Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
< October 23 October 25 >

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. --Coredesat 00:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henleaze Infant and Junior School

Henleaze Infant and Junior School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable primary school. No notability asserted, or found. Crazysuit 23:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marsworth Church of England Infant School

Marsworth Church of England Infant School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable primary school. De-prodded by User:Kappa without explanation. Crazysuit 23:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not following this, even if it is within one sentence - what is wrong with including a mention of the existing educational institutions in town/village articles? This has been a common practise in the past, especially in the UK. Camaron1 | Chris 19:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with including it in the town article, this is just a discussion of the merits of the stand-alone page. SolidPlaid 22:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People are unlikely to perfectly type the 41 characters needed to take advantage of the redirect. I say delete it. SolidPlaid 22:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles of this type are frequently merged into town village articles and left as re-directs, re-directs are not supposed to be a big deal, and it does help if somebody is looking for that school. Another advantage is - it makes an AFD unnecessary. Camaron1 | Chris 18:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of the annihilation of these worthless pages. SolidPlaid 21:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Alasdair 14:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kingswood Infant and Junior School

Kingswood Infant and Junior School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Suspicious looking article about a primary school. Google shows no non-Wikipedia results for "Kingswood Infant and Junior School", and the entire article is cut-and-pasted from Kenilworth Primary School. Was de-prodded by User:Kappa without explanation. Crazysuit 23:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Izumicon

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

An advertisement for an anime convention that has yet to hold its first event. The article does not assert the convention's notability nor can any reliable third-party sources can be found for it to pass WP:N. Was speedy tagged for deletion, but an admin removed the tags with the comment that we should "wait a month to see if the article improves once the convention is held." However, we can't WP:CRYSTALBALL notability. --Farix (Talk) 23:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this article may be deleted, but please don't call it an ad. This is not an ad, it is only info regarding to an convention. I am going to the convention so I will have actual info regarding this event. All I'm asking for is time. Please allow me to keep my article up, till i get back from the convention and put the info up.--SMOKEMNHALO2001 21:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Leggio

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

Non-notable collegiate ice hockey player. Has yet to advance to a professional league (see hockeydb entry) and has not been drafted by a National Hockey League team Skudrafan1 23:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Fails WP:BIO guidelines for notability in this sport. Andrwsc 23:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Skudrafan1 23:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Canuck85 07:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination -- JD554 07:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:HOCKEY guidelines for notability Pparazorback 08:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No notability yet. Can be readded later if he finds some. --Djsasso 14:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:BIO allows for a player who has played at the highest level of amateur sports. This person played in Division 1 NCAA hockey. It doesn't get much higher than that in an amateur sport. WP:HOCKEY is a project and not a guideline or policy for the entire Wikipedia project. Opinions of participants are important but we shouldn't start deleting based on a single project. The real problem is a lack of sources to underpin a claim of notability. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 16:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Except that amateur sport only comes into play in sports where there is a lack of a professional level. Not to mention the highest amateur level would be the World Championships or the Olympics. There is also debate in the hockey community over whether Division 1 is even as good as the other levels of junior hockey. In many circles its considered a step down, and that players only go there that can't go elsewhere. Now obviously this is POV but it goes to show highest level is questionable. --Djsasso 16:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment We really agree that this particular article should be canned, our reasons are different but the outcome the same. But I do wonder about your statement that "amateur sport only comes into play in sports where there is a lack of professional level. Could you point me to that policy/guideline? And what sport is there that has no professional level of some sort? JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll
        • Comment "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis." The equivalent standing being the highest level of amateur competition, swimming being the perfect example as there is no professional swimming circuit. Atleast that I am aware of. Could be some renegades somewhere I suppose. ;) Heck the majority of olympic sports have no professional version. --Djsasso 20:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment WP:BIO contains two comments, and again, this is a guideline, not a policy. Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them). My concern is that a sweeping interpretation that only non-league sports are concerned has serious implications for some athletes who play football, baseball and basketball (to name a few) in the college ranks. You are correct about the Olympic Sports that are not played professionally - I should have thought longer. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll —Preceding comment was added at 22:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment But how notable are players who could not make it past the amateur level? I mean honestly there are very low level professional leagues in most sports that they could compete in which would then be ok. But if they weren't even good enough for those leagues then really, how notable are they? Personally I prefer the Notability Standards for hockey players because they are more spelled out. But from what I understand WP:BIO is vague on purpose so exceptions can be made. --Djsasso 23:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it is un-sourced. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll —Preceding comment was added at 20:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harnessing the Wheelwork of Nature: Tesla's Science of Energy

AfDs for this article:
Harnessing the Wheelwork of Nature: Tesla's Science of Energy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was already nominated for deletion once before but was opposed by the article's creator User:Reddi. This particular editor is a well-known POV-pusher for Tesla-involved and related pseudoscience and has basically written this article as a coatrack to avoid the scrutiny of other editors who have opposed his insertion of unverifiable prose in the past. The book is not notable per the book notability guideline, primarily because the reviews it received were neither serving a general audience nor independent of the book itself. The one review it received in the Midwest Book Review posts was for cataloging purposes only and not for general consumption. Such reviews can be found on literally hundreds of thousands of books so this review definitely does not confer notability per WP:BK. The other review was written up in a self-promoting and vanity publication by Marcus Allen (publisher) who is famous for his moonbat theories and is a close associate of the author. They are both members of the paradigm research group which strives to bring fringe ideas out into the open. Therefore, the review in Nexus magazine can hardly be considered to be independent of the source. Let's also consider the publisher: Adventures Unlimited Press. This publisher is basically a vanity press for conspiracy theories based out of Illinois with affiliates in various out-of-the-way places were the owner, Jerry E. Smith, has friends. (I'll also note that Jerry E. Smith is a cosponsor of the paradigm research group and an associate of both Marcus Allen and the book's author.) This outfit does not supply books through normal channels but instead pushes out media for various conspiracy theorists and pseudoscience enthusiasts. Yeah, the book has an ISBN, but those in the publishing world know that it doesn't take much to get one of those. Simply having an ISBN doesn't make one's book notable. It is clear that by the criteria listed at Wikipedia, this book is not notable. We have is a basic violation of WP:FRINGE with a book that represents the original research of the author without any critical review written by an editor who notoriously pushes his POV all across this encyclopedia. ScienceApologist 22:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looks like an ad. Fails WP:BK. Unless there is a considerable change to the article, WP:NPOV I say delete.MarkAnthonyBoyle 23:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one reliable source with a trivial mention is not notability.

    Deftly compiled and edited by Thomas Valone, Harnessing The Wheelwork Of Nature: Tesla's Science Of Energy is a straightforward look at Nikola Tesla's iconoclastic dream and scientific ambition for the development and utilization of a wireless transmission of power itself. Investigating Tesla's alternative to transmission lines and how his ideas could have changed (and may yet change) the shape of human civilization itself, Harnessing The Wheelwork Of Nature is a simply fascinating read offering a unique perspective on an idea that may well have found its time at last. Composed of a series of articles contributed by an impressive spectrum of informed and informative writers, the essays are grouped into three sections: History of Tesla's Early Electrical Life; Principles of Wireless Power Transmission; and Miscellaneous Articles and Tesla Reference Material. Simply put, Harnessing The Wheelwork Of Nature is mandatory reading for all students of Tesla's remarkable life and contributions to science.

    The preceeding is the entire review that would be from a mainstream source. Nexus magazine is not a mainstream source. --Rocksanddirt 23:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The 150-word review posted above fails to meet WP:BK, section 1. — BillC talk 00:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I worked on fixing up the citations to reviews in this article from its former worse state. But in general I think the requirement of having multiple published reviews sets a very low bar for articles; it should be possible to find such reviews for a very large proportion of academic monographs, for instance, and I don't think most of those deserve articles (the subject of the monograph, quite likely, but the book itself, no). I'd rather see either a combination of WP:BK #1 and one of #2–#5, or a strong pass of #1 rather than a just-under-the-wire pass. This book may have #1, under a liberal interpretation of nontriviality and independence, but not strongly and it doesn't have any of the others. —David Eppstein 05:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. *cough* solar panels are not connected by wires to the sun. Wireless transmission of power is an obvious reality. You guys aren't worried about the big scary machine in The Prestige (film) are you? Good grief. Delete all these books and all the screenwriters will be out of a job. Jok2000 19:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is probably the strangest keep !vote I have ever read. What does this even mean? Keep the article so that screenwriters remain employed? I didn't realize that Wikipedia articles were so important in the funding of the entertainment business. ScienceApologist 19:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well most of the users may be in grade school, but I follow categories and links and references and buy thousands of dollars worth of movies and books based on them. Many users are interested in entertainment, not hard-science. This Tesla stuff goes both ways. Hm, and actually, I cheaped-out recently and mostly rented movies in one category I found. Has this book been banned at any public libraries yet? My collection from the list of banned books has been neglected of late. Jok2000 20:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WTF? ScienceApologist 15:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well enough fun and games. The main problem with the article we are discussing is that the introduction to this book, edited by a Ph.D, and with articles by P.Eng and IEEE members with illustrations that can be found at www.pbs.org/tesla is not as described in the article. Tesla was whining about being thwarted yes, but because you cannot *BILL* the end-user when transmitting power wirelessly. The goal of the author (overstated as it was) was to capitalize on the *efficiency* of not using wires. You still need a nuke plant on the other end generating the power. If the article stays, the description of the introduction must go, however. Jok2000 16:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What SA said would be sufficient if the contents of the book itself were WP:Fringe, and although with 10,000 books in my collection I can't always go cover to cover on many of my books, this one appears to talk about existing Wikipedia topics such as Wireless transmission of power, Wardenclyffe Tower as well as the previously mentioned [PBS Tesla page] giving references and such. The book is also on sale here in Toronto at remarkably conventional bookstores (ones with blacklists yet). The book's introduction mentions ZPE and the book ends with 12 ads for WP:Fringe books, however it appears to be part of the marketing IMHO. Jok2000 18:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the book is just not notable. It doesn't seem to be even close to meeting any of the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (books). However, if someone were to dig up multiple nontrivial independent published book reviews, with some of them written for general audiences, I would have to change my mind. Cardamon 19:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Googling leads to many reviews but seems to fall a bit short of providing notability for it. Someone with more time on their hands needs to do that work. Jok2000 20:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Tikiwont 09:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Kilner

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

The article provides no reliable secondary sources to establish this person's notability. Alksub 22:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn. --Alksub 20:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy and Jason universe timeline

Freddy and Jason universe timeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is almost pure original research. The only thing verifiable on the events that take place in each film, but connecting the two franchises--which, until Freddy vs. Jason had never mentioned the other before (minus that half-hearted joke by New Line when they acquired the rights to Friday the 13th--is an original thought of the editors involved with this project. Not to mention it's kind of indiscriminate information, since the only true connect they share is a cross-over film in 2003. This would be like having a timeline for The O.C. and Smallville, just because a character was used in a film. Also, Wikipedia doesn't write fictional biographies and that's basically what this is. At best, it may be better if the information was transwikied to Friday the 13th Wiki.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 failure of reliable sources that would make this article pass WP:CRYSTAL--JForget 00:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jujitsu Deer

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

No verifiable content to reflect that this project is real. Likely a hoax, since user moved Hunted! to Vic and Marty, which do not have any verifiable content, either. The trades have nothing, and Google throws up nothing other than a forum posting discussing this Wikipedia article. Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 22:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Alasdair 15:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Zero

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

Non-notable. Alksub 22:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robinson Vil

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

With a single 25 minute short to his credit and absolutely no references to verify anything else in this article, this appears to be a non-notable film director. IrishGuy talk 22:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete per consensus of established users. --Coredesat 00:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gonac

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

There are no secondary sources to indicate notability of this business. Alksub 22:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Delete. This article does not provide any sources, as per the nominator, and everything not self-created I find via Google is for other brands, including some "cheese puffs", and most in non-English languages; doesn't meet WP:Notable. Claiming that you're in all the Canadian "states" didn't impress me either. Accounting4Taste 00:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete - no reliable source found in googling. Name crops up in many places, but unable to find any actual articles about the comany from a reliable source. For example, Google news turns up nothing. -- Whpq 16:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are other resources than google too. not having indexed all references by google does not mean that references do not exist at all. I do not see any problem with it. As for other languages showing up in google, keep in mind that there are over 1000 languages worldwide. I think this article should be left as it may be helpful for people selling their property. -- 20:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtom73 (talk • contribs)
Comment - Certainly Google is not the be all and end all of referencing. However, it turns up nothing, and the article provides none. As per wiki policy on verifiability, this isn't acceptable. -- Whpq 12:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I remember dmoz.org as a good source in the early years. Now, dmoz.org is practically useless because of editors who thinks their are gods and add articles and links which they like only and block others. Be tolerant, an article which is not good for you can be good for others. -- Mtom73 11:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Is a phone book is useful for people selling homes? No, it is not. Can that article and company help people sell their home? Yes, it may. Look how notable Google was in 1996 and where is now. That company can become notable too. Mtom73 11:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: You have already stated you keep opinion above. If you want to add addiitonal commentary, please prefix is with something such as "comment" rather than another statement of "keep". -- Whpq 14:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And notability in wikipedia is established through reliable sources. You've offered no reliable sources. And all your statements indicate that you are using wikipedia as a business directory which is somthing wikipedia is not. -- Whpq 14:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In business directory every company has phone contact, address contact, marketing slogans, etc. There are no phone contact information, marketing phrases in that article. Description about that company is neutral, non-advertising. Is it necessary to list all, in my point o view, low-importance news who mentioned that company? I do not want to make this article looks like a skyscraper with listing of dozens links to every low-important news, who published something about that company.-- Mtom73 12:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And a listing is 'trivial', what is needed is a non trivial article about this company. Dun is notable but many of the things on their list are not.Obina 16:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non admin) — H2O —  10:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chekism

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

A huge original essay about a nonnotable neologism: only 88 non-wikipedia google hits. Let the huge number of citations do not mislead you: this is a collection of picked quotations in support of the essay, WP:COATRACK style. `'Míkka 22:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First of all, this article is not about a neologism but about a historical phenomenon called "Chekism". The existence and notability of this phenomenon was supported by multiple reliable sources, as one can see in the article. Second, a few references in scholarly publications are sufficient to estalish notability of the term. Here they are. According to a former FSB general, “A Chekist is a breed" (reference to article in The Economist). Furthermore, there are references to a couple of publications in "International journal of intelligence". A direct citation in this article includes also the following passage by a notable historian Abdurakhman Avtorkhanov: "It is not true that the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party is a superpower (...) An absolute power thinks, acts and dictates for all of us. The name of the power — NKVD — MVD — MGB. The Stalin regime is based not on Soviets, Party ideals, the power of the Political Bureau, Stalin’s personality, but the organization and the technique of the Soviet political police where Stalin plays the role of the first policeman."...A state Chekism, a party Chekism, a collective Chekism, an individual Chekism. Chekism in ideology, Chekism in practice. Chekism from top to bottom." Finally, no arguments that article has anything to do with WP:COATRACK has been provided by nominator. Keep in mind that WP:COATRACK "is an essay. It does not define a policy or guideline".Biophys 23:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historical phenomenons are not created overnight by media, fortunately. WP should stick to widely used terminology. Pavel Vozenilek 23:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, they are not created overnight. This phenomenon exists in Russia almost a hundred of years, according to cited sources.Biophys 23:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If a plenty of Kremlinoligists picked up the term, as you said, this article has every right to exist. "Obviously a conspiracy theory" sounds as a personal opinion. If any sources explicitlly say "this is a conspiracy theory", such views can be included in the article, which is not a reason for deletion. I do not know such sources. The existing sources (not me) claim that significance of secret police in the Soviet Union and contemporary Russia was much higher than in other authoritarian regimes.Biophys 02:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FUI, a similar conspiracy theory exista about the USA aas well. Qouting: "Does the spookocracy want to destroy GWB and Cheney because of the purge to get rid of entire layers of incompetents revealed by 9/11 ?". Who wants to start spookocracy article here now? 417 google hits: 5 times more than for "chekism" (see on top), by the way :-) `'Míkka 04:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is why one should not use Google searches to establish notability. An important matter is description of the term in scientific articles and scholarly books - reliable secondary sources. I found only one good source that uses "spookocracy" for Russia, but a lot of sources that use "Chekism", as one can see from the article.Biophys 15:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you think first version is reasonable, why delete the article?Biophys 15:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    • About FSB and Putin there already exist the article "Silovik", so here we have needless forking of content.
    • The role of cheka/.../KGB in the former Soviet Union has nothing in common with the role of siloviki.
    • Patching up the Imperial Russia to this collection is outright absurd.
  • These are the reasonss I called this article coatrack-type essay. Policy or not, coatrack style is the obvious sign of OR. `'Míkka 04:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. Googing for "Siloviki" gives a whoopping 36,600 hits. `'Míkka 04:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Therefore I would suggest Biophys (who is basically the sole author here) to move Putin-related stuff into "Silovik", Soviet time pieces move into the opinion of Avtorkhanov (because your sentence "These ideas were also shared by..." is a dubious speculative generalization) and move on. `'Míkka 04:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This article has not been created by me. According to WP:Notability it is enough to have several reliable third-party sources to establish notability of a subject, and we have much more than that - just looking at the list of references in the article and having as many as 800 Google hits. So, let's follow WP rules. There is no reason for deletion. BTW, this article has almost nothing about Putin. As about the Imperial Russia - please see the cited source. It was about Chekism.Biophys 14:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • "It was about Chekism" - , it is your wrong opinion. It was chaotic rant about Putin. `'Míkka 22:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No matter how many reliable sources you have, the article spears about 4 superficially related subjects, whose only common denominator is secret service in Russia far past, past, and present, strung over a neologism which didn't catch on in original time, bt came handy to to bash Putin. Like I said, feel free to write four different articles.: Implerial Russia as police state, Soviet secret police (which is but a redirect to chronology now) and Siloviki. As for Avtorknanov's usage, I checked, and dindn't find that he use this term in his books The Reign of Stalin nor in Problems of the Peoples of the USSR. Surely "chekism" should have been a huge "problem of the peoples of the USSR" and backbone of "the reign of Stalin". It was a one-time catchy polemic word in a journal article, and now some wikipedians are eager to be sainter than Pope himself. `'Míkka 22:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One can suggest a lot of different articles on related subjects. But this article satisfy WP:Notability, and there is no any other reasons for deletion. Only that matters.Biophys 23:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but clean up. Chekism is not a neologism, it repeatedly and constantly is used in both books ([3]) and peer-reviewed scientific articles ([4]), which are highest level of sources for Wikipedia. Alleged WP:COATRACK can be avoided by introducing more proper sources to the article and POV is not a reason for deletion. Wikipedia is not censored. -- Sander Säde 20:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a valid term, on a valid, well-documented topic. Turgidson 22:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and oppose merge with Checka First, as a neologism, it is about as old as soviet. The "-ism" should not be intrepreted as some ideology, but more like the suffix in "hooliganism" or "vandalism". Maybe chekist mentality would be a better title. It is about how generations under the shadow of all-powerful secret police has corrupted the Russian social fabric, and as such as much about the Russian Mafia and the oligarchs as the siloviks, the FSB, the KGB, the MVD, the OGPU and the Cheka, which is but the oldest manifestation of that secret police. Or oldet soviet manifestation, if you count in the Okhranka. The article is poor and would need some expanding in scope as well as some more encyclopedic writing style, but that's no reason for throwing it away. If the article about the Great Purge says that Jews were behind it or gives wp:undue weight to critisicing Stalin, you don't delete, you edit.--victor falk 14:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Chekism is no neologism at all. In Baltic states every citizen knows what Chekism is and what crimes it is respnosible. Do us this neologism is known since World War II. I found this article truthful and propper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.50.12.97 (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  • Neutral It seems to read like a high school essay or something like it. I agree that it certainly looks like a "Coatrack," but surely there must be some sources out there that aren't like that, right? I have added several types of cleanup tags to the article, but post no keep/delete vote here. —ScouterSig 15:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale was "a nonnotable neologism". But this is not a neologism, because the term has been used by notable historians 53 years ago ("A state Chekism, a party Chekism, a collective Chekism, an individual Chekism. Chekism in ideology, Chekism in practice. Chekism from top to bottom."). Moreover, the subject satisfy WP:Notability, because it has been described in numerous reliable sources clearly attributed in the article.Biophys 16:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in a forgottent for good essay recently dug up by Chechen nationalists. `'Míkka 22:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The cited work by Avtorkhanov was published in a good printed journal that has nothing to do with Chechen separatists (in 1953). Unfortunately, it is not accessible online like all old stuff. So, I provided a link to on-line source that satisfy WP:Source. There are other refences to "Chekism" as well.Biophys 01:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but it needs work. The lead, and indeed the entire article, fails to explain what "checkism" is. Someone above says: "In Baltic states every citizen knows what Chekism is". This seems to be the underlying assumption, and it is not OK. The article needs to be comprehensible to the lay reader. But all of this is for the editing process. The subject itself is clearly notable and I can see no reason to delete. As a neologism, it is not very neo. The logic of WP:COATRACK as a reason for deletion is very poor, it is instead an argument for improvement of an interesting subject. --SmokeyJoe 08:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Front Counter

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

My only moment of doubt on speedying this article was the "winning the Ernie Ball international Battle of The Bands state title for Victoria, Australia" which I couldn't ascertain whether that was really notable. Otherwise, fails WP:MUSIC. Pigman 22:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, I wrote the article, check out http://www.battleofthebands.com/community/dates

Go down to Melbourne Australia, and see the ernie ball winner.

I may have written it quite poorly but I tried my best. If somebody could help me re-word it that would be much appreciated instead of deleting it. Thanks heaps —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkfan182 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the problem isn't with the wording, rather with the subject itself. There are heaps of articles with not-so-good wording and prose, yet they still exist. ~ Sebi 21:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got the rest of there information from www.purevolume.com/frontcounter, as well as there myspace page www.myspace.com/frontcounter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.2.94.29 (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted by Aarktica per CSD A3. Non-admin closure. Deor 01:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KRFH

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

Contested speedy. Non-notable student-run radio station. If you look into the history, you will see an obvious COI (created by User:KRFH610AM). They have left a hangon rationale in the article itself, and it says they intend to let students at the university make changes over the next 6 weeks. I propose to Delete this article on the grounds of being not notable enough for Wikipedia. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 22:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per nom (Clearly NN). Too bad the speedy was removed by that IP, considering the contrib's for it, it is probably the same person who created the page. - Rjd0060 22:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed. I was going to prod it, but I figured they'd remove that too . Also, the {{hangon}} reason was something along the lines of "I've created this article so my students can edit it, please don't delete". (WP:OWN?) I really didn't want to waste everyone's time here at AfD, but it seemed the only option left. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 22:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have tagged the IP with a "removing templates" warning and tried tagged for speedy again one more time, before coming here. It clearly would have been speedied had the tag stayed. - Rjd0060 22:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, I did - I'll re-add the csd template and if it gets deleted, then I'll speedy close this. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 22:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't look. Sorry. - Rjd0060 22:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

V.S.S.E.

V.S.S.E. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An article about a fictional organization that fails WP:FICT and WP:NOT#PLOT. It's written in an entirely in-universe style that does not show any real-world impact or such that WP:FICT requires. Besdies that, the plot sections of each respecitve Time Crisis game adequately cover the roles of the V.S.S.E quite well. Taking it to AFD because a certain "anonymous" user objected to it. hbdragon88 21:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GDonato (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Gay Street (Rome, Italy)

The Gay Street (Rome, Italy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, no real context. We've got a gay area of town in Nashville, Tennessee - does it need an article, too? SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep added project tag to talk page. While every gay area doesn't need an article of it's own, I feel how this one came about is an interesting story. It, in the scope of the LGBT project, will be expanded appropriately. Carter | Talk to me 08:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Add the info into Gay village perhaps? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 21:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. This is a non-notable weapon within a video game. Natalie 00:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Br55

Br55 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Article is extensively a game guide, not a description of fictional weapon Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russian Spetsnaz (talk • contribs) 2007/10/18 07:57:57

I got rid of the tactics for ... sections. It doesn't seem to be much of a game guide now. Don't delete. Σpsilon60198"Σ" is a Sigma."ε" is an Epsilon. (Talk § E-Mail) 03:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 21:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by JodyB. --Tikiwont 09:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Killertron

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

Non-notable robot from UK Robot Wars TV programme. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evil WeevilKim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 21:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Winsor

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

With a single imdb credit wherein he portrayed the film's lead character as a 12 year old, this is a non-notable actor. Everything else in the article is completely unsourced. IrishGuy talk 21:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosetta primary school, newham

Rosetta primary school, newham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable primary school. I would have speedied this to avoid an afd, but technically there is some context. Crazysuit 20:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--JForget 01:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese superstitions

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

What is this? Its not an article, that's for sure. Please delete. Burntsauce 20:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted -- this is clearly a BLP violation and part of an ongoing effort to document local conspiracy theories on Wikipedia. -- Merope 20:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William J Beggs

William J Beggs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable professor. Article appears to be connected to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Patinkin, a vanity article that has been zapped a number of times. -- Merope 19:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany boxall

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

Person or her movie not on google nor on IMDB. No notability established. Deprodded by anon. Weregerbil 19:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as vandalism (WP:CSD#G3). -- Merope 19:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick, Derek, and Andrew's Report on the Ethos of Wikipedia

Patrick, Derek, and Andrew's Report on the Ethos of Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Obviously violates WP:NOR, as the article states that it is original research conducted by those three people. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 18:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And more cute! --Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 19:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to Korean Demilitarized Zone. There is already a section in the article which discusses the wall. It may certainly be expanded upon with good sourcing and verification. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 12:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Wall

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

Entire article is unsupported OR wbfergus Talk 18:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "merge to Korean Demilitarized Zone" or "move to DMZ Korea"? You can't merge to a nonexistant article. --SmokeyJoe 08:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, in this case, it's more than that. North Korea claims that South Korea literally built a wall. I don't know if it's made the news lately, but the Democratic Peoples Republic free press promoted the story back in 1999. Could be sourced to some extent, though there's not much to the story. North accuses, South denies it. Mandsford 22:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to DMZ Korea, as Dhartung had mentioned. More convenient as well. I had somewhat saved the article before the big decision happens (when is the question for it). this is iaN 11:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As I stated for the nomination, as is, the article is 'original research'. The first reference can not be classified as a reliable source, being merely a statement made by a North Korean official (even if reported in a reliable publication), and the images in the article contradict the statements about the construction of the wall. In the first image, there is no wall, just a fence surrounding a military outpost. It can't even be distinguished who's military uses the outpost. In the second image, it very clearly is not a concrete wall. If it's a wal, then is clearly made of earth, but it could also just as easily be a clear-cut area allowing soldiers to observe if anybody crosses the area. It is hard to tell. So neither image supports the claims made in the article, and therefore actually helps to repudiate the claim made by the North Korean official, which then lends to the aspect of verifiablity. As is, this article does not meet the criteria, and even if merged into another article, would have the same problems. The other article could have a paragraph that merely says "North Korea claims.....", but the rest would have to meet the reliable and verifiable criteria, without violating 'original research'. wbfergus Talk 11:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is not OR by the author but is an accurate depiction of a fiction created and promulgated by the DRK. The press releases by what are possibily an unreliable sources, can be taken not as verification of the existence of the wall, but as verification that the DRK wishes to promote the idea that such a wall exists, which this article has bent over backwards to make explicit, the very first sentence containing the word alledgedly, and the second disputed. Given that in all probability that it doesn't exist it shouldn't be merged to DMZ which does exist in the flesh. The wall if it can be said to exist, exists as a propaganda concept and tool of North Korea, that it might not in fact exist in the flesh, does not diminish its existence in the minds of the massed North Korean people. There is also the very real possibility that the DRK leadership have convinced themselves that such a wall exists. A thing does not have to physically exist to be notable and to have an influence on the behaviour of people and governments (if you doubt this just remember that the war being fought in Iraq was sold to the public using non existent Iraqi WMDs). KTo288 01:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if sources can be found. Seems to be writen well with a few sources and pictures, but it really only needs to be wikified and sourced. —ScouterSig 15:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Korean Demilitarized Zone. Not enough coverage in secondary sources to support an article. If there were enough material, a move to an accurate name (Ficticious Korean Wall?) would be necessary as the wall never existed. --SmokeyJoe 08:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect It's an interesting footnote in the rabid propaganda war that's been going for decades, but not really big enough to warrant its own article. It's a good case study of the surreal goings on over there, though. - Richfife 20:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but strongly recommend that article is expanded and sourced in the near future. Natalie 00:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VolksWriter

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

Contested PROD. PROD/AFDed because of a lack of any assertion of notability, and for no sourcing/reference to establish notability. PROD was contested under the argument that being "early computing software" made it inherently notable. I disagree with this. That may be an "assertion" of notability, and enough to avoid Speedy if software was eligible for A7 Speedy, but sourcing/references are still required for the article to remain. TexasAndroid 18:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no secondary, reliable sources noted in the article. There seems to be articles written about Volkswriter 3. However, I am unsure if this artcile is references that particular software due to the article's incredibly lack of substance. --BlindEagletalk~contribs 18:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • BlindEagle's second sentence implores me to vote Keep here. He states that there seem to be articles written about VolksWriter 3 (being copyrighted software, you would not have multiple word processors named VolksWriter), and these articles would be the sourcing/references required for the article to remain on Wikipedia. Simply "being a stub" is not reason to delete an article; let's use the sources that BlindEagle claims that exist to improve the article and keep it! Andy Saunders 19:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Sources are available to verify notability. VolksWriter was a fairly well known product back in the day. A quick Google search brings up a few book and journal hits including the Encyclopedia of Microcomputers (ISBN 0824722795) and a Journal hit [5]. VolksWriter's VW and VW3 extensions are still widely recognized. • Gene93k 20:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notability does not expire. Needs sources, but this was a highly regarded application back in the day though it never really competed at the top level. --Dhartung | Talk 22:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sourcing may be difficult as it is an old product, but it was a significant presence during its time. a Google news search shows that reviews were written about the product in major newspapers. -- Whpq 17:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andy, but he should source it since he seems gung-ho. —ScouterSig 14:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out to Lunch (video game)

Out to Lunch (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Computer game from more then 14 years ago. It wasn't popular then and there isn't anything that I can find that would suggest that it's popular now. Law & Disorder 18:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just reading up on Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions and your comments seem to fall under a couple of of those sections: WP:PRETTY & WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Law & Disorder 18:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but can you find any good sources to show that this game is in any way notable? Law & Disorder 23:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a MobyGames link. It was published by an established game company (MindScape). A simple Google search shows this game has been reviewed. I think that's enough. Your argument for deletion doesn't hold up. JuJube 00:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Buses

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Natalie 00:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carsick Cars

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

This was an article that I speedied under A7. However the article's creator convinced me that playing a gig with Sonic Youth in Vienna (the band is from China) is an assertion of notability that rises above A7. However that gig is poorly sourced, and there is no evidence that the band otherwise meets WP:MUSIC. I note that being a band from China presents difficulties in meeting the criteria of WP:MUSIC not faced by Western groups. That said, Delete. Dsmdgold 18:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article has been already deleted on October 25.--JForget 01:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason M Burks

Jason M Burks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable hacker. A google search for v00d00 brings forth many results...none of which are this person. A search for v00d00 and Burks garners...well...this article. The article was created by the article subject. Jasonbtulsabiz = Jason B., Tulsa Biz (he works in Tulsa). IrishGuy talk 18:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to be unverifiable. No relevant google hits for "Jason M. Burks" or "Juggernaut Hydra" either. Lack of inline citations makes it hard to know what the magazines in the "references" section actually say. Even if we had some reliable sources, I don't think there is anything here that passes notability guidelines anyway. --BelovedFreak 18:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio Valley Christian Music Association

  ATTENTION!

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

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Ohio Valley Christian Music Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I removed the prod to send this on to AFD discussion in response to a show of good faith by the editor who's trying to keep it. She's added some sources, but in my opinion, they don't rise the the level of nontrivial. Do y'all think that this organization is a notable one? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's trivial. I am not a member of the organization, but I know the people that run it and I go to their PraiseFest almost every year. They represent a lot of people and their events have been a vital part of Noble County for more than 27 years now. They're even mentioned prominently at www.noblecountyohio.com. In my opinion, the page should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noblerose67 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC) — Noblerose67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep for while the formatting is a mess, the article appears to be well-sourced (3 articles) and may be a notable organziation. I'd agree to stubify the artiocle. Bearian 19:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added information today in top section showing similarites and differences between similar organizations (with references). Does this help to illustrate notability? —Noblerose67 —Preceding comment was added at 18:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • - Well, no it doesn't. The similar organisations are also not notable by Wikipedia standards (or they'd have articles) so I don't see how saying that this lot are similiar to some other lot who are equal nonentities makes sense. Nevertheless even if all these other organisations were notable it still wouldn't be a argument for keeping this one (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) - in this debate we have to establish the notablity of this article's subject, and no proof or references have been given that this meets the guidelines laid out in WP:MUSIC. A1octopus 21:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shepard Road/Warner Road

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

A road whose claim to notability is: "an important route for trucks to bypass weight restrictions on Interstate 35E". Nehwyn 17:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This plays a major role in the history of I-35E, being one of several routes that heavy trucks must use. The 1975 law that imposed a moratorium on building I-35E authorized Mn/DOT to take it over as a state highway:
    Route No. 380. Beginning at a point on Route No. 390 [I-35E] at its intersection with Shepard Road in the city of Saint Paul; thence extending in a northeasterly direction generally following along the course of Shepard Road to a point on Route No. 112 [Lafayette Freeway]; thence extending in a northeasterly direction to a point on Route No. 392 [I-94] easterly of the downtown area of Saint Paul; providing a connector route between Route No. 390 and Routes No. 112 and 392;
  • Although it was not taken over by the state (probably since I-35E was built), it has been rebuilt to handle the increased traffic due to the truck restriction on I-35E: [6][7] It is also part of the Great River Road. Should it be moved to Shepard-Warner Road? [8][9] --NE2 12:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's my point. Its sole claim to notability is that it's good for trucks. Excvellent for Wikitravel, but not really grounds for Wikipedia notability. --Nehwyn 21:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its "sole" claim to notability is that it's come up many times in the local press over many years (hence it clearly passes WP:N) because of its role as a truck bypass and a four-lane highway along the river. And, well, isn't Wikitravel geared towards tourists, not truckers? --NE2 14:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any city road is bound to come up in the local press over the years. It's statistics. But what claim would those sources support? Indeed is there a claim to notability, beside being a useful road for truckers? And as for Wikitravel, it's geared towards travel information - and which road to choose if you're driving a truck is definitely travel information. --Nehwyn 20:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is more than a city road; it's a four-lane highway along the river that played a part in the I-35E controversy. The conflict between the riverfront park and the highway has come up: [10] There are many articles spread over many years that are specifically about the road; you won't find that for any random city street. See for instance Wacouta Street and Selby Avenue. --NE2 00:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if improved. I understand the comments above as the article mentions only its "road" features. The road however goes for much of its length through the scenic, wooded, and bluff-lined river valley, which does not seem like it is in an urban area. It connects and runs along the state's earliest areas of settlement and travel, from Fort Snelling, by Pike's Island, along the steamboat levee where Saint Paul began, and beneath the Indian Mounds of earlier civilizations. I suggest keeping it for now and revisiting it if not improved. It is notable, and there is no good place to merge its content. Kablammo 00:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article has now been partially revised. It still needs work (a map and photographs would be nice), as well as an expanded and referenced Importance section. Kablammo 22:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funkmasonry

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

Non-notable band. Although "their release was met with universal praise" is extreme hyperbole, another user considers it sufficient claim of notability to remove my db-band tag. So here we are. Corvus cornix 17:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was: Obvious consensus to restore the redirects - POV forks. - Mike Rosoft 12:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Child Support Policy

Child Support Policy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Child Support Policy in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Two identical articles created by Rogerfgay; they have neutrality problems and are duplicate with existing pages. I have been bold and redirected them to Child support and Child support in the United States, respectively; creator has undone my edits. I don't want to be revert warring, so I am bringing it here. - Mike Rosoft 17:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep Mike's original research was not adequate, and I wish editors would not use delete tags merely to raise a question. That's what talk pages are for. The two new articles are stubs on subjeccts that do not duplicate any existing articles. The fate of existing article Child Support is being discussed on its talk page because its content is far too narrow for the title, and it duplicates material from other pages. Although there has not been such a rapid trigger finger on the delete process, deletion of the child support article has been suggested on its talk page. The article Child Support in the United States suffers from similar scope problems - i.e. it is not about child support in the United States generally. It's focus does not lend itself to an objective general review of policy but simply provides a specific agency pov. The new articles are intended to focus on the actual topic suggested by the titles - they will be on child support policy generally one article and specifically in the United States in the other. This intent is stated both on the stub article pages and discussion / talk pages of the new stub articles. I removed Mike's delete tags because no reason was given on the talk page and because he deleted the explanation from one of the article pages on the intent to separate the subject of the two articles. It therefore looked like a simple act of vandalism and I have issued a warning. I should add that DanielEng (above) is engaging in retaliation and has been reported for vandalism of child support related pages. Rogerfgay 11:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm obviously not going to respond to the above personal attack. However, I do want to clarify that I have never been "reported," blocked or warned for any sort of vandalism. In fact I am on the CVU. The supposed "vandalism" mentioned above refers to my restoration of the AfD tags to these articles, which were repeatedly deleted in violation of AfD policy. [11] [12] [13] [14] Feel free to browse my block log (empty) and Talk Page history if you wish; the only "warning" of any kind on my page originated with the above user and was an inappropriately used tag. DanielEng 12:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel. You deleted the warnings from your talk page, and left a message on my talk page explaining that you're within your rights to have deleted the warnings from your talk page. Rogerfgay 12:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I have invited everyone to have a look at my Talk Page history. All edits to a page made at any time are recorded permanently in the history, whether or not a user deletes them from public view. The only warning of any kind anyone will find in my entire Wiki history is yours, which was inappropriate as explained and was deleted as per WP:VANDAL and WP:UP. I'd advise you to have one more read of WP:NPA. DanielEng 13:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but why all the non-fact based opinions? There is no overlap between the intended articles and the cited articles. child support should be on its way to deletion, and is otherwise a complete non-starter as an article on child support policy as intended. Rogerfgay 12:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is still a POV fork any way you look at it. There is nothing "intended" for these articles that couldn't be in Child support in the United States and child support. Even if you wrote an actual article with reliable sources at these namespaces, I would opine that the should be merged back to the existing articles. In this case there is nothing to merge.--Isotope23 talk 15:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind taking over the battle to change the two articles so that they cover policy behind child support, since they are not already? There are people there who are extremely stubborn and willing to spend a lot of time battling to preserve the pov they have established there. And I have pointed out that the term "child support" means support of children generally - that focus on specific select government policies that aren't even comprehensive regarding government policies on support of children is far too narrow for the title. It has been discussed that the current material is already covered in other places - specifically in articles on laws and agencies in the few select countries chosen for child support (one of which is Child Support in the United States). An article on child support policy should be on child support policy. But that is still not general enough for the title "child support" which is mostly private - nothing to do with government policy. Rogerfgay 16:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. There is no excuse for creating content forks, particularly where they are POV forks or intended to evolve into POV forks. If the existing articles have POV problems, work on fixing the problems, not creating new forks to skew in a different POV direction. Oh, and BTW, the fork article people are aiming for is Wikipedia:Content forking, with abbreviations WP:CFORK or WP:POVFORK, not WP:FORK. --AliceJMarkham 13:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

INVITATION You are all invited to the talk pages of the articles being discussed here to discuss the reasons these articles should not be directed as suggested. I am pointing out here that what seems "obvious" may just be lack of information and insufficient consideration. Please state your concerns on the talk page, and feel free to investigate further before commenting so that you have at least a minimal frame of reference. Rogerfgay 18:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

City of Shoulders and Noses

City of Shoulders and Noses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This one has been prodded...3 times, at last count. I think that's good evidence it belongs at AFD. Procedural nom. UsaSatsui 17:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-admin closure. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 22:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SMS language

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

There is no reason to have this Wiki when it is a smaller version of List of Internet slang phrases Tabor 17:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge into History of the Brenham Jewish Community. Simon Theatre doesn't feel like the right place, but some of it could go there too. There's not enough to stand alone, though. - KrakatoaKatie 08:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon family

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

This is an article about a non-notable family who have lived in Brenham, Texas. One member of the family constructed a now-closed theater which had been designed by a well-known architect. The theater, Simon Theatre, is also up for deletion. There appear to be no reliable sources about this family, although they are mentioned in passing in articles about a Brenham synagogue. I don't believe this family, or its members, meet(s) the criteria for notablity. Karanacs 17:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to History of the Brenham Jewish Community. The content of this article is already there! --SmokeyJoe 08:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Father Vernard Poslusney

Father Vernard Poslusney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apparently beloved, but nonnotable, Catholic priest. Article written like a memorial, in conflict with WP:NOT. Claims that he wrote 3 books, 1 of which sold (?) 20,000 copies, but no sources. NawlinWiki 17:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also looking at links provided seems a copy and paste job. BigDunc 19:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and cleanup – notable librarians and notable people who have been librarians kept; "notability TBD", "careers undocumented", and "no evidence yet" should go. - KrakatoaKatie 10:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of librarians

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

Textbook example of a list that would be better served by categories. Crystallina 16:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, there is additional text, but it's absolutely useless, and shows how terrible this list is. We've got:
  • The following people are noted as librarians, and possibly also in another field
  • Other well-known people who have been librarians
  • Notability & importance to be determined
  • Not yet categorized: (careers undocumented in WP)
  • No evidence yet in WP for being a librarian
Of these, 1 and 2 don't seem to have any distinction, as they just list librarians. 3 is composed of other librarians that seem "less important", but that definition is largely subjective. The last two are of people that are separated because there's no indication they were actually librarians. Seriously, the surrounding text is totally worthless, and there is no real information being conveyed here that a category could not convey (the noted librarians of congress could be in a subcategory). Remember, it's not whether the list has additional text, it's whether the list has additional information. 138.88.182.135 19:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. List of loosely associated people, having worked as a librarian isn't a notable connection here, Benjamin Franklin, Laura Bush, Lewis Carroll. Does anyone really believe those 3 are closely connected because they once had similar jobs? If this was a list of people notable for being librarians, it would be better, but it isn't. Crazysuit 00:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete'per 138.88.182.135. Pavel Vozenilek 03:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and divide. That preliminary division was done by me when I was new here, as an attempt to sort the list into some semblance of order and try to find information on the missing people. There's a full discussion of this on the article talk page--I refer to it instead of explaining here further. I never had a chance to finish working on it, because I instead found my energies diverted into rescuing articles on individual notable people that had been nominated for deletion. The part on notable librarians should now possibly be split off into a separate article. The list of notable people who have been librarians is in this case defensible because of the rather large number of such people having had prominent careers otherwise--it's served as a way-station. There are not many other professions that have done that-- it can be turned into a real article and not just a mere list. If deleted, I will try to reconstitute the parts that can best be reconstituted. Getting someone involved again in working on this topic is an practical use of AfD, but tagging the article or asking on the talk page can do that also.
I note that I & the other people working a good deal on it were not informed about the deletion. Sure it's on my watchlist--but so are about a thousand other articles that I've worked on or commented on or are trying to track after nominating for deletion or possible rescue in one way or another. This unconcern for individual editors was one of the things that got me rather annoyed when I saw it on WP when I came, as it applied to others. I can cope with it myself as I can with all unpoliteness here--I have personally gotten thoroughly used to the lack of conventional manners on WP-- but it still strikes me as unfair as a way of working on a serious project.
More important, nobody notified the WikiProject. I will do so now, tho a little on the late side. DGG (talk) 03:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for not notifying anyone; I figured since the list had several authors and had an untouched cleanup/restructuring tag since November 2006, that it was abandoned. Crystallina 04:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Or drastically trim. One category was not mentioned:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. This needs independent reliable sources in order to be kept and none have been provided. Eluchil404 00:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Studios

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

No indepedent sources to back up this studio's weak claim of notability. Cap'n Walker 16:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page is just begun today. Are ads to scans of the comic book ads acceptable? --Scottandrewhutchins 17:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Dee

AfDs for this article:
Natalie Dee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The template indicating that the notability of the subject has not been established was removed by an editor who appears to have serious WP:OWN issues regarding this article, as per the article's talk page. The notability of the subject herself has not been established at all. On that basis I suggest that the article on the strip's creator be deleted. There are no objections to an independent article on the strip being created in its stead, but there are no demonstrable indications of the creator herself qualifying as notable. John Carter 16:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated for deletion on September 26, 2005. The result of the discussion was Keep. Breadmold 17:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails WP:BIO. No secondary, verifiable sources are provided. A self promoting website generally is not counted as a secondary, verifiable source of information for an article. --BlindEagletalk~contribs 18:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is the article about the person or the comic strip? The first AfD treated it as the latter, but the article doesn't read that way. If it's rewritten to be exclusively about the comic (dump all the links aside from the comic, cut down the extraneous personal info), then I wouldn't see what changed between the first AfD and this one. But if it continues to be primarily about the person, it fails WP:N. Torc2 21:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete concur that it might be different if the article was about the comic(s). JJL 13:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no verifiability. bogdan 15:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hee Sang Ro

Hee Sang Ro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Teacher at a single school - I call advertisement. High rank in school his father founded. Peter Rehse 16:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Duncan

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

Fails WP:BIO, non-notable local TV sports personailty Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 16:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Friend

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

Non-notable aikido teacher. The general consensus is that for Aikido 7 or 8th Dan is notable in itself, for 6th Dan there would have to be something notable in its own right and for 5th Dan (there are just so many of them) it would have to be something really really notable. Although there are a number of interesting points to consider - I don't think this entry qualifies. He is a teacher at a single dojo. Peter Rehse 16:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Blaney

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

Article claims she's written several childrens' books; however, Amazon.com only shows one book that hasn't even been published yet. Fails WP:N and WP:BIO. Cap'n Walker 16:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For The Record

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

Unsourced, crystal ball-gazing article about a Mariah Carey song — it claims that the song will be released as a single, but I could find no reliable sources that mention this, and only one suggesting that the song exists. Prodded by myself; de-prodded without explanation. Extraordinary Machine 16:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 one source that appears reliable; this does not rise to the level of WP:BIO, as indicated below. Xoloz 22:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Gomez Durand

Javier Gomez Durand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am not convinced that this person meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. There are sources, but none of them are the kinds of articles about the subject that are called for by WP:RS. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The person in this article is notable in the IT comunity as well as in Puerto Rico. As the author/editor of several IT books he has certain recognition in that field. I believe the references are from notable sources like Microsoft web page and O'Reilly Publisher website (largest technical book publisher in the USA). Mocotechochi 17:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Mocotechochi[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with merge done by Blofeld of SPECTRE. Non-admin closure.SkierRMH 01:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QLTM

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

The creator offers no evidence that this phrase is notable; in fact, it appears not to be widely used. Prod removed by creator without comment or changes to article. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect If it can be referenced redirect to LOL and have it at the bottom. If it can't delete ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 16:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Why should all internet slang not have their place on Wikipedia? What is the justification for this not to show on Wikipedia as part of the internet vernacular and therefore a valid, although not popularly used I understand, but no less valid than any other part of the references made on Wikipedia. I have added it to the bottom of LOL, RFOL, and LMAO, as well as added this to the internet slag phrases listing.
I am not going to fight for this to be kept. I am really asking this as a larger question for the basis of information that deemed as "not notable." This is only one very, very small example of the type of information that might be lost or over looked. Wikipedia can contain so much information as a reference why is it not more freely open to new information and ideas? I believe all information should be vetted and accurate, and if the information can't be verified then it should be deleted. If this article could not be verified or substantiated, it should be deleted. But the policy on notability seems to be too broad or subjective to be used in most cases when articles are nominated for deletion. The Wikipedia "police" seem to be overly judgmental and narrow as to what this reference should or should not contain.TETFSU 16:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply As I replied to your similar message on the article talk page, the standard we're measuring by is the notability criteria. If you can show how this subject meets that standard, this is the place to explain it. But if you want to discuss whether or not the notability criteria are the best way to choose what articles we need, you should take that discussion to the talk page there, rather than having it over just one article. After all, you're asking for a pretty radical change in the way Wikipedia runs, and that change will affect all of the encyclopedia, not just this one article. And if we only kept verified articles, this one still wouldn't qualify, since your only cited source is another user-edited source, not a reliable one. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 18:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Burnett

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

This appears to be related to a content dispute at Freak Nasty; there are no reliable sources provided to verify that this is in fact the identity of that artist. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Varkon

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EuropeanUnity

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

Incomprehensible personal musings by user Xxell and IP 64.69.127.105. Article content and authors seem highly related to a previous deleted article: Complexxon (of a year ago). Article probably not eligible for a speedy ( G4 for instance) or prod. Van helsing 15:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Presenting your personal interpretation of historical facts as an encyclopedia article runs counter to the policy of no original research. We can only reflect opinions which can be sourced to reliable secondary sources. We'd apply exactly the same policies if a member of Shell's PR department tried to create an article on "How Shell are helping to create a greener future for all our children". An encyclopedia is not the right place for pursuing any agenda, no matter how important you feel that agenda to be. Thomjakobsen 19:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are your arguments to think Union would include Unity? And how can special interests groups like you claim Unity not to be a seperate lemma from Union regarding the EU in this case? It is total nonsense as far as I can see. Unity does and should not redirect to Union either. Stephan Tychon@dr.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.127.105 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 25 October 2007
  • It is common usage to associate the term "European Unity" with the ideas leading to the "European Union". Unless there is a substantial body of reliable secondary coverage talking about "European Unity" in a sense that is not related to the "European Union", European Unity will continue to redirect users to European Union. In the meantime, replacing that page with an essay of your personal ideas on "European Unity" is against our policies, which have been repeatedly pointed out to you. Does that explain things? Thomjakobsen 20:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It clearly explaines why your conventional way of thinking does not want to understand broader ideas and conception beyond common usage. That part of the problem of the world being in the situation it is now. I know history cannot be found in written documents. People like you are at threat to responsible development and sustainable globalisation. The concept of Unity is much broader than abusive authority under arrogant market pressure of the past.

Jean Monnet and Robert Schumann, arguably were traitors to the greater good while sustaining special interest groups. Therefore the lemma EuropeanUnity is not a personal assay based only on individual ideas. You should stop obstructing evolution and edit the lemma instead. You might be of positive added value for the Global Society. Written & signed by email removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.127.105 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 25 October 2007

  • There was no Unity in the EEC, nor EC and there is no Unity in the Union. You repeat saying cash-flow, when say cash-fly. Tychon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.127.105 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 26 October 2007
Delete as per Belovedfreak. Edward321 04:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete g1, utter nonsense, "Thompson began writing at the age of 104, sometime during the early part of the 20th Century." -- but he somehow has a MySpace page. NawlinWiki 17:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joss Thompson

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

non-notable; only 3 Ghits if one excludes Wikipedia and MySpace; hoax entry?; some patently incorrect facts talkGiler 15:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Cook - Nyikina

Sam Cook - Nyikina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person, appears to have been posted by the subject or someone connected to her. Reads like an entry in a who's who book and/or a resume. No sources, cannot be verified. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is a good chance that the subject is notable enough for an article, but this article isn't it. As above, it looks like an entry in a who's who book and/or a resume. At least part of it has either been lifted from a MySpace site or more likely, both have been lifted from a third place. -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A Google News Archive search for Sam Cook Nyikina comes up with a trivial mention in a Canberra Times story. [22]Article may well be copyvio and looks like a resume. Capitalistroadster 03:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article should be renamed Sam Cook (theatre producer) or similar. Her name is Sam Cook. I assume the Nyikina (her people) was used as a disambiguation term. Including Nyikina in a google search would not help identify relevent terms. She is the executive producer of Yirra Yaakin (see [23]) and there should be sufficient sources to write a decent article. This article, however, is not salvageable. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neurosphere (film)

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

Film expected to be released in 2009, no sources other than its own website, does not claim notability. Previously proposed for deletion but had PROD tag removed. Snigbrook 15:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. --Tikiwont 09:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nic nolan

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

Vanity article with no independent sources to establish that this Program Director is in any way notable. Cap'n Walker 15:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barrow-in-Furness Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An article already exists on Barrow-in-Furness, and this article is a picture gallery, not an encyclopedia article. Prod removed. -- FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)}}[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Redirect, Author merged & redirected materials. Non-admin closure. SkierRMH 01:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. George's Cathedral Chennai Booklet

St. George's Cathedral Chennai Booklet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • I had created the St. George's Cathedral Chennai wikipedia page, and there has been a need to have in - text citations. The books St. George's Cathedral written by Dr. H.S.S. Lawrence was released in 2007 and the editing work was done by me. The book carries no ISBN number. So I wonder how I would be able to give in-text citations for the other article St. George's Cathedral Chennai. Can you please help me out?

--PRITHVIN 88  20:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporate the booklet information into the main article and turn the booklet article into a #REDIRECT? --ROGER DAVIES TALK 16:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the booklet has been published, it can be used for a reference without needing a separate article. References don't need to have ISBNs to be valid. A redirect isn't needed here. Espresso Addict 17:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete considering the option to merge(create a new article) without reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability would only result in another AfD. I do note that Torchwoodwho (talk · contribs) has copied the articles over to Fancruft.net which is a Sci-Fi wiki. The last three included in the nomination are lists, and most editors made mention of these seperately mostly about being retained in that form as such these three will be Kept but they need sourcing and I'll tag them cleanup,source and notability tags. Gnangarra 13:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Throttle (Biker Mice from Mars)

Throttle (Biker Mice from Mars) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (View AfD)

This article consists of nothing but loads of OR, no real world information and no sources. If the latter two can't be provided in the article, I suggest either deleting it or redirecting it into the main article or create a list of characters.

I am also nominating the following pages:

Modo (Biker Mice from Mars) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vinnie (Biker Mice from Mars) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lawrence Limburger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fred the Mutant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Grease Pit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Napoleon Brie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Charley Davidson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Carbine (Biker Mice from Mars) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Phinneus P. Catorkian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cataclysm (Biker Mice from Mars) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fourby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hairball (Biker Mice from Mars) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Harley (Biker Mice from Mars) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Benjamin Boris Zachary Karbunkle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lord High Chairman Camembert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jack McCyber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rimfire (Biker Mice from Mars) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stoker (Biker Mice from Mars) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ronaldo Rump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of alien species in Biker Mice from Mars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Supervillains in Biker Mice from Mars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of minor characters in Biker Mice from Mars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Prince 12:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hadji bey turkish delight

Hadji bey turkish delight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability not asserted or not notable. It seems to be a local food item, which has not been produced for three decades. We might have a WP:COI issue here, the creator of the article has no other edits. DenizTC 14:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete g1 nonsense, expressly stated to be original research, Wikipedia is not every wacko's bulletin board for five days. NawlinWiki 17:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Carpenter's Son

The Carpenter's Son (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This appears to be original research, from what I can tell. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 14:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monash University Malaysia Students Association

Monash University Malaysia Students Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A non-notable student's association, citing no independent sources with lots of OR for good measure. → AA (talk) — 13:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The title refers to the Student Association of Monash University Malaysia (note "Malaysia" not "Malaysian"). Would a move to Monash University Student Association (Malaysia) be less ambiguous? -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If notability can be established per WP:ORG, then that would be more appropriate. However, a local student's union must show sufficient secondary sources to establish notability. → AA (talk) — 11:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it would. However Capitalistroadster commented about an poor article name and my comment related to that. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open cuisine

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

Topic is non-notable, a Google search brings up blogs with tags for the authors promotion for the topic. Second author is suspect as has only worked on this article as well and has added a SPAM link and only added information on Molecular Gastronomy which is an entirely different topic. The article also seems to be written in a complete POV promotional view. Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 13:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was my belief that they had posted about a professional program which many chefs use that is a commercially produced product which they had not given proper citation for. Looking back at it now though I realize it is just a generic way of saying that one can use the "recipe generator" function of any computerized recipe program.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 16:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to receive an explanation about the given status. We are new to Wikipedia and HAVE read the policies about posting. The article was published with no economical reasons. The fact is that Open cuisine is a natural answer to what recipes have made to the process of cooking. It is just an invention of the whole new approach, that is relevant for worldwide cooking. If we are first to write about it, I don't know what is wrong about it. In the flood of various spurious articles (like Californian cuisine), we think this topic is highly relevant to cuisine and cooking. Foodizmo 18:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Californian cuisine is an established cuisine however, which can be studied as there has been numerous books, articles and even restaurants established based upon the cuisine. Wikipedia does not support creation of articles based upon original research see WP:No original research and there is also a criteria for notable topics see WP:Notable. This is not a personal attack on your theories, they are just not "as-of-yet" encyclopedic. I also have to be honest, I follow food tends very closely, especially with much of the newish Molecular gastronomy (which the article cites as being "open cuisines" foundation) items appearing through Ferran Adria, Grant Achatz, Homaro Cantu, Wylie Dufresne etc. and I have never heard of "Open cuisine" mentioned by them or at any conference including StarChefs where much new information usually is discussed. --Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 16:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Obviously we don't match the Wiki criteria by current standards. So the article should be removed, unless we provide stronger basis of it, right? We sure don't want to negotiate the publishing of this article - will follow the rules. And answer to Christopher Allen Tanner: Recipe generator was meant in completely different way (and that topic is inappropriate for Wikipedia, I admit). If interested, drop a PM. Foodizmo —Preceding comment was added at 18:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Fails WP:BIO, plus there's nothing to merge – every word except birth/death date is already in History of the Brenham Jewish Community. KrakatoaKatie 08:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Simon (Businessman)

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

I believe this should be either deleted or merged and redirected with the article Simon Theatre (if it survives AFD). The subject of the article constructed a local theater which was designed by a well-known architect. A Google search reveals no information about this man other than what is on wikipedia. If the theater is deemed notable, then information about its builder should be in the article about the theater; otherwise, I don't think the article meets the notability criteria. Karanacs 13:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedied per WP:NFT. Add appropriate CSD Criteria as desired (A1, A7, G1) Duja► 12:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ec es em

Ec es em (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

"The word was (sic) created at the University of Rochester in a philosophy class..." MER-C 12:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete as patent original research and nonnotable. As with The Carpenter's Son, above, we have no obligation to allow wacko screeds to stay posted for five days. NawlinWiki 17:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deemsum

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

"It has to be known, the tyranny must end". Unsourced original research and possibly soapboxing. "A little known theory." Smells of self-promotion, as the creator is Deemsum (talk · contribs). MER-C 12:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Moss Acid

Chris Moss Acid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

blatant vanity page for un-notable musician Newsnight Watcher 12:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you cant delete this page you nincumpoop. fair is fair, chris moss acid 4 ever. your jealous, moron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.145.164 (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon-free and nuclear-free energy

Carbon-free and nuclear-free energy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is a remake of petroleum dependence. Brunt of the discussion there was that this is simply a referenced essay by a user. I don't believe that "Carbon-free and nuclear-free energy" has any particular coinage as a term, and if it does, the article doesn't address that well. I don't think much has changed since it was deleted before, and I'm positive that creating this was not consistent with the previous delete consensus. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 12:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Yes, this strikes me as a essay/POV fork as well. However, it does seem like a valid way to categorize various sources of energy, so I would suggest it be redirected to a category, ex Category:Carbon-free and nuclear-free energy and populated. --Gwern (contribs) 14:53 24 October 2007 (GMT)
  • delete: No evidence the term is used anywhere in a significant way and not just by happenstance of proximity in a google search. And with respect to the above a category for non-fossil-fuel non-nuclear energy is simply the intersection (or lack thereof) of two other categories. Should we start to categorize things by category intersection I fear an interminable number of pidgeonholes would be created. For instance the existance of non-petroleum, non-nuclear power as a category would imply: Nuclear, non-petroleum power; non-petroleum nuclear power, and so on. Maybe to a more direct comparison, taking the intersection of musical artists from Sweeden and Death Metal bands in the same manner, would make "Sweedish non-death-metal bands," "British bands that aren't rock-and-roll," and so on... 129.89.68.218 21:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject is notable; the article is sourced and based on published sources. Hence it can not be purely an essay.Biophys 02:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll go ahead and put in more about what I think. delete. Actually read through this article and ask yourself what is opinion and what is genuine informative information. Examples:
  • In other countries, with more nuclear and fossil independence, the main electricity source are renewables - This part references Wind power in Spain. Spain gets 10% of their electricity from wind and 10% from hydro. You can be the judge of the accuracy of this statement.
  • there have been people who have claimed that the production of high level nuclear waste and damage done by Uranium mining is comparable to the environmental damage done by coal or petroleum. - here, when the article does make a clear claim, it's nothing but an attempt to insert unreferenced information in Wikipedia that could not survive in the main articles.
I could go through and try to remove the POV and information repeated from other articles in this article, there would be like 2 sentences left that didn't say anything useful. The entire point of this article is to create an ambiguous subject matter for someone to rant on. And like I said, it's already been deleted once, we already have too many ambiguous articles on sustainable development, and this is pure spam. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 16:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Liverpool

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

No reliable sources independent of the forum. 150 members does not seem notable. Spellcast 12:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was exile to Phantom Zone for eternity. DS 16:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Kent

So far as I can tell, nothing on this page is true. There is no such character as Darren Kent recorded on IMDB as having ever appeared in any TV series based on Superman. He's not mentioned in any online Superman or DC Comics encyclopedia I can find, even though one of them lists all Clark's pre-Crisis relatives, including characters who only appeared in one story. I know he wasn't in Lois and Clark because I watched every episode (and I notice the page originally claimed he was in Smallville, but someone who knew better removed that). The character doesn't exist. Daibhid C 23:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The creator of this article, Jukla2 (talk · contribs), has also edited the now-deleted article Justin Klassen, which claimed its subject to be a "Canadian actor, best known for his recurring role as Darren Kent, Clark Kents (Tom Welling)cousin on the tv show Smallville." That is, it did after the IP who created the article turned around and decided he wasn't a hockey player for the Chicago Blackhawks after all. (Curiously enough, there does appear to be a hockey player named Justin Klassen, though none of the information about him matches what was in the deleted article.) In fact, following the trail of deleted contributions leads to more deleted hoax articles and several likely sockpuppet accounts (none of whom have edited in over a year). Anyway, even though I have no definite proof that this article is a hoax, based on all this I'd be inclined to say delete. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

GENE CHIP ANALYSIS

GENE CHIP ANALYSIS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Looks like a case of the author using Wikipedia either as a free web host or to publish original research (the user name of the article author is (User:Fareethahmed) and S.S.J.Siek Fareeth Ahmed is given as one of the authors of this document). Prod removed anonymously without comment. ~Matticus TC 10:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was: nomination withdrawn, consensus to merge and redirect reached (non-admin close). -- Sander Säde 03:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Republic of Naissaar

Soviet Republic of Naissaar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Hoax article. 0 hits in google scholar [25], 0 hits in google books [26] and the 1480 hits in google comprises entirely of Wikipedia mirrors [27] Martintg 10:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn. Martintg 02:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As with all Bloomfield (edited by Petri Krohn) articles, there is a grain of truth in the general noise. For sources, see [28] and [29] (both in Estonian). The second one describes false burials given to the sailors by Soviet powers (the coffins were empty). From the Wikipedia article, only "In December 1917, the revolutionary sailors of the Russian Navy took power on the small island of Naissaar and proclaimed an independent "socialist republic" there. The Russian sailors, numbering about 80-90, formed a self-styled government and levied taxies on the local population." seems to be about the actual "republic", and that should be merged to Naissaar, provided it can be properly sourced - especially the second sentence seems dubious. So, in my opinion merge and redirect (actually, I don't think even AfD is needed for that, just some bold editing, which I'll do in a few hours, unless someone complains. -- Sander Säde 16:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment (after edit conflict, somewhat redundant): This source (in Estonian, archive link) from the earliest versions of the article seems to support at least some of the claim in the article. In particular, it says: "Detsember: nõukogu kuulutab saare soldatite ja kindluseehitajate sotsialistlikuks vabariigiks.", or, in English, "December [1917]: the Soviets declare the island the Soviet Republic of Soldiers and Fortress-Builders". There's more, but my Estonian isn't good enough for me to attempt a proper translation. In any case, I've notified WikiProject Estonia; hopefully someone from there can straighten things out. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect supported This should have been deleted two yeas ago as not notable(note the no google hits or scholar resources) in its own article as the incident involved a very small group of people creating a "republic" out of thin air, under command of its creators, members of stationed military. It is notable with in the context of Naissaar history tho. BTW, Ilmari, the link you have is someones personal web page, hardly a reliable source. Thanks for taking interest in this.--Alexia Death the Grey 18:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Street-West

Nathaniel Street-West (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Artist has sketchy notability (As I noted on the articles discussion page, a section on iTunes does not constitute notability). Fails WP:MUSIC. Article also lacks heavily in the third party sources department. A PROD was added by a different user and then removed my myself in favour of deletion a couple of days later. It must be noted that the article would require a strong write up if to become neutral. And it appears as though there has been suspicious activity involving numerous newly registered users editing the article. On more than one occasion these/a user(s) admitted to WP:COI which, in my opinion, has detrimentally effected the article beyond economical repair. ScarianTalk 10:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The article is full of red links, and many of those that are blue just link to disambig. articles, with the article in question rarely making an appearance. This section is rather poor and indicatednon-notability. External links are either YouTube or MySpace, and again indicate non-notability. Lradrama 12:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Appears to be COI-type spam, reads like a press release and the original version was much worse, with peacock terms galore and grandiose claims. Be on the lookout for sock activity and incivility here, as it has already started on the article's talk page. -- But|seriously|folks  18:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - COI self-promo of an NN subject. Peter Fleet 18:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Most of what is cited above is just plain incorrect. I find it difficult to believe that the parties involved in the delete recommendations have actually read the entire article and related talk history between the involved editors. One lone editor placed the tags on this article (Butseriouslyfolks)and until 24 hours ago his or her side of the dispute had no support from any other editors. Despite my repeated attempts to kindly dispute Butseriouslyfolk's claims, tags, and unfounded charges, and despite my attempts to compliment this person on the work he or she is doing to help the Street-West editors create a better article and on his or her work to keep Wiki standards high, he or she has rapidly escalated the dispute despite my urging that Butseriouslyfolks follow Wiki protocol in the case of a dispute. The number one recommendation is that the editors give each other the benefit of the doubt and agree to take some time off from the dispute and yet he aggressively and seemingly maliciously has proceeded to escalate the dispute by placing the Delete tag. This is when I began to think that this must be someone's attempt at vandalism, someone with an ax to grind against the subject of the article. Early on in this dispute Butseriouslyfolks did edit the article which did nothing to improve it and then proceeded to make outrageous charges about COI. He has made repeated personal charges against Street-West editors and yet seems to think that I have no right to my own suspicions regarding Butseriouslyfolks own suspicious behavior.Due to the COI tag that was placed very recently the article is still in the process of a major text overhaul, despite the fact that the COI tag had nothing to do with the text of the article. In point, this quote from Scarian above (he is quoting from Butseriouslyfolks here) : "On more than one occasion these/a user(s) admitted to WP:COI" shows that neither this editor (Scarian) or Butseriouslyfolks did a proper review of the actual circumstances, as it (the COI tag) refers only to a mistake in the uploading of the article's photographs. I had made a request to the record company of the subject of this article for photographs and the employees made a mistake in their upload protocol. That's all folks! No conspiracy to push a worthless artist on the public, no conspiracy to skew the article towards personal gain or any other situation that indicates need for a COI tag. What am I supposed to think when repeated attempts to patiently and thoroughly explain to Butseriouslyfolks the circumstances involving mistaken photo uploads gets spun into a fictitious personal attack on my character involving COI? Due to the complaints that the writing does not fit the Wikipedia standards, I have been working and I've noticed that other editors have been working diligently to attempt to bring the Street-West article up to Wiki rules. If any of you have checked the Street-West article in the past few day you will see that many new source materials have been added. The article is very much still in progress in attempts to fit Wiki protocol (including the photograph situation which should be remedied by within several days.) The article is still in progress and this dispute must be solved. Editor Scarian writes "Artist has sketchy notability (As I noted on the articles discussion page, a section on iTunes does not constitute notability). Fails WP:MUSIC. Article also lacks heavily in the third party sources department." Again he or she is simply incorrect. Nathaniel Street-West easily meets the criteria for WP:MUSIC guidelines. The subject of the article is quite influential in the music community as any of you who are interested will see as the newly edited article becomes thoroughly documented. His or her quote here on "a section on iTunes does not constitute notability" is really uncalled for and certainly does not apply to this subject.Lradrama|drama writes above: "Childhood This section is rather poor and indicated non-notability]. External links are either YouTube or MySpace, and again indicate non-notability." The childhood section is in rewrite to scrupulously meet Wiki standards and like I said above other editors have been editing this article, some for the better, some for the worse. And he or she again is incorrect to say that most of the external links are to YouTube or MySpace. Most are to ALLMUSIC GUIDE, ASCAP ACE Title Search, and so forth.Butseriouslyfolks in his post above writes: "Appears to be COI-type spam, reads like a press release and the original version was much worse, with peacock terms galore and grandiose claims. Be on the lookout for sock activity and incivility here, as it has already started on the article's talk page." I believe you are all decent folks and can see that here alone in this quote that the editors of the Street-West article are not being given the most basic of Wiki's pleas for civility: to use the benefit of doubt in assuming good will on the behalf of other editors until PROVEN otherwise. Butseriouslyfolks is assuming that Street-West editors are going to bowl y'all over with "sock activity and incivility", I urge all of you to go back and read his previous posts if you want to see "sock activity and incivility". I truly am worried about vandalism and an overly aggressive series of groundless attacks by someone with an ax to grind,. This is a very serious matter and Butseriouslyfolks's overall tone again and again appears to stoop to incivility. Making personal charges against an editor is a serious matter and the COI tag as he or she expresses it here is a slap at my character and good name. The original article was written by a creative writer who is very knowledgeable about all of the reliable, third-party information available on the subject of the article and made an attempt to walk the tightrope between creating an interesting article while also sticking with "facts and nothing but the facts" verifiable by proper sources. When I contacted the record company to try to get more interesting photographs, the source (Street-West) and the people who work with him were hearing nothing but compliments on the writing of the article. The usual comments (and there apparently were hundreds) that were fed back to them were as such: "Best Wikipedia article I've ever read". It now reads like a press release (1) because it is serious rewrite, and (2) because the creative parts were removed in response to Butseriouslyfolks aggressive behavior and due to other editor's attempts go bend over backwards to stick to Wiki rules. I am a busy student, have considered the article a work in progress, and simply could not come to grips with the unending pages of complex Wikipedia "legalese" which often reads as if editors need a law degree to dot every "i" and cross every "t" that Wiki requires.PennyLane100 01:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC) — PennyLane100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PennyLane100. -- But|seriously|folks  05:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't respond to the entire post above, because I frankly do not have time to analyze it all. I do want to mention that the suggestion that I am the only editor that has challenged this article until the last 24 hours is just plain wrong. The original version of this article, written by the same author, was tagged for speedy deletion by BigHaz on September 29, 2006. It was deleted later that day by Sarah with the comment "A7". It was reposted by the author about 20 minutes later. It was tagged for deletion again (albeit improperly) by Deon555 on September 30th, 2006. Maintenance tags were added by 17Drew last month. It was prodded by an IP a couple of days ago, at which point Scarian, who later upgraded the prod to this AfD, added comments to the talk page opining that there was a serious WP:N problem with this article. All of this took place prior to 24 hours ago.
By the way, PennyLane100, you never answered the question I left on your talk page. Who is "our webmaster" you mentioned, and what website is s/he master of? -- But|seriously|folks  02:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point exactly. I didn't have time to write it either. I would have answered your "webmaster" question had I read your message. Did I say "our webmaster"? Hmn... Since I like to do a lot of creative stuff on the web, such as website design, I have a friend who works on my computer when something goes wrong. He knows a lot about the more technical stuff so I call on him when I can't figure stuff out — which is most of the time it seems of late. He can read and explain the Wikipedia "legalese" at times when I am completely stumped. I call him my webmaster.
Why are you so suspicious? Do you really think there is a big bad conspiracy going on here? I guess I think of him as "ours" because all my other friends call him up too. He is also our keymaster... :) Hey, let's just drop this thing. What do you say? If time is on my side I will be able to get away from this "editing war"(the one that began around Oct 1, 2007, instigated by yourself) and actually help make the article what it should be. If I have anything to say about the article every single phrase will be numbered and footnoted, just like my graduate thesis. Please, please give it a rest for a reasonable time so I can work on the article and not on defending the article's right to exist. The article should speak for itself. This will probably surprise you, but I almost never read the mail associated with my Wiki account until I saw your tags at the top of the page, so you did manage to get my attention. I notice quite a few new editors working on the article. Hopefully they are better at figuring this stuff out than me.:)PennyLane100 03:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am suspicious because, unlike many other articles here, this one has a decidedly promotional bent, and also because you are very persistent with regard to this article but have no edits to other articles. I am required to initially assume that you are acting in good faith and, since you have denied it, that you have no particular connection to the subject. However, in my experience, people who edit in this manner usually have a conflict of interest. Also, to your credit, there's no edit war at this article, i.e., editors have not been reverting each other in a back and forth fashion. So your request for page protection was not appropriate. Moreover, if the article was protected, you wouldn't be able to fix the problems that led to this Afd, and it would almost certainly be deleted.
I will not respond to your allegations of sockpuppetry and axe-grinding at WP:RPP. They are obviously unfounded. -- But|seriously|folks  03:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the Nathaniel Street-West article is apparently being diligently rewritten to meet the important standards of Wiki, and since many of the charges made against the article itself, against the subject of the article and against the Street-West editors themselves are patently false, the article must be left in place. Soon, if everyone involved follows Wiki’s regulations for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution this unfortunate dispute should be easily brought to an agreeable conclusion for all.The facts are clearly in dispute and the editor(s?) who initiated this particular dispute around October 2007 and who have aggressively kept it going, have consistently failed to follow the Wiki guidelines for how to handle a dispute, as outlined as official policy in the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution article. Avoidance is the first step advised, taking some time to allow things to cool down, and under this title Wiki guidelines clearly state: do not make personal attacks. Several Street-West editors repeatedly asked the involved editor(s?) to drop their aggressive tactics, to change the uncivil tone of their posts, and to follow the Wiki policies for dispute resolution, including Avoidance and yet the involved editor(s?) appeared to ignore these requests entirely.Under the title What is considered a personal attack?, Wiki’s guidelines in the Wikipedia:No personal attacks article lists "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme” as one of the major examples of what makes up a personal attack. However as PennyLane100 so eloquently addresses in the very long post above on this page, other editor(s?) involved assumed a WP:COI charge based on their suspicions that editors of the Street-West article were somehow guilty by some sort of imagined association. These aggressive, conflict initiating editor(s?) made personal charge after personal charge, continuing to “insult and disparage” the characters of Street-West editors. As Wiki guidelines further state within the Wikipedia:No personal attacks article: "These examples are not exclusive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." If the simple, friendly behavior that Wiki demands had been followed by the initiating editor(s?) in this case, this dispute could have been either avoided all together or quickly brought to an agreeable conclusion. Hopefully everyone has learned something from this and Wiki will grow stronger and more compassionate as a result.
Note:I use the term editor(s?) here repeatedly because most of the problems appear to be associated with one editor, the person who initiated the current incident around October 1, 2007. There are 2 or 3 editors with some questionable actions who came into the dispute very recently although their participation has been very limited. I want to stress here that by far most of the people involved in Wiki disputes appear to abide by the guidelines. In my limited experience this seems to be a rather isolated incident. I want to take this opportunity to say thank you to those editors who have offered their kind help and advice to those editors engaged in rehabilitating the Street-West article. Dylanharvey 02:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC) — Dylanharvey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PennyLane100. -- But|seriously|folks  05:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Struck -- User has been indefblocked as a sockpuppet of PennyLane100. -- But|seriously|folks  18:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get "several" from? There's only one editor actively writing the article (using two usernames and an IP), and only that editor has objected to the attempts by at least three other editors to resolve the problems with this article. -- But|seriously|folks  02:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dylanharvey's keep should be struck and indented. ScarianTalk 17:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. krimpet⟲ 00:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of educational institutions in India which have Latin phrases as their mottoes

List of educational institutions in India which have Latin phrases as their mottoes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

List with way to narrow an inclusion criteria. Ridernyc 10:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all into Isle of Man Railway Level Crossings and Points of Interest (which should be moved to conform to the naming conventions, but that's not part of this AFD). - KrakatoaKatie 10:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ballahick

Ballahick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ballonna & Ballastrang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ballawoods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mill Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kentraugh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ballagawne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Quarterbridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gob-Y-Deigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ballavolley Halt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Is that a train in the distance? Unremarkable level crossings and other railway features. None of these have asserted any notoriety of any sort (e.g. a serious accident) and a quick search for sources found precisely nothing. I don't see why we should care. MER-C 09:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 copyright violation from [30] Hut 8.5 12:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Downgrade your PSP to version 1.5 using your PSP battery

Downgrade your PSP to version 1.5 using your PSP battery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod removed by original author without comment. Fails WP:NOT#GUIDE. BencherliteTalk 10:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scotsman guide

AfDs for this article:
Scotsman guide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability made, written like advertisement, no refs despite being tagged for rewrite since June 2007. Delete as nom SarekOfVulcan 15:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Withdrawn, adding refs to main article myself.[reply]

refs added 61crocodile 20:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 09:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beggsy

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

This nickname doesn't seem to be in widespread use. About 3990 ghits, so not a likely search term either. Plus it is almost impossible to verify this article amongst all the crap out there. MER-C 09:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Game

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

Previously prodded, but contested. Unsourced page about a game that exists, but that is not notable at all. See e.g. "rotation format", the "more commonly played variation": no independent confirmation could be found.[31] The two lower sections (Weinger Parsons and Esko High School) definitely have to go, but the rest is unverifiable and non notable as well. Fram 09:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 220K G-hits don't refer to this topic, though. Did you find ANY of those hits that are talking about this game, that aren't on Wikipedia mirror sites? Joyous! | Talk 23:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling for the next Danish parliamentary election (by party)

Opinion polling for the next Danish parliamentary election (by party) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The only polls that are interesting are the newest ones, and those already can be found in the article about the forthcoming election. So the info in this article is redundant, and what is not redundant falls under the WP:NOT category of Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate source of information. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 09:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it's essentially the same article:

Opinion polling for the next Danish parliamentary election (by potential coalition) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The 2005 and 2006 figures have a major flaw, as the figures there primarily come from a single of Denmark's 5-6 opinion poll institutes. Without the similar figures from the other institutes, I don't see the point in keeping this list, since the pollsters are often in complete disagreement with each other, and Catinet isn't among the leading opinion poll institutes. I guess the leading pollsters would be Gallup and Megafon. Besides, every opinion poll institute publishes new figures regularly, often once a week, so many figures must be excluded even in the recent material. Valentinian T / C 17:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Historically interesting, possibly, but then why not include material from the other five opinion poll insistitutes? On a more general note, these polls are extremely unreliable since the institutes generally phone max. 1,000 people per poll and voters have around 10 different parties to chose from. Not to mention that the pollsters don't reveal the number of actual respondents, and that it is hardly a secret that several institutes "correct" figures by simply taking a guess at how many respondents refuse to disclose that they vote for the DPP. All in all, the statistical uncertainty is so massive that it is next to impossible to tell which way trends actually move unless a party makes a surprise jump by say 3% or more, which is a rare occurrence given the number of parties. One week, 2-3 polls say that the overall trend goes one way while the other 3-4 say that it goes the opposite direction. The actual figures from the election night is something that has lasting value, but I don't see lasting value in this kind of material. Valentinian T / C 11:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as a how to guide. Gnangarra 13:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bash syntax and semantics

Bash syntax and semantics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prescriptive content which makes no attempt to not read like a howto. Previously removed from Bash for same, then shunted into Talk:Bash in an ill-judged move to preserve it against policy, and finally moved here to get if off talk. Possible transcription candidate, but it's not really well-written enough that it matters. Chris Cunningham 09:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki this. Certainly a reduced version is appropriate for the Bash page in the same way programming language articles cover interesting features of syntax and provide examples, but something of this length is more appropriate for a tutorial. Doesn't Wikibooks have a Bash tutorial? --Gwern (contribs) 15:39 24 October 2007 (GMT)
  • Keep. I'm guilty of creating this page. I did so after seeing how the Python (programming language) is handled in the wikipedia. In the case of Python, there is a Python syntax and semantics page for the express purpose of explaining the language syntax. The quality of the Python syntax page is better; but the bash syntax page has just started. It should be given some time to improve. Jeff Carr 01:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep needs improvement ( and a limited version on the bash page ), this page is particularly useful as wikipedia is used as a 1st point of contact for new linux users! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.210.78 (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While widely used bash (IMHO) does not have enough of historical notability to keep such an info. I could imagine a page documenting how Unix shell syntax had changed over time. Pavel Vozenilek 18:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dannii Minogue's Fifth Studio Album

Dannii Minogue's Fifth Studio Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

another crystal balltastic "[x] artist's [y] studio album"-style article, the most that's confirmed is that she has a single out in December; that has an article already, so there's no need for this. tomasz. 09:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was "d" is for "deletion", that's good enough for me. DS 15:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be made-up. Didn't really need to look, but google searches for "Cookie Colour Secret" returns nothing even remotely connected to the claims made in this article. I particularly like the last sentence though. What's the point of having an article if we can't divulge all the required facts? ARendedWinter 09:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. --Tikiwont 09:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diary of Ancient Rites

Diary of Ancient Rites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This book does not appear to meet our notability guidelines, and it appears to have been primarily contributed by the author. This image is also related: Image:Meaid.jpg. John Vandenberg 09:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was snowball delete. Acalamari 18:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adams equation

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

Unsourced original research. Plus I get the feeling that this is just something made up one day. MER-C 09:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Certainly a hoax, and possibly an attack / BLP violation (just imagine that the name plus birthdate match e.g. a teacher of the author). Certainly no reason to keep this article any longer. Fram 09:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin kummins

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

Hoax article about a supposed killer made up by the editor's own admission. Prod removed without comment. ~Matticus TC 09:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the entire walled garden, no assertion of notability in any of them. NawlinWiki 17:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tangy Mangoes

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable small town band. No assertion of notability, no sources presented. Furthermore, when looking at the talk pages of the two creators, User talk:Gray751 and User talk:Tripsey12, it appears that these pages have been created and deleted more than once, as well as a page about Clarrie Duncan, which was CSD'd and deleted in its latest form just today. Therefore, I'd like to recommend a SALT to the closing admin. GlassCobra 08:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for deletion:

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of significant others of Friends

AfDs for this article:
List of significant others of Friends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fancruft/listcruft. The previous deletion keep !votes consist mainly of petty reasons such as "it's interesting", "it's of relevance to thousands of Wikipedians" and "it's a character list from a notable show". The notability of the show does not affect the notability of the topic (i.e. Significant others in Friends). Most of the list is composed of minor characters, who ought not to be included. The more significant characters have relevant info found on the main characters' pages. •97198 talk 08:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The links are misleading because the page was included in the navtemplate, which causes it to link to every other page with the navtemplate. Many of the links are to user pages (which aren't relevant) and redirect pages (which can be changed as needed). Looking at Rachel_Green#Relationships for instance it looks like there's a spot designated in the article for information on significant others and I assume that it's the same for the other Friends. Otto4711 17:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, there are 127 pages linking to the article, and only 27 articles that use the Friends navtamplate (heh, interesting coincidence with the numbers). Of the remaining 100, not that many are user and redirect pages (I haven't counted, but it's 10-20 tops). I agree that the less notable characters should probably be deleted, shortened, or merged into Rachel/Phoebe/Monica/etc, but there are at least 7 major characters in the list that would definitely need their own pages if this one is deleted (look for the characters with infoboxes next to them). So I'd have to say that the "meaningful list is better than small individual pages" guideline applies. At the very least, you have to agree that merge is a better option than delete in this case. --Aramգուտանգ 16:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. socks ignored. RS, V, etc Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa Panhandlers Union

Ottawa Panhandlers Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable union. Seems like an Industrial Workers of the World subgroup of little notability. Few real mentions in conventional news sources with one Ottawa Citizen op-ed piece. I consider the article to be a soapbox for something that a few anarchists think is a good idea. Halting traffic on Rideau Street and harassing shop owners does not confer notability -- Samir 08:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. This article provides basic information about the Panhandlers Union in Ottawa. IT is notable for being a success in the organizational efforts of the IWW in Canada and around the world. Transcona Slim 01:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time a group of people with a political axe to grind have gone after the Panhandlers' Union article. The irony is that the Panhandlers' Union was just in the media -- again -- as a result of someone at Ottawa City Hall vandalizing the Panhandlers' Union article, as revealed by the Wikiscanner. I suspect that the person responsible for nominating this article for deletion may in fact not only be the same person who vandalized the article (on behalf of which politician I wouldn't hazard a guess) but also the same person who has been posting death threats on city streets about the union's current organizer (see: http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/3216/0000999ok3.jpg).

For those who may not be aware, the Panhandlers' Union in Ottawa has been featured in dozens, perhaps hundreds of newspaper and magazine articles, radio interviews, and television interviews. At least one article regarding the Panhandlers' Union was syndicated internationally and became the Canadian Press "strange story of the week."

I suspect that this AfD is part of an ongoing, organized attempt to attack the Panhandlers' Union and its organizers. SmashTheState 00:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, it's a big conspiracy against people who beg for money in Ottawa. And the guy named "SmashTheState" clearly has no agenda here. Where are these news stories again? -- Samir 02:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The burden of proof is on you to prove you aren't attacking this article because of your political views. Smashthestate does have strong views but he has barely contributed to this article. The only changes he has made are minor fact corrections. The real bias of Wikipedia is the class bias. Do you expect us to have 100 panhandlers come on and vote to keep this article? I am the main contributor to this article. I have just rewritten the article and added more references to the Panhandlers Union from various news outlets. I somehow doubt you'll be satisfied.--Apples99 05:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)— Apples99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Uhm, no, the burden is on you to show that this is Notable. The sources are 3 in indy newspapers and one in some anarchy multi-lingual service. One's written by Jane Scharf. Seems like a local Ottawa phenomenon worthy of mention in Ottawa newspapers, but not worthy of mention in an encyclopedia. -- Samir 05:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I, personally, have given dozens of interviews to print media, television, and radio. Amazing as it may seem, not every media story is archived on the Intertubes. I can think of a half-dozen off the bat which ARE, but I resent very much being forced to spend hours of my time hunting through media archives for them for no better reason than preventing what amounts to a bad-faith campaign of harassment by someone who doesn't like the politics of the IWW or the Panhandlers' Union. SmashTheState 19:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - From what I've read and understood of the article, I am leaning towards "delete". But, before that can any supporters of this article explain to me with some degree of clarity what this thing is. I hardly can understand a word of the lead. Sarvagnya 05:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Re: Samir's comments in the larger discussion, the question is not and never has been of giving every shop of the IWW its own page. The question is of preserving a single page bearing on a group that has had national as well as local Canadian media coverage, and which has direct bearing on the bumpy ride (to put it nicely) of Ottawa's mayor - presumably a notable figure himself, no? This union shop has generated a great deal of discussion, as well as sympathy and hostility, in Ottawa and abroad. It has even provoked vandalism of its wiki page from someone within the mayor's office. If the union shop is of so little import, why is the city going after it? Here are some links to start with, there are others: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=615a7936-caaf-4613-b676-d5635bdb0790 http://www.hour.ca/news/news.aspx?iIDArticle=955 http://www.ottawaxpress.ca/news/brief.aspx?iIDArticle=2828 Feldsparo 16:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, number one that you cite is an op-ed piece by a local panhandler, and numbers 2 and 3 are pieces in tiny and very alternative media. This does not meet WP:N, nor is it accurate to say that there has been national and local Canadian media coverage based on these cites and the ones in the article. -- Samir 16:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is an op-ed piece printed in a major city newspaper, so one would think that it refers to a hot button issue in that city (otherwise why print it?). And the Ottawa Xpress, which is available on practically every street corner, boasts a large readership, and is Ottawa's major arts/culture newspaper, is neither "tiny" nor "very alternative" if honestly assessed. Feldsparo 00:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP -- How many times has someone come along and tried to delete this entry? Is this the third time? Fourth? I don't know about the rest of the planet, but in Ottawa this particular union is getting a lot of press. --Nik 20:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP -- This is news in Ottawa. 70.49.133.158 20:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Ottawa Resident — 70.49.133.158 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP -- This article is invaluable to Ottawa activists. 99.224.75.237 00:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC) — 99.224.75.237 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - doesnt seem notable. Sarvagnya 02:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A few of the media organizations which have covered stories about the OPU: newspapers: Ottawa Citizen Metro News Ottawa X-Press City Journal. Radio: CFRA including an hour long interview on the Lowell Green Show which is syndicated nationally. The organizer Andrew Nellis is also mentioned in Lowell Green's book "How the Granola-Crunching, Tree-Hugging, Thug Huggers are Wrecking Our Country". The book was a bestseller in Canada. [33] Several interviews on CHUO. An interview on CBC Radio. Television: Interviews on CBC Television and Rogers Television. Smaller outlets: Dominion Newspaper. Not all of these are archived on the internet. That doesn't mean they didn't happen. I have included enough references to notable media articles that I believe it's quite clear that this is indeed a newsworth story. Yes, there are articles in smaller newspapers like The Dominion which cover the issue of homelessness and activism. Isn't that a fitting place for such a story? The corporate press has long ignored these issues. Asking us for articles from mainstream corporate press again shows your political bias and the political bias of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apples99 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC) — Apples99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete There are 12 references for the article. 3 blogs, 2 invalid pages, 2 listserv e-mail, 1 image, a link to Shinerama (it's not even really necessary in the article), a self-published page and two articles by Jane Scharf. The Scharf links might be useful, but they seem to be opinion pieces, rather than trusty news sources. The CityJournal is something of merit, but the article would still have major verifiability issues due to lack of reliable sources. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People actually FROM Ottawa have repeatedly mentioned here that the Panhandlers' Union is often in the media. Not every media outlet happens to archive their material on the Web. Having personally given dozens of interviews on behalf of the Panhandlers' Union, I know this to be the case. There is NOTHING in the Wikipedia guidelines which states references have to be electronic or even print. It is unreasonable to totally ignore television and radio references. These references are not in the article itself because, since the media itself is unavailable via the Web, such citations would serve only the purpose of protecting the article from deletion by people with a political axe to grind. It should go without saying that the Wikipedia articles should not HAVE to be designed around and for the explicit purpose of self-preservation. The fact that it's necessary in this case when numerous people have assured Wikipedia's editors that the union is often in the local media reveals that certain people are here only to use the article as a weapon to attack the organization. SmashTheState 15:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Provide us with newspaper/radio sources. Those are perfectly legitimate on Wikipedia. In fact, many of the articles I write contain references from books, magazines and newspapers — not online sources. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP -- How many KEEPs do I have to put here for you guys to understand. The reason that the corporate press is ignoring this is because of conservative right-wing influence on people who want to delete this article. I know for a fact that alternative Ottawa media like Metro and Ottawa X-Press have written at least 3 articles on it, and there is also one major article in Ottawa Citizen. Also like Apples says Andrew Nellis (even if he didn't talk about Ottawa Pandhandlers Union) was on CFRA and in Lowell Green's book. I know it doesn't meet your mainstream standards but this is clearly a major event that is shaking Ottawa even if the media isn't covering it. The reason it should be on Wikipedia is to fight the prejudices of the mainstream even if there has been little coverage! Pro Smith 07:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.139.29.235 (talk • contribs) — 59.139.29.235 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

again wikipedia is not a soapbox. If it's a major event provide me links to references from notable sources. Stop telling it to me, show it to me. Ridernyc 12:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a second, how many keeps have you put on here? -- Samir 14:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and so what if I posted multiple times "keep" here! it's right wing "puppets" of the city like you that are ruining organized labour in the city of Ottawa. Damn right I'm telling people to come here and put their votes down in order to protect free speech from fascists like you. Pro Smith 59.139.29.235 04:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC) — 59.139.29.235 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That violates WP:SOCK, and as a result, your IP has been blocked. Usage of meatpuppets to violate rules is not tolerated. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know damned well it was a rhetorical device, meaning "How many times do I have to tell you?" Now you'll try to claim that all the "keep" votes are sockpuppets. It is becoming increasingly obvious to everyone here that you've nominated this article for political reasons which have nothing to do with Wikipedia or the notability of this organization. SmashTheState 15:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that almost all of the keep votes here are coming from IPs who just happened to make their first edit on Wikipedia here. It's clear that that there's sockpuppetry, or that someone is telling others to vote "Keep" in this AfD. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no "sockpuppetry" going on. As has been mentioned here before, there is bias built into Wikipedia. The people who regularly edit Wikipedia tend to be computer nerds. Computer nerds are a self-selecting and very narrow segment of the population, one which has a distictive point of view -- one which is actively hostile to both the Panhandlers' Union and the IWW in general. This has been established over and over again among those of us who regularly deal with attacks on organized labour articles here on Wikipedia. In this case, the people who actually have the most expertise to state whether the Panhandlers' Union is notable (that is, the local Ottawa activist community and the larger labour community as a whole) are taking time to vote on the issue in a medium they don't use enough to warrant a user account. If you're going to argue that only the specific group of people who contribute large amounts of time to Wikipedia are qualified to judge notability, then you are flying in the face of not just the stated goals of Wikipedia but logic and reason itself. I refuse to accept that the people best able to judge notability are the Asperger and OCD shut-ins who comprise the majority of the Wikipedia "community." SmashTheState 19:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May I remind you of our no personal attacks policy? Also, you're making quite a stretch there in saying all Wikipedia users hate Panhandlers' Union and the IWW. I don't even live in Canada, and I came into this AfD as a neutral user who has no prior knowledge or bias on the subject. I offered my two cents, and as a result, there are accusations that I am biased because I did vote to keep the article. If an article truly establishes notability, it would be evident to any readers, not just people from the Ottowa activist communities. Please don't make accusations regarding bias, when it's quite apparent that you have a conflict of interest, since this is an organization that you are a part of. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make any personal attacks, I made some very generalized (and accurate) attacks against the heaviest contributors to Wikipedia. In any case, it is inaccurate to say that notability should be immediately obvious to everyone. There are literally thousands of entries involving, for example, physics and chemistry which I have never heard of -- and neither have you. The mere fact that a random Wikipedia editor has not heard of a specific chemical compound or sub-atomic particle does not make it non-notable. Likewise, it is not reasonable to demand a union of panhandlers (this in itself makes it notable; how many unions do YOU know of for panhandlers?) be immediately identifiable to people all over the planet for it to be of significant note. Yes, it must be notable, at the very least, in its own field. Numerous people from the Ottawa region or the activist and labour communities have appeared here to tell you the OPU is notable. Your demand that I somehow produce the dozens and dozens of television and radio interviews representatives of the OPU have done is not reasonable. No other article is held up to such scrutiny. It is not outrageous for me to suspect there is political bias at work here, either conscious or unconscious. SmashTheState 21:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that if you haven't heard of a subject, then it's not notable. I said the notability of any article should be apparent after reading the article. Instead of saying that I'm over-scrutinizing this article, just produce some more legitimate sources. WP:RS and WP:BLP are serious policies, and if you can't show that you can write an article using sources that satisfy these two policies, then I don't think the article should exist. Also, the fact that a panhandler union exists does not make it notable. Form an organization that has never existed, and it's notable? It's unique, but that does mean it meets Wikipedia's notability policy. This matter would be much easier resolved if you actually granted my requests. This AfD is about this article. It's not about any other articles. Don't say I'm over-scrutinizing when you fail to answer my simple requests. These are Wikipedia policies, and I'm only Wikipedia policy to support my arguments. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what I wrote? I posted the list of all the news outlets in Ottawa which covered/covers the OPU. I forgot to mention that the op-ed article written by one of the OPU was written in response to an article in the Ottawa Citizen which is no longer available online. The original article was syndicated a week after its release. It was featured in many of the Can-West newspaper including the [Winnipeg Free Press]. Instead of screeching about the rules like a Wikipedia Admin cliché User:Ridernyc why don't you actually read the articles or learn something about Ottawa?--Apples99 16:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apples99 (talk • contribs) — Apples99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP - the Ottawa Panhandlers Union is a known organization in Ottawa and within a community of street people across the country. Regardless of political biases about whether or not you think this is a desirable organization, it is active, has consistently attracted coverage in community media, and is certainly worthy of an entry in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.24.109 (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC) — 64.230.24.109 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Again references please. Ridernyc 16:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're being told by people who LIVE HERE that the Panhandlers' Union is notable. You're some random person -- apparently from New York -- who is voting on an organization which isn't even in your *country*, let alone your community, who is being told by people who LIVE HERE that the organization is notable. Every time an issue around panhandling and the legal issues surround it comes up in Ontario, it's the Ottawa Panhandlers' Union which gets called for comment by the media. As I have stated over and over again, not every media outlet archives every article. I have been interviewed a least a half-dozen times by CBC Television alone -- the Canadian national television agency -- and you won't find a single one of those interviews archived for your viewing pleasure. I am at a loss to explain why people who actually live in Ottawa with direct knowledge of the Panhandlers' Union and the media accounts it generates are obliged to prove to you, a total stranger with no knowledge of the subject, what is completely obvious to everyone here in the community. SmashTheState 20:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I don't think there's any set bar for how notable something has to be before it can be included on wikipedia. But first, the article exists. Second, it's been covered by televised and print media. Not all IWW affiliates have been covered by their local media. However, if any organization does something newsworthy enough to be covered multiple times by news outlets and someone takes the time to write an article about it, I don't see why it should be deleted. Wikipedia isn't running out of paper, nor is notability exclusive to US media or non-local media. If anything about this article can be solved through edits, that's what should happen, not deletion. Drvoke 20:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC) — Drvoke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • There is a bar determining how notable the subject is. See WP:NOTABILITY. Also, some of the arguments here are about notability, and some are about reliable sources. Both are valid arguments. The other users voting keep argue that union is notable, and that Wikipedia has a bias against these types of organizations. On the other hand, I argued that there are a significant lack of reliable sources, which can ultimately result in BLP violations. My concern has yet to be addressed. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many "reliable" sources do we need according to YOU? I've already listed all the "reliable" sources the OPU has been mention in which include: The Ottawa Citizen, Ottawa Sun, Ottawa Xpress, Ottawa Metro News, Ottawa City Journal, Centretown Buzz. In addition to these I've also included secondary sources from The Dominion newspaper, thehour.ca, blogs, forums. This is more sources than most articles have so can you remove the AfD notice now? I think you've been proven wrong.--Apples99 03:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apples99 (talk • contribs) — Apples99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
there are also some misleading ones. one link says metro news Ottawa and leads to a blog. And having pointed that out I know leave the debate, since I have searched for references myslef, and I have asked for references multiple and I get nothing but excuses every time. I think it's clear there are no notable references for this. Ridernyc 04:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the Metro News article. It exists but that link to the blog is the only online source for that article. I have the original hard copy and I'm going to reference that with the date, issue number and author. If you're not convinced you could always call up Metro News or email them asking for this particular edition.--Apples99 13:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apples99 (talk • contribs) — Apples99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • If the Metro News article exists and you have the original hard copy, just post the date/issue so that it can be tracked down and confirmed. Furthermore, that news organization keeps PDF archives of their paper on their website [34]. References need to properly identify their source by providing enough information for users to get hold of the source without relying on blogs - in this case, you need to at least provide the issue and page of the article in question. It's great if you can get an online version, but you want the "official" PDF over a blog posting (and it also looks bad when the reference in question says it's from Metro news rather than being a blog.) --Sigma 7 07:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what if there are no "reliable" sources that meets your definitions. We have about 10 articles in media that you call "alternative" on top of my op-ed piece in the Citizen and that easily should suffice. Also we live in the city and we are telling you this is a major movement that is dramatically altering the way labour is organized in Ottawa. Listen to the people. But you'll keep on fighting with useless "facts" like the City Journal article didn't even talk about the Panhandlers Union. It talked about Andrew for Christ's sake. I also used the Wikiscanner on the person who nominated this for deletion and found that he is using computers from Ottawa Police Service and Ottawa City Hall. I am not surprised about this political agenda which I am sure is coming from instruction from mayor O'Brien's office. It is Staff Sgt. Samir Bhatnagar who has been a scourge against the street people in the downtown core. I am convinced that this is the person who is trying to delete the article. He is also targeting me in specific because I am from Bangladesh heritage. The union has upward of 34 members now and we will not be stopped by the fascists who are trying to suppress organzied labour and free speech. Pro Smith 59.139.29.235 04:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC) — 59.139.29.235 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I am sure that what Proshanto has uncovered is correct! and we should be applauding him. The deletion of the panhandlers union is part of an organized campaign from municipal council and Ottawa Police Services to smear Andrew's name due to his involvement in Ottawa Copwatch. Recently there have been posters placed on Rideau Street with Andrew's picture and a gun pointed in his mouth that are related to this same campaign of harassment. I am also certain that Sergeant Samir Bhatnagar who was the particular member of Ottawa Police Services to target Proshanto last year was none too happy to help out by putting this article for deletion. Also it looks like the wikipedia administration is trying to stifle opinion on the matter. Proshanto was unfairly blocked from participating here by wikiadministrator Nishkid64. Does anyone know where we can appeal this???

Stop trolling. There's no conspiracy here. I blocked Proshanto (?) for violating Wikipedia policy (WP:MEAT). The rules apply to everyone, and no one will be excluded. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the fact that you deleted Proshanto's comments and blocked him proof enough that there *IS* a conspiracy? You're sure acting conspiratorial. This isn't the first time the OPU article has been attacked by someone at CITY HALL. This time we just happened to find out it was an anti-panhandler sergeant. Unfortunately, the way Wikipedia is reaction to all this isn't out of the ordinary. Remove the ban on Proshanto and keep this article!--Apples99 06:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apples99 (talk • contribs) — Apples99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I blocked Proshanto for violating Wikipedia policy (I have stated it already; see WP:MEAT). Also, Samir deleted Proshanto's comments because he was being accused of being someone he's not. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was obvious to everyone and even pointed out to you that Proshanto's comments were rhetorical but you took them literally. He was asking "how many times do I have to post here to prove to you that this article should be kept?". He was not saying that he had posted multiple times. And you had no proof of this anyway. You just banned him arbitrarily in the full spirit of Wikipedia. I have no doubt it was to erase his comments about Samir. As for his comments on Samir I will be mirroring them on my page. I find it disturbing that you claim to know his real identity when your talk page claims you're from Washington, DC and his IP is located in Ottawa. Maybe you're both cops. It wouldn't surprise me. --Apples99 12:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apples99 (talk • contribs) — Apples99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
First of all, Proshanto said this "and so what if I posted multiple times "keep" here! it's right wing "puppets" of the city like you that are ruining organized labour in the city of Ottawa. Damn right I'm telling people to come here and put their votes down in order to protect free speech from fascists like you." Read WP:MEAT. He admits to telling others to put their vote down here. I blocked him because there are a number of single-purpose accounts and IPs who have come here just to vote in the AfD. Clearly, someone's telling others to create an account, or vote on this Afd with their IP. Also, I've never met Samir in real life. I have talked to him on a number of occasions on Wikipedia, and outside of Wikipedia, though. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. This article provides basic information about the Panhandlers Union in Ottawa. This organization is notable, both in the mainstream and alternative Ottawa and Canadian media and among community organizations and activists in Ottawa and Ontario. It is the only Canadian organization of its kind, and while small, it provides a valuable window into an initiative that has street people organizing themselves in the face of a hostile mayor, hostile media, hostile law and courts system. I am concerned by the reference fetishism I see in this debate. The number of citations available online should not be a criteria for deleting valuable information such as this entry, particularly from an online encyclopedia whose goal is to be open and accessible to all. Mooremedia 08:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC) — Mooremedia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. In general, WP:ORG says that organizations that are local in scope are generally not notable. This organization appears to have gotten no more than the amount of press one would expect for a small, local organization, and none of it indicates that the organization is important outside of Ottawa. I don't think this organization meets the notability criteria. I would point out to the single supporter with the many accounts that this is not a vote, and that her personal attacks and empty rhetoric make it more likely, not less likely, that people will be inclined to delete. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable enough for me. Murderbike 17:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I feel that notably has been proved through the listed media sources. We have two editors repeating the same arguments despite contradictory evidence. I am from the US, have been to Canada only breifly, yet have heard of the OPU numerous times. Of course word of mouth, really a much truer judge of notability than corporate owned media, could never meet the standards you're seeking to judge by. Joseph_Lapp 21:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are specific policies on Wikipedia regarding notability, reliable sources, verifiability, WP:BLP, among other things. An article must meet these policies. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How much more notable or reliable does it have to get?! Victims of the System A front page article in a local newspaper. The article also featured an editorial on the class war relating back to the front page article. The main article was several pages long in print form and contained many pictures of organizer/delegate Nellis. Are you from Ottawa? No? Then you aren't qualified to judge the merits of this article. Panhandling was recently a municipal election issue in Ottawa and remains a hot button issue in the capital. I don't expect outsiders without any knowledge of Ottawa or even Canada to understand this. If you aren't qualified to discuss the issue of organized labour, issues relating to Ottawa or poverty issues don't do it. As SmashtheState said, he has no knowledge of unusual chemical compounds but that doesn't make him qualified to assess the quality of an article on that subject. I agree fully. Stop shrieking about verifiability Nishkid64 and start making constructive suggestions on how this article can be kept. That is the point of Wikipedia, isn't it? I see more references here on this page than there are on most useless pages which aren't targeted for deletion at all. So it begs the question again: Why this article?

I dug up this article from Centretown News (Odd isn't it how some of my references actually have entries on Wikipedia but still aren't notable). This article mentions Nellis and the panhandlers Union. More notability for you: Panhandling emerges as a top safety issue. This is also proof that panhandling is indeed a hot button issue in Ottawa. --Apples99 23:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC) — Apples99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Another article from Centretown News. Homeless art vendors stir opposition. This isn't to be confused with an article which appeared in August in the Centretown Buzz about Nellis, the OPU and CopWatch. Are we notable yet? But restricting people to certain areas would rid other areas of the cultural contribution of the vendors, says Task Force member Andrew Nellis, who is also the organizer of the Ottawa Panhandler’s Union. Nellis says he sees the proposal as a replacement for panhandling, and to a way to help get people off the streets --Apples99 23:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)— Apples99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

What is wrong with you people? Centretown news is a local paper in Ottawa published by Carleton University and has more than 7000 readers. Just because it is given away for free you are discounting it. Same with Cityjournal, with over 5000 readers. Just because its free doesn't mean that it's "unreliable". Just because Jane Scharf wrote the articles in the Dominion doesn't mean that it's unreliable. I have unearthed evidence here of a conspiracy involving Ottawa Police Services deleting this article and you wikiadministrators are colluding with them. Andrew has been working hard getting people on the internet to come here and vote this deletion down. This has to count for something! I myself have put down at least 7 votes here because you don't seem to understand that this is a major movement. So what if the sources don't reference the panhandlers union. So what if I'm just a homeless guy who can't walk who grew up in the ghettos of Blackburn Hamlet. Supporting the establishment like this is a disgrace to Ottawa. Andrew is a true hero for the working man. He has gotten so many people on the internet to come here and vote to keep this article. I have been trying to get the street people of Ottawa to come here but there is so few access to free computers. So just because there are no "RELIABLE SOURCES" as defined by you doesn't mean that this shouldn't be deleted! Just because there are no CONVENTIONAL MEDIA covering this doesn't mean that the people are not talking! We are notable! We have over 34 members. I am writing to CJOH TV and telling them about Bhatnagar and O'Brien colluding in this matter. Pro Smith 62.149.18.100 05:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)— 62.149.18.100 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

User blocked. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to hear any nonsense that I'm censoring you guys. I have repeated myself a number of times that Proshanto Smith violated Wikipedia policy on meatpuppetry. He admitted to his violations. This is a blockable offense, as is block evasion. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Pro Smith: Are we supposed to include every itty-bitty detail on Wikipedia? News coverage does grant notability. My town newspaper has 10,000 readers, and if there's some union there that's creating some sort of hubbub, I still would not it was notable enough for Wikipedia. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nishkid64 is acting more and more like a cop. The fact is that your town DOESN'T have a panhandlers union. The Panhandlers Union is completely unique in the world. There's nothing like it anywhere else. It's notable because of this uniqueness. If there were panhandlers unions in every city I'd understand your ridiculous argument but there isn't. You deletionists are pissing me off. There are articles on every Star Trek character that ever appeared on TV. There are articles on stupid Star Wars aliens and Pokemon characters. Why don't you go delete those articles? If anything belongs in an encylopedia it's stuff from the real world. That being said, this article then has the advantage over 1000s of other articles. I wonder if the Panhandlers Union will become notable according to you once this edit war is covered in the Ottawa news. It was already discussed once before on CBC Radio. Andrew Nellis has appeared as a guest on the CBC Radio show 'All In A Day as well as Ottawa Morning. Stop trolling! This is notable and you do have a political axe to grind.--Apples99 09:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC) — Apples99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    Delete per WP:NPA, WP:ALLORNOTHING. I did a check on some of the references - at least one of the URLs for a source used online was incorrect or incomplete, making it more difficult to track down the source (especially when it looks like a dead end). Also, Wikipedia is not MySpace, and is not meant to be a "home" for activist organizations. [35] --Sigma 7 11:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable, also badly written. Suva Чего? 07:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I don't really know much about the IWW but it looks like there is a sufficient number of people, many from Ottawa itself, who believe it is worthy of being on Wikipedia. Perhaps needs some editing however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.212.201 (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC) — 81.86.212.201 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep - Google search reveals enough nonpartisan reliable sources to meet notability, some of which mention further TV coverage not available on the web (not to mention hundreds more partisan sources covering the union). ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 13:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't say it show it, links please. Ridernyc 15:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hundreds more? I think you're just referring to Google hits (which has been proven to be a faulty indicator of notability). If you remove the wikipedia mirror links, there's actually only a handful of websites at all who mention "Ottawa Panhandlers Union". Nishkid64 (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We keep getting drive-by "deletes" from people who have absolutely no knowledge of the subject being discussed, which is par for the course on Wikipedia, but looking at the user pages of people who are posting "keeps" reveals they all have an interest in labour politics and activism. Should this not tell you something? I've used the example of chemistry and physics, in which it would not be expected for a sub-atomic particle or chemical substance to get a lot of (or ANY) media coverage, yet be notable within its own field. Even dismissing the fact that there has been large amounts of media coverage of the Ottawa Panhandlers Union, since certain people seem curiously blind to any evidence of it, it is STILL notable WITHIN ITS OWN FIELD. You would be hard-pressed to find an anti-poverty activist who has not at least heard of the Ottawa Panhandlers' Union. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a popularity contest. Since some of you folks gaming the system seem so fond of quoting Wikipedia policy, might I refer you to Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia? SmashTheState 17:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We also keep getting drive-by "keeps" from people who don't know a thing about Wikipedia. Also, the policy you cited doesn't mean anything if other policies like WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOTABILITY aren't met. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They don't HAVE to know anything about Wikipedia to know the OPU is notable in their community. This is part of the problem. You have this axiomatic belief in the back of your mind that knowledge of Wikipedia confers general expertise in every subject area. This is not the case. To make reference to the same section you quote, WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Since it appears to me that you're moving the goalposts back every time someone finds new media references for you, I'd like to get a firm statement of what you believe an adequate number of references looks like. Much of the coverage is now very hard to find, since it is not archived on the Web. I want some kind of assurance that you're not just going to move the goalposts back again after considerable effort has been made to track down the citations needed. SmashTheState 19:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How many times do I have to tell you that real-life notability does not establish Wikipedia notability. I just don't think the current sources used can sustain the entire article. I would have accepted it being significantly shortened and merged into IWW, but it seems too localized of a focus for that article. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(1) You have refused to state how many media references is enough to confirm notability. Having personally given dozens of interviews on behalf of the OPU, I know for a certainty that we can find as many as is necessary if we're given a firm number. The fact you're unwilling to do so leads me to believe that you are in bad faith, and have a conscious intention of moving back the goalposts no matter HOW many media references we find for you. (2) There is absolutely nothing in Wikipedia which says references must be archived solely on the Web. Contrary to popular belief, not every media outlet archives their news on the Web indefinitely. I sincerely wonder how many Wikipedia articles could survive the kind of scrutiny and standards being applied to this one. (3) It is extremely disingenuous to complaint about the size of the article relative to its importance when most of the article now consists of the very references and citations you're demanding! From where I stand, there is absolutely no way we can EVER prove this organization is notable and this whole process is nothing but a ritual used to justify a priori deletion. That's known as a kangaroo court. SmashTheState 20:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not determined by the number of reliable sources you have. Essentially, you need to have enough sources, so that you can have a well-referenced article that is not in violation of Wikipedia policy. IIRC, I told you that you did not need to have web sources. See some of my articles: Thomas C. Hindman, Samuel Adams, Lee Smith (baseball), J. R. Richard, 1880 Republican National Convention. Those articles do not contain a few, if any, online resources. If you have the page number and the newspaper name, that's good enough for a reference (provided that it's actually legitimate). Nishkid64 (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Poverty issues in Canada are already too marginalized, every information source is needed. Anti-poverty groups especially are frequently ignored by the mainstream media, yet their actions are significant. We can help fix that here in Wikipedia. Panhandler's Union is a worthwhile group within Ottawa to recognize. Pbock 19:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)— Pbock (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP: I'm in Denver, Colorado, and i consider the topic of this article notable. This is my only comment on this page. On the other hand, much of the DELETE noise generated here comes from a very few individuals. Nishkid64 has entered twenty separate comments on this page. Ridernyc, eight comments. Samir, five comments. Maybe three other single DELETE entries by individuals. It seems to me that the article could be improved, but also that the attacks are mostly orchestrated. Also, this article has a long history of being sabotaged. That's pretty notable in itself — in a sense the attackers are confirming notability by their long and persistent attention. If the attackers would spend half of their energy and time improving the article rather than engaging in unwarranted attacks, it might by now be a candidate for GA. Richard Myers 21:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Attacking an article does not imply notability. Wikipedia links frequently show up high up in Google searches, and if a member of City Hall wanted to check up on OPU, then he would find that Wikipedia article. Then he could just as easily vandalize it. Also, it does not matter the number of people who are participating in this AfD. It all matters about the arguments. Also, even if this article was cleaned up, there's no chance it would pass GA. Much of the article just details all possible mentions of OPU and the background of the homelessness situation in the media (most of this stuff could just be removed). Nishkid64 (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 are no independent sources, no real assertion of notability. Probably a valid speedy, so the minimal discussion suffices. Xoloz 22:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SUSU.tv

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

Notability. Is it established?. TorstenGuise 08:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SUSU.tv is established and officially exists. Also, merging with the Student Union article is out of the question. It's a bit like saying merge the Wessex Scene and SURGE 1287AM articles with the Student Union. Although SUSU.tv article is very short and lacks additional references, it can be improved by adding minutes of the meetings from the Union, for example. Dedkenny66 13:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 are no independent, reliable sources to which information can be attributed and verified. The information in the article might be coonsidered notable only by those deeply involved in the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JodyB (talk • contribs) 2007-11-03

Olman

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

No reliable sources outside of D&D fansites, this plot summary about a fictional race a provides no context, analysis or claim to notability. Gavin Collins 08:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Re: "This is one of the primary player-character races in the oldest (circa 1974) Dungeons & Dragons campaign setting...", this is exactly the kind of content this article needs in order to be an actual encyclopedia article. I notice that this assertion isn't made in the article though, but instead most of the article is game guide/in-universe type stuff. Of course, for this info to be included, a suitable reference would be appropriate too. Rray 00:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not sure why one out of hundreds of fictional game characters is notable, particularly if the book of game settings it comes is not itself notable. This seems similar to saying that a toner cartridge listed in the photocopier repair manual is notable, which does not make sense to me. --Gavin Collins 09:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banyule Junior Football Club

Banyule Junior Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable Australian rules football club catering to juniors only. No assertion of greater notability has been made. The club does not meet WP:ORG Mattinbgn\talk 05:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. krimpet⟲ 00:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page lists every time a Saab appears in a movie, TV show or book, or is mentioned in a song. Indiscriminate. Fee Fi Foe Fum 05:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can someone point to the policy that explains AFD is not cleanup. If an article has no merits worth cleaning up what are we going to do about it? Ridernyc 10:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete basically a trivia list and as in most cases if it can not be part of the prose of the main article it's not worth mentioning. Ridernyc 10:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article was indeed spun off from the main Saab one. Various WikiProject Automobiles members have been working to keep the many, lengthy, and often unreferenced and unencyclopædic lists of utter trivia relating to pop culture from taking over car articles. This section was particularly busy, so rather than just deleting it, it was spun into an article precisely in the hope that the wider community (here via AfD) would express their opinion on it (and therefore any deletion decision would have a wider mandate.) – Kieran T (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Query. So, if this is deleted as a separate article, will the good stuff be welcomed back - for example, that James Bond drove a Saab? I'd like to see this information retained somewhere rather than be lost in this shuffle. Colonel Warden 12:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment:There are examples of articles which manage to maintain a sensible and useful amount of pop-culture stuff. The test which was suggested and seemed to meet with general approval at the project I mentioned was this: was the popular culture entity important to the car (e.g. the film "The Italian Job" for the Mini), in which case include it; or was the car important to the entity — in which case the trivia belongs, if anywhere, in the article about the entity rather than the car. – Kieran T (talk) 12:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Films with footage of Saabs"??? Sheesh! Move to "Films with product placement" instead. JJL 13:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for all the reasons similar lists for the Citroen, the Mini Cooper and the Ford Pinto were deleted. Presence of a car in a movie or TV show is not a theme of the movie or show and this is a directory of unassociated items. Otto4711 16:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is a referenced article (I helped clean-up reference format some before posting here) and satisfies List by being organized in a manner that is better than how a category would handle it. Articