kindergarten. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 05:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bfigura ^(talk) 05:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no one cares much about kindergarten. :) — xDanielx ^T/_C 07:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy. - CygnetSaIad 08:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. Punkmorten 19:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki 04:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New York City DOE Region 1

Since the first nomination, the school district announced that the organization of the NYC DOE regions will be phased out. In other words, these stubbish template articles (Yes, there is a series of them) are no longer relevant. As an alternative, templates and articles can be created using the NYC "Regional School District"s, which are the subdivisions of the NYC DOE in use today. WhisperToMe 21:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all They were used for many years, and frequently referred to. Notability is permanent--we do not remove historic geographic designations. DGG (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment DGG, but will they stand as individual articles? The designations may have always existed, but why have one-liner articles about them? WhisperToMe 19:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all; I don't agree those are geographic designations so much as administrative divisions of little current consequence. Given that they are one-liner as well, they end up being an outdated directory. — Coren ^(talk) 02:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It makes no sense to me to have ten one-sentence pages for ten non-existant bureaucratic city divisions. I seem to remember that if a stub cannot be expanded, then it's a bad article. In this case, could you even expand it if you included all ten? And do similar city sewer districts get their own page? I have trouble seeing the notability here. Whatever is here can be discussed on another page higher up in the administrative hierarchy. MarkBul 16:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, the best place for this is a large article titled "history of the New York City Department of Education" - It does not exist yet, but someone could start it after the DOERegion pages are deleted. WhisperToMe 19:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for keeping them is the key information in the navigation boxes, which is where the individual schools are listed. This is the key organizational device. If the articles were removed, the information and the links would have to be reconstituted for all of them, and keeping this is a much simpler solution. DGG (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, that is not a proper rationale for keeping it. I can easily delete every single one of those navigational boxes. If I wanted to include this in individual school articles or in a "History of NYCDOE," I would. WhisperToMe 00:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per DGG. Twenty Years 14:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. No objection if someone wants to create a new navigation scheme, but until one exists, the DOE region articles should be kept. EdJohnston 03:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\^talk 01:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woody Long

No assertion or evidence that this actor is notable per WP:PORNBIO. This article was recreated after a deletion. • Gene93k 19:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I couldn't find any reliable sources through a Google search (and in fact, the first page of results came back with a link to floor mats made of long, woody fibers...) --Darkwind (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- delete- clear hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJJ999 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's a hoax, but you've gotta love the name. I can almost hear Beavis & Butt-Head laughing. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:PORNBIO, though he's not a hoax - he's featured by IAFD. Huon 15:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is hilarious, since the references in the article are easy enough to verify, yet about half the comments jump to the conclusion that there's a hoax. Shows how uninformed this process is, don't it? VivianDarkbloom 22:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smite, but you've got to love inventive porn names. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 05:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 13:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability present. Tabercil 13:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 22:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virgil W. Magee

Fails WP:BIO, notability not really asserted or established. Gets precisely six Google hits. wikipediatrix 18:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Note: If this AfD results in deletion, Virgil Magee should be deleted as well. GlassCobra 22:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep Widening the Google search yields a few more hits, and the article does provide some sources. GlassCobra 22:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those Virgil Magees do seem to be this man, but many are not. The first six pages of your results bring up Virgil Magees from Florida, Camden, NJ, Belgium, Tennessee, Virginia, and Chester, PA, and at least one of those are deceased. wikipediatrix 22:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a resume, not an encyclopedia article. Not seeing any reasonable claims to notability. Leuko 00:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment with all those awards i think it's notable Elmao 10:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MastCell ^Talk 22:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Nonfiction (magazine)

No verifiably sourced notability asserted for this small-press zine. wikipediatrix 16:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable outside very small local range. GlassCobra 21:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nonnotable publication; it's on Wikipedia because a single-purpose account, probably with a conflict of interest, decided to put it there: [50]. Shalom ^Hello 18:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, transwikied on Wiktionary. --Angelo 23:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slab (Southern United States slang)

Contested PROD. Barely more than a dictionary definition. Already transwikied. Also quite possibly a neoglism, given the lack of sources. TexasAndroid 15:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being a patent WP:DICDEF. Bfigura ^(talk) 05:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. MarkBul 16:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Shalom ^Hello 18:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to redundance of transwiki. Alba 20:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, as it is a completed transwiki, shouldn't it go on the speedy delete list? Alba 20:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bitterne Park Baptist Church

Previously prodded . Prod removed, comment was "WP:N states that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This church is referred to in a wide range of local history books and other resources. The article just happens to be a stub, and no editor has yet been able to expand the content and add the references in question - but, after all, that's what stubs are all about!" by Waggers. There is no evidence that this appears in a wide range of local history books. Montchav 18:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks more the typical local neighborhood church. No notability asserted - it can be a speedy candidate.--JForget 00:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:N doesn't require a claim to fame, it only requires that "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This is one such source - I just need to find the book in the library again and add the necessary references. The fact that I have yet to do this does not mean the subject is not notable - WP:N says notability is not temporary, and there's no mention of time restrictions in Wikipedia policy. The references will be added in due course; the fact that they're not there yet bears no relevance to the subject's notability. Waggers 12:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Redirect to Bitterne Park - I don't think I'm going to have time to go and find the necessary books again in the near future, and even then might struggle to find enough to justify a separate article. Anything I do find could probably be added to the Bitterne Park article. Waggers 09:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep - let's give Waggers some time to assert notability here as s/he claimed is possible. StaticElectric 16:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per above. --RucasHost 04:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Waggers citation(s) Fosnez 10:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the creator would please include in the article the author name, book title, publisher, year of printing, and page number range of the relevant information which can be used to expand the article, as he should have done when starting it in the first place. A single unsourced sentence is not a proper stub. If the creator were a newbie writing the article, I'd be inclined to be a bit more flexible, but an admin who's been here a year and a half should know to cite sources and make at least some basic attempt at asserting notability when starting an article. If you haven't got the time to give us a single citation, everyone's better off if you restrain your urge to start the article until you're less busy. cab 11:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep if it will be expanded Elmao 11:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Just having been mentioned in a book is not a claim of notability. Is it the subject of an important chapter of the book? Is the church's history gone into? Is it architecturally relevant? Corvus cornix 23:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete (as an inclusionist Wikipedian and a practising Christian). Local churches are generally not notable for Wikipedia. This article does not have any info about the church other than the district and denomination which are in the title; even the external links only provide address & phone no, not a church web site. I can't imagine a clearer case for deletion. If someone finds significant local history, then recreate the page with it, but this stub is pointless - not even worth merging with the locality Bitterne Park, which I would normally recommend for articles on churches. Fayenatic (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no evidence of notability; with no prejudice against a sourced recreation. I found nothing usable in searching Google, and nothing at all in Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News. GRBerry 02:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of WP:NN. --LAZY 1L 04:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC) sockpuppet GRBerry 03:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've had a quick check on Images of England and this chuch doesn't appear to occupy a historic buiding. Given that there is no assertion of notability in the article, it's a delete for me. DWaterson 22:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, only indep. source is IMDB, which only lists 28 films, and doesn't indicate that any criteria of WP:PORNBIO are met. If someone wants to find sources and recreate, go ahead. NawlinWiki 04:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Halston

No evidence of notability per WP:PORNBIO Tabercil 17:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 17:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prolific in the milf genre. Clearly passes WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 17:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm so embarassed making these comments on several of these types of actresses hence the new user name. I am embarassed to admit that I have watched some of these videos. The MILF is a genre but I haven't heard of this actress because of my ignorance and lack of interest in the genre. Blushing 19:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment MILF? She's just a kid. :) MarkBul 17:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who are these people that think Wikipedia needs to be a repository for every $.25 porn actor? Anyway, Delete this as completely nn. Eusebeus 18:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without sources, notability cannot be established. Mere assertions of notability are not enough--multiple reliable third party sources substantiating notability are required. Nick Graves 16:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NN (and doesn't turn me on).--LAZY 1L 05:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC) sockpuppet GRBerry 03:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people want to delete every article that they don't like? There are others out there that love this girl. Go do something else useful instead of constantly nominating articles for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.215.52 (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If she were notable, there ought to be reliable sources to show her meeting at least one of the criteria #1-4 in WP:PORNBIO. EdJohnston 04:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St Anne's Roman Catholic Church, Streetly

Previously proposed for deletion, then prod removed because "I'd have thought this was a worthwhile if very small contribution to local history, so why decide it is not notable? There is doubtless much more that could be added in the way of dates and also some history of the parish school" by Exumbra. No evidence of notability. Montchav 18:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am new to this, so I could well be misunderstanding "notability". While the subject of this article would be of use - when better desribed - to those interested in Streetly, the Catholic parish or both, is it the lack of sources and refernces that makes this not notable? It could be put right therefore, but probably not by one with only a passing aquaintance with Streetly as I have. The original author needs to try harder? I am still learning - 84.68.40.233 18:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something or someone who is notable will have been written about by magazines, newspapers, feature writers, authors and so on, since they generally write only about things that are notable! Find the articles that have been written about the church and you (or the original author rather) are on the way to demonstrating that it is notable. --Malcolmxl5 23:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the "Mysterons" deserve an article and are thus notable, isn't this? But the question is, are the Mysterons notable? Exumbra 19:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability and none claimed. We're not going to have an article on every parish church in the world. Corvus cornix 23:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Malcolm for a clear and informative comment. But as for Corvuscornix, why not have a comment on every parish church in the world since that would mean Wikipedia IS truly comprehensive, especially if we are trying to be comprehensive enough to include every fictional alien life form (eg the Mysterons)? You will find St Anne's mentioned in the Birmingham Archdiocesan directories (annual publication) and the parish school in local authority and diocesan inspection reports. What are we aiming for here? If someone wishes to use Wikipedia to discover simple and basic facts about an organisation in his or her area (or beyond), what's wrong with a basic entry here? Exumbra 22:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument. Corvus cornix 22:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have answered a previous question: the Mysterons are not notable. I am tentatively putting my toe in the water of Wikipedia so I expect to slip up now and again. With so large a project as this it seems there will always be entries deemed unworthy of exclusion lurking until deletion. But that does not have to mean that they are, er, "crap", but simply "not notable". Exumbra 15:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion (or evidence of notability). And to Exumbra, you're correct. A better link would be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is certainly true. That said, the key issue isn't just notability, but verifiability. Unfortunately, this article doesn't pass that policy either. Bfigura ^(talk) 05:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A parish church certainly can be notable - if it's in a historic building - but this one isn't. MarkBul 16:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Loathe as I am to say it, given that I live nearby, I think this one is a delete for me. No real evidence of notability, not a historic building etc. DWaterson 22:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Catholic Academy

notability-If "CCA closed due to financial constraints after the conclusion of the 06/07 school year", is it still notable? Chris 07:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability does not expire. Turlo Lomon 07:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply what specifically made it notable? Chris 07:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Now that I can't answer, but your question specifically was "still notable". If something was notable, it would still be notable. I may change my stance after I do some further digging, but how you phrased your AFD may cause a problem. Turlo Lomon 08:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to find it now, but I could have sworn there was a policy or guildeline indicating that a high school was defined as notable to encourage younger editors. Turlo Lomon 08:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference: User_talk:Turlo_Lomon/history1#High Schools. This is what I was told when I was brand new here. Turlo Lomon 08:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see. My "still" referred to the auto-notability of high schools. Since this is a stub, and a closed school, so there are no more younger editors to encourage, does it carry the notability of either a living-but-stubby article or a closed-but-well-written-and-actually notable one? Chris 21:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is already well extablished that notability does not expire. If it was notable once, it is notable now. Turlo Lomon 07:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turlo Lomon-quite obviously did not read the section in that same clause that says "articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future." I'm tired of trying to get you to answer the specific question directly-so this is my last reply to you. Chris 07:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you read the link I posted above. You even commented on the auto-notability of high schools. If that is the policy, then it should remain. If I was misinformed on the policy, then that should be stated and I would change my stand on this issue. This isn't a vote, it is a discussion. Right now, the point of debate is "Are High Schools automatically notable?" Right there decides this whole AfD. Turlo Lomon 08:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Policy Found Wikipedia:Inherent notability It states all High Schools are notable. And since notability doesn't expire Wikipedia:Notability, article should stay. Turlo Lomon 14:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As said below, that is very not policy. Should not even be cited as a repuatable essay. — i ^said 05:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The 'inherent notability' guideline quoted above is not accepted Wikipedia policy. In the absence of any agreement at WP:Schools all school articles must conform to the core Wikipedia:Notability guieline. There probably will be sources available to expand this article and demonstrate the school's notability but so far this has not been done. Dahliarose 13:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable school. — i ^said 05:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --RucasHost 10:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per I. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The statement that the school closed is unsourced; I have not been able to verify it or debunk it via a websearch. However, I find that the school is discussed in a book: Ungodly Rage: Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism, By Donna M. Steichen. It seems to be an example of a Catholic school established by conservative Catholics and operated outside the church structure.--Orlady 17:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the link, looked at the index, which notes that the school is mentioned on page 389, went to that page and saw only a mention as one of a few conservative Catholic schools. Noroton 22:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information. Also, the school was subject of a segment on ABC TV News in 1976: Report on school started by dissatisfied parents. . The school is starting to look like it might be notable!--Orlady 17:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this definitely counts as a substantial source. Noroton 22:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Orlady has established that there is one excellent source, the ABC News segment from 1976. I'm confident that other sources exist -- they always exist for a high school, which is why I think they're all inherently notable. I hope we can establish this to everyone's satisfaction before this AfD is over. Noroton 22:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is permanent, and the ABC News source is more than sufficient for notability. I think that perhaps not 100% but more likely 90% of established high schools will prove to be notable, and the simplest thing to do is to keep them all. We will however need a project for upgrading them, because a great many of thecontributed articles are totally inadequate. DGG (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notablity is established and survives the school's closing. Alansohn 01:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment-I'm not married to the idea that this article must be deleted, and I thank all of you after the first commenter for opening up why this school is notable, but why then has this new-found information not been added to the article, as Alansohn and I did with Granada Undivided School? I'd rather save it if possible, but thus far precious little has changed since I put the AfD up. Chris 01:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a little hard to access that ABC News report, even though we know it exists and it seems very clear that it offers substantial coverage. If we could grab the information easily, I think it would have been done already. Unless someone wants to make the case that they really doubt there are independent reliable sources for the school, I don't think there's a notability argument for deletion any more. In time, I believe sources will be added. Noroton 01:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really wasn't trying to trash it, but when I found it, it looked like a closed school, no notability and no new students to eventually take up the torch. I always root for a living high school, but never know what to do with closed ones that have not merged and are not on a historical register. I'm glad you all understood my concerns. If you'll add what has been found, I'm happy to withdraw the nom. Chris 02:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason at all to doubt your good faith. Noroton 14:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the search results page describing the ABC segment (reported by Ted Koppel by the way!) had some worthwhile information, which I just added. Noroton 02:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per AlanSohn. Twenty Years 14:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MastCell ^Talk 22:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Western Arctic Green Party

First of all, this is not even a political party, its a subdivision of the Green Party of Canada known as an electoral district association each major party in Canada has 308 of these, second this article is so badly written and reads like nonsense. I have tried to find sources on this but have come with nothing, the one link listed in the External links really has nothing to do with claims made by the article. I have found no evidence of the Green Party running a slate of candidates in the Northwest Territories territorial elections as it is categorized. The meat of the article is 12 Green Party of Canada members who ran 1 candidate that got 300 votes Cloveious 03:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. --RucasHost 04:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- agreed, quick scan shows this is nonsensical.JJJ999 06:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Green Parties are decentralized. There is very little by way of top down organizational structure, so the Green Party of Canada is really less notable than any regional party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.124.2 (talk) 03:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after lookig at Category:Green political parties in Canada, they dont name any articles by "federal electoral district" name (although a move and rewrite is possible for an expert in the subject) Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 21:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 arguments regarding lack of non-trivial third-party coverage. Unfortunately, non-English sources are difficult to employ in notability calculations. MastCell ^Talk 22:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stitch poker

Vanity article, no evidence the game exists. Google search comes up with nothing besides this article and some pages with random usage of the two words. 2005 01:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I originally prod'ed this article for the same reason. Someone said on the discussion page that the game is really Finnish, and the non-English name for it is Tikkipokka, for which there is some support in Google. [51] Most of the Google hits aren't in English, but I gave the editor the benefit of the doubt. eaolson 02:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --RucasHost 04:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- barring some evidence, no need to delete, per Eaolson.AGFJJJ999 06:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some evidence of what? Evidence that the game doesn't exist??? There is no evidence the game exists. Asking for evidence that the game does NOT exist is silly. 2005 08:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently non-notable game. There are even fewer Google hits for "Tikkipokka" than for "Stitch poker". Unless notability is established by non-trivial third-party coverage, delete. - Mike Rosoft 23:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Let me know if you want to pick through for mergeable content. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss timeline

Unencyclopedic timeline with no references. RucasHost 01:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Over comprehensive, and unencyclopedic. Important dates are on the Kiss (band) page, so this one is also redundant. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every event, every action is going to be listed here? What's the point? Too much trivia. Perakhantu 17:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Although the author is clearly one of those Kids in Service to someone rather than a professional writer, this appears to be a valid chronology of the concert tours, album releases, personnel changes, etc. for a very notable rock band. Valid concept for an article, problems with form can be cleaned up if that's actually necessary. Mandsford 01:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I disagree. Every tiny event in the history of the band is irrelevent. It is going to be an unusual circumstance for the history section of an article to have to be broken away from the main article, due to length, but formatting it like this and including such trivial dates is just unneeded. Some information may want to be merged back into the main article, but certainly not much of it. J Milburn 18:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is, merging some info would be nice, if someone wanted to source it. J Milburn 18:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Figital

Neologism with no sources. IP repeatedly removing the Speedy header so taking it here. EarthPerson 01:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Authors create one-off catchy neologisms all the time. Need evidence of more widespread use than one self-published book. DMacks 02:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 04:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brent W. Moll

Appears to be autobiographical article, replete with nonencyclopedic detail, but with no assertion of subject's notability. PROD template that I placed on the article earlier was removed by Bwmoll3, who is the author and sole contributor (other than various wiki-tasks) to article. Orlady 01:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to User:Bwmoll3. He's obviously writing about himself. --RucasHost 01:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN and the article reads like a bio and resume combined along with genealogy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EarthPerson (talk • contribs) 01:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable, even a userpage is not supposed to be a resume host. NawlinWiki 15:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still fail to understand all of this, as my professional accomplishments stand on their own as rationale for a wikipedia page Bwmoll3 16:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Bwmoll3 has essentially blanked the page by moving the contents to his user page. --Orlady 16:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 00:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete (no userfy) per NawlinWiki, CV of non-notable person. Pete.Hurd 03:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete resume of nn person. Edward321 04:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete obviously non-notable. --Crusio 06:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Resume. use this as an example ;-). --Truest blue 04:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC) sockpuppet GRBerry 03:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Many accomplishments listed, but I see none that are notable and very few that can be reliably sourced. —David Eppstein 20:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Resume/CV material. --Groggy Dice T | C 03:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\^talk 01:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Brown

Non-notable teen author with no sources. Speedy header has been removed by creator and by another user. Taking it here. EarthPerson 01:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:HOAX, mostly created by the subject. Burzmali 15:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; nonnotable teen author. Shalom ^Hello 18:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GlassFET 19:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independant sources, author is self-published. Edward321 04:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the entry is amended to include independent references (for instance, no publisher is listed for any of the novels listed, which seems odd at the very least). Ghostwords 22:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect to Lucia di Lammermoor. MastCell ^Talk 22:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Il dolce suono... Ardon gl'incensi... Spargi d'amaro pianto

This is a redundant article with synopsis act 3 Lucia di Lammermoor and Il dolce suono. It serves no purpose, suggest for deletion. Hit Talk page for discussion. PROD template that I placed on the article earlier was removed by an anonymous user (172.164.55.168) without solid reason.- Jay 01:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Lucia di Lammermoor. It makes no sense to have this as a separate arrticle. -- Kleinzach 04:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above. Any valuable information should go to the Lucia page. --Folantin 07:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, for the reasons stated above. -- The Anome 08:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per the above. Any valuable information should go to the Lucia page as per Folantin. Voceditenore 09:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all above. Moreschi ^Talk 09:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Some of the material (e.g. discussion of specific recordings) may be better moved to the aria article.--Peter cohen 10:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fear that the description of the structure of the "scena ed aria" (it isn't just an aria), which is completely wrong, would be imported in Il dolce suono or Lucia di Lammermoor. --Al Pereira (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. As detailed above. • Lawrence Cohen 22:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unify, as above, so below. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 06:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Longhair\^talk 01:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A'akuluujjusi

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/A'akuluujjusi

Has 0 references, I cannot find any reliable sources on this topic. There are a few wikis that have more information, but I can hardly call them reliable. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 17:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, the only thing I could find was this but I'm not sure how reliable godchecker is, though it has been used in other articles. I searched using "Aakuluujjusi" but like Eagle101 not too many look that valid as sources. The other thing is there is no indication in what part of the Inuit world she is from. She isn't from this part of the Arctic as a quick bit of calling around was able to confirm. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, if we can't be sure if this is true or not, and if any of the sources are reliable then this article fails to be verifiable. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 04:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs huge clean up and citation as well. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 07:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article is really badly written and is non-notable. David Q. Johnson 11:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep you find a great many more references with the spelling (suggested by google) "aakuluujjusi": [52]
- keep- AGF, appears real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJJ999 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 4 independent GBooks hits. (Mostly passing though, but I think more can be gathered by other means). Duja► 09:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above sources, needs to be written by an expert Is there a native american project or something?). Fosnez 10:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The name is well known enough to be the subject of a fantasy painting; seems confirmable to me. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spare as above, seems to have potential. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 06:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep/No consensus to delete--JForget 23:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Planning Excellence

The article claims notability with "recognized nationally" but provides no references to support the claim. The only coverage I was able to dig up was trivial and localized (i.e. almost all appeared in one local newspaper) - coverage outside of the area seems to be limited to "John Smith, founder of Center for Planning Excellence". I don't believe the organization merits an encyclopedia article at this time. Shell ^babelfish 16:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable group. Reads like an advertisement or corporate Web page. --Quuxplusone 05:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to be notable. [53] [54] [55] Carlosguitar 08:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as notability unproven. Article reads like an advertorial. --Gavin Collins 09:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have made extensive changes to the wording on this article to make it seem less like an advertorial. Also, please check out this website for confirmation of this organization's reputation,

[56] Also, see this EPA, Smart Growth Online site: [57] Bhilley 19:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Bhilley[reply]

Keep - This is a legitimate nonprofit organization that is performing valuable recovery services in post-Katrina/Rita Louisiana. BayouBill 19:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per sources found by User:Carlosguitar. There needs to be some Wikipedia coverage of the planning process in southern Lousiana, though this is certainly not an impressive article. My problem is that I think the Louisiana Recovery Authority is notable, due to its $10.4 billion budget, and some of the plans that Center for Planning Excellence is helping to supervise are notable, like Plan Baton Rouge. So it's hard to see how to knock out this one but keep the others, and I don't know where this one would be merged. EdJohnston 04:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g11 advertising, a7 no assertion that this product is notable. NawlinWiki 15:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Success Diary

non-notable product NeilN 01:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Wrap advertising#Mobile billboard. KrakatoaKatie 05:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Truck

DICDEF already transwikied to Wiktionary. Consists of definition and negative examples. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Wrap advertising#Mobile billboard (although I'm not 100% happy with the organization of that article). --Dhartung | Talk 05:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge per Dhartung: not worth its own article bec. it's unref'd. Shalom ^Hello 18:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expand and retitle. Theu sual term is "Mobile billboard" Google itself is obviously a difficult source because of multiple meanings, but see [58] [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], and among other links not RSs but that show the significance [64], [65]DGG (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - there is already content abotut eh concept there. -- Whpq 18:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable neogolism. --Gavin Collins 12:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punk-skinhead

There have never been any references, and the article merely duplicates content that appears in the skinhead and Oi! articles. Spylab 02:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unreferenced, NN, OR and all that is written can be found on other articles. Spawn Man 05:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's really sad but those exist. Infact, they are a majority in the Neo-Nazi Skinhead movement. They take a guitar switch from Em to Bb chord on full disturtion, and they never hit them right by the way, and scream stupid curse-words. M.V.E.i. 21:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's not a matter of whether they exist or not; the issue is whether they deserve their own separate (unreferenced) Wikipedia article, which duplicates content from other Wikipedia articles.Spylab 21:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It needs an article. The fact that it needs to be re-written and referenced is another story. M.V.E.i. 12:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is unreferenced and as stated above, is a repeat of information in other articles relating to this counter-culture.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 02:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Another thing is that nobody actually uses the term punk-skinhead. They either just say skinhead, or perhaps Oi! skinhead.Spylab 19:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There will always be overlaps -- and there will always be contrary opinions -- but this provides a valuable definition of a discernible subcultural branching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.234.243.2 (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\^talk 10:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Young

Marty Young is one of seven articles (now listed at AfD) created by a new user. These articles seem designed to advance the publisher, Brimstone Press. I have listed them separately so that they may be considered separately. Marty Young has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Marty Young and Brimstone Press to develop an attributable article on the topic and the article should be deleted. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 01:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of verifiable sources. Capitalistroadster 03:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created this and the other entries mentioned in the AfD banner. For a full explanation, see my note on Shane Jiraiya Cummings AfD talk page and my talk page. Re: this entry, Young has been nominated for a notable Australian literary award. At least one verifiable source is cited in this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Outcast44 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Lack of reliable sources, does not seem to have notability through a google query. Perfect Proposal ^{Speak out loud!} 00:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Devil's advocate. Being "nominated for a Ditmar Award" and being "a judge for the 2004 and 2005 Aurealis Awards" is worth something. Had he won a Ditmar or Aurealis award, I would think that was sufficient. As a marginal case, I would encourage expansion and finding more references. Bondegezou 16:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom. Twenty Years 08:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cortlandt Town Center

Non-notable dead mall, tagged for improvement and rewrite for a month with no improvement. Seems to fail WP:N and WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no claim to notability whatsoever--Victor falk 01:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, not claim to notability, no coverage in WP:RS. Burzmali 15:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no notability whatever. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why no speedy? -- Ben 23:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a NN mall between Peekskill, New York and Brewster, New York. Not much more to say. Bearian 02:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, nominator withdrawal. Non-admin closure. shoy 01:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little Emperor Syndrome

This article is full of statements that really, really need references, but there are none to be found, and as-is it feels like original reserach. Only reference is an external link that only uses the term twice in passing. possible WP:NEO. --Ybbor ^Talk 00:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this nomination. User:KTo288 has done a great job finding sources. --Ybbor ^Talk 01:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KrakatoaKatie 05:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Rupnarine

Wikipedia is not here for news stories, this is something that might be ok for wikinews but not for wikipedia. β^_command 00:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:UNDUE, there is nothing else about him to suggest that he meets WP:BIO. Burzmali 01:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear failure to show level of notability needed to support an encyclopedia article (as opposed to mention of facts in some other relevant article). Also fails WP:NOT#NEWS Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article ... in many cases this will mean not having a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite having made a brief appearance in the news. Timely news articles, however, are welcome on our sister project Wikinews. Classic case of this, based on reports and information to date.
(WP:BLP says the same: The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreality

Seems to be a student-made movie without any notability Alex Bakharev 03:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced, probably not notable. Shalom ^Hello 18:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete unreferenced and no notability.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 02:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 03:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Gribanoff

Does not seem to be notable. One of his movies is a student assignment, another is a $3000 yourtube porno Alex Bakharev 03:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But: if kept, needs a lot of work. Perhaps also needs renaming, though the "ff" spelling is what the guy wants himself. For once, I am going against Alex Bakharev. I can imagine why he thought that that one movie was a student assignment: there is no birth date here. The reason why I think deletion is a bit too early now: the guy's website. He lists a number of films there, and mentions his involvement in other fields. I do not like the fact that Sister's Kiss was started in 1999 (only 12 minutes then), but everything depends on how that is received. The guy stopped working on his website in 2003, so some other things he did are missing ([66]). Cherry on the cake, if this guyis the same one, let's forget about deletion.--Pan Gerwazy 11:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are no independent reliable sources discussing either Gribanoff or his work. (English) Google hits seem to be split equally between his trailer and a (probably unrelated) Unreal Tournament player. Were he the camera man of Elizabeth I, things might be different, but that Gribanov is spelled differently (both surname and given name). Huon 12:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, (how often have we had to say this) in Russian Cyrillic he is not, have a look at the two Russian pages. But of course there may be more of them around. --Pan Gerwazy 13:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the Elizabeth Gribanov's given name, Dmitrij, is (in latin script) written differently than Dmitry's passport photo on his website gives as his given name's official latin spelling (which, unlike his surname's, he uses himself). So unless we assume that a St Petersburg director routinely gets hired as cinematographer for films made in Lithuania by people who then misspell his name (compare Dmitrij's IMDb entry), they're different people. Anyway, if we can't even tell whether they're the same or not, there obviously are not enough reliable sources to write a verifiable article. Huon 17:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this one gives Gribanov a part in the making of Highlander - The Source, which also seems to have involved a Lithuanian firm. So, the Lithuanian link and Elizabeth I must both involve a different Dimi Gribanoff/v. I still think that whatever the article's Dimitry did between 2003-2007, he got a rather good reception in alternative film circles this year. This biggest "film" of his will be on the Internet only from September 28th and he is now planning to ask money for quality higher than Youtube ([67] - it is in the guestbook) I think it would be a bit awkward deleting him now, though I agree that the article itself as it is now is useless.--Pan Gerwazy 19:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sorry for repeating myself, but is there a reliable source for either our Gribanoff or his good reception in alternative film circles? I found none, the article doesn't give any, and if we don't find some until AfD closure, why should we keep the article when it's effectively unverifiable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huon (talk • contribs) 20:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found quite a number of references by way of Yandex. (it is quite a job, because there are quite a number of different people called that way, including an important lawyer, a violin player and a moto-cycler, and I hope I am not missing any correct ones because we do not have the patronymic - in any case I will have to put the references and my comment on them at talk) Looking through them (the correct ones, that is), I am starting to think that the guy may be (more) notable as a video game programmer, but not so, or not as much as a movie maker. The main problem: will people accept Russian references? After all, Alex knows Russian, he will be able to interpret them correctly. --Pan Gerwazy 08:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources are provided. He isn't at imdb, and there are very few Ghits, youtube or otherwise, and nothing that indicated notability. There is a wide possibility of alternate spellings, but unless somebody can provide the sources, there is nothing here than indicates notability. Corvus cornix 23:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The text provides no clue how he is encyclopedically notable, only notes his presence in a quite crowded field. Anyway, deleting this one liner won't be much of loss. Pavel Vozenilek 03:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dissapearance of Joana Cipriano

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirected to Murder of Joana Cipriano by Melsaran (talk · contribs). If misspelling bothers anyone, see WP:RFD. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 19:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dissapearance of Joana Cipriano

just one link to a news article that's grasping at straws. Will ^(talk) 15:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to move it to Disappearance of Joana Cipriano because the title contained a misspelling, and then I noticed that Disappearance of Joana Cipriano is a redirect to Murder of Joana Cipriano, which contains more info. I redirected this page as redundant. Melsaran (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Comer

article with a dubious claim to NPOV and has no notability at all - I live a half-hour's drive from Sheffield and I didn't hear about it. The fact the page hasn't been majorly edited in months only strengthens the point that it's a news article, which are discouraged on Wikipedia. Will ^(talk) 15:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is one of those news items that lacks permanent importance; see WP:BLP1E. Shalom ^Hello 18:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's for a wikinews. -- 18:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs)
Delete She is only known for a single news event and this is not a newspaper. --Kudret abi^Talk 09:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking Anxiety and Depression

Appears to be a non-notable commercial product and infomercial, with all the article reference links going to commercial sales sites. Mattisse 22:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article was already nominated for a speedy deletion. [68] Subsequent discussion demonstrates that it was decided that it was noteworthy enough to remain. [69] As is discussed on the talk page, this product is one of -- if not THE -- best selling programs for anxiety and depression recovery. It has been around for two decades. Lucinda Bassett, creator of the program, is a constant presence on infomercials and on radio. She is a frequent guest on many high-profile shows, including The Oprah Winfrey Show. -- Andrew Parodi 22:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 00:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not sold in any store. Plus, if you act now... post a response within the next 10 minutes and get a bonus... hundreds of thousands have been helped... etc. Why pay for an infomercial when you can advertise on Wikipedia for free? Mandsford 01:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note. As I mentioned in the "speedy deletion" discussion, I'm the one who started this page. I am not an employee of the Midwest Center for Stress and Anxiety. I make no money off of this program. I started this article because this product has been around for about two decades now and I think it would be beneficial to have an article that offers insight into the program. This program has been the subject of evaluations by professional journals and is said to be used in thousands of hospitals around the world. I think that it would be beneficial to have this information compiled in one place (this article). -- Andrew Parodi 01:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. As you suggest, the infomercial is ubiquitous. In other words, there's already a great deal of advertising out there for this product -- and it is therefore highly unlikely that any Wikipedia article will give this product any sales boost. Therefore, this article is not "advertisement." Also, with regard to the nominator's comments: the links are to commercial sites, but (save for the Midwest Center's site) not to sites that sell this product. Most of the links are to sites about recovery from anxiety, and those sites have evaluations/reviews of this product. And some of those reviews are negative, further indication that this cannot be seen as "advertisement." Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi 04:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as this attempt at product placement fails WP:NOSPAM. --Gavin Collins 08:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Is anyone reading what I write? I've already stated several times that I am the one who started this article, and I am not on staff at the Midwest Center and I earn no money from this product. It's a bit unusual to be told that I am attempting "product placement" with a product that is not mine to place. At the very least, could others voting on this article practice some good ole "good faith"? Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi

COI by itself is not a reason to delete, nor is lack of COI a reason to keep. Many people write articles on things they know about and like, in perfect good faith, but the articles are none the less nothing more than PR for the product, which may or may not be notable. DGG (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "COI" stands for. But my statement was in response to Gavin Collins' statement that this article is an "attempt at product placement." It was no such thing. It was an attempt at a Wikipedia article. That's all. He was reading in to it something that wasn't there. It's a bit unusual to have someone who doesn't even know me tell me what my intentions are. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi 00:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think DGG means that, even if you do not own or profit from the commercial product, and even though you wrote the article in good faith because you like the product, that does not mean that the article itself rises above the level of PR for the product. Nor does it mean that if you have an interest in the product, financial or otherwise, that is is reason to delete the article. The decision to keep or delete is based on the quality of the article, not on COI issues. (COI stands for conflict of interest, and that conflict need not be financial. It may be that you are not neutral on the subject, perhaps because you are a fan of the product, so it is difficult for you to write a neutral, encyclopedic article on it.) --Mattisse 02:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. To clarify, the only thing I'm a fan of is of creating an article about a product in wide use within this specific genre; that is, an article about a notable product. (Not a day goes by that I don't hear an advertisement for this product. It's a part of our culture, and I think that warrants an article.) I thought this was what Wikipedia was for. I think this article, if allowed to survive, could be a valuable repository of information, if only it could be allowed to develop. Most articles do not spring forth fully formed. Many start as stubs, as this one has. Also, again, I have linked site that discuss the product (though do not sell it), and which contain reviews of the product -- some of which are negative. So, I don't understand how this could be perceived as biased in favor of the product.

"The decision to keep or delete is based on the quality of the article, not on COI issues." So far, I don't see what is wrong with the article. It's a stub, but so are many articles. And I don't see any conflict of interest whatsoever. I think the article is pretty balanced. "It may be that you are not neutral on the subject, perhaps because you are a fan of the product, so it is difficult for you to write a neutral, encyclopedic article on it." I think the article is pretty neutral. Is there any specific reference that you think is non-neutral?

So far, it doesn't seem that anyone is criticizing the content of the article, but the perceived intent of the creation of the article. (The perception being that I created it as PR for the product.) This is why I continually state that I did not start it as PR for the product. This product doesn't need a Wikipedia aricle for PR; its infomercial is on every night. But someone studying the conditions of agoraphobia, stress, anxiety, infomercials, pop psychology, etc., may find this article useful -- if only it's allowed to survive. So far, the only complaint about this article is that it is "PR" for the product. If anyone has any concerns with the content of the article, that would be helpful. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi 10:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry but there's not much of encyclopedic contents here - just saying that a product exists and sells well. The external links don't provide much of information either. Pavel Vozenilek 03:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The reference to sales was an attempt to establish the notability of the product. To my knowledge, high sales and longevity makes a book or product notable. With regard to there not being much here right now, that's because this is still a stub. With regard to the suggestion that this isn't encyclopedic, it fits perfectly within the category of Popular psychology, which is a very large category and had existed for some time before I started this article. If the category "Popular psychology" itself is encyclopedic, then wouldn't the articles that fit within it also be notable? If not, then why have a category at all? Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi 04:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article is considered medicine-related (a treatment for a psychological disorder) per note above by Expresso Addict. Please note the Arbitration Committee recently ruled that such articles must include references citations of the following type: Proposed decision/Appropriate sources.

Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader.

It might be helpful to you to read the linked Wikipedia policies on Verifiability and Reliable sources. For example, are there controlled studies indicating the program is successful in treating anxiety and depression? Or would the passage of time and/or the placebo effect be just as effective? --Mattisse 12:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There have been studies of the program, but the only place I can find them are on the site of the producer of this program. I didn't link to the studies published on the site because I thought others would say that is "advertisement". http://www.stresscenter.com/ -- Andrew Parodi 17:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might add, it's very biased to suggest that this is "pseudoscience". "Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific or is made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the basic requirements of the scientific method." This is self-help. Lucinda Bassett has never claimed the program is scientific. She suggests that the reader/listener should always consult a psychologist or doctor before using the program, and that it is not meant to take the place of therapy or medication if that is what is needed necessary by one's doctor. -- Andrew Parodi 17:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, re-create as redirect to Debbie King ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Debbie King Show

article about a late night (and I mean it - this stuff normally aired around 3 in the morning) quiz show where the only claim to notability is that it only lasted one night. Will ^(talk) 22:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just not notable Rackabello 23:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it was a planned weekly series on a national UK network that was cancelled after one airing due to the collapse of said network which was a spinoff of ITV. All TV series -- no matter how short-lived -- are notable if broadcast on a national scale. Deletion of this article would IMO be a case of American-centric bias as I don't see any AFDs for equally short-lived series such as The Will and Turn-On, to name just two. Article can always be expanded with sources, etc. 23skidoo 01:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between The Will and The Debbie King Show is that the former was shown during primetime on a main channel and the latter was on a barely-watched channel, presumably during the early hours of the morning. With Turn-On, the fact its remembered over 40-50 years and has been focused upon in several books is testament to its notability. Will ^(talk) 12:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no proof it's notable. Wikipedia isn't a guide to every TV show ever. I'm sure there is some TV wiki this would be better for. RobJ1981 06:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As a one-off show on a defunct z-list channel this is not really notable and seems to be included more for the triviality of having only lasted a single episode. That being said, the article might be well served by being merged into Debbie King and then redirected to there. On its own it is just too trivial but as part of a the wider article it looks OK. Keresaspa 12:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ – 23skidoo sums it up aptly. Matthew 14:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't find any web sources... so withdrawing my keep pending further research. Matthew 19:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We should not have articles on every quiz show that has appeared on such marginal channels as ITV Play, certainly not one that lasted only one day. Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Absolutely no sources to confirm anyone was aware of the programme's existence, let alone that it's notable. WjBscribe 17:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, and merge with the Debbie King article. Google seems to only list the UKGameshows.com page for this show as a source. It's really only notable for only lasting for one 2½-hour episode, and thus being one of the shortest-running UK television series ever. Brief mentions in the articles for the presenter and the list of television series cancelled after one episode should suffice. Andrew (My talk) 23:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This was a scheduled program on a national channel, and even though it is not notable, it should be included. There are several "pay to lose" shows that are just as notable, yet have articles. And, as someone mentioned, there are also several shows that lasted only one episode that have articles here, but no one knew they exist before reading it here. -- azumanga 02:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent sources testify to the importance of this show, and the relevant facts about it are already included in the Debbie King article. EdJohnston 04:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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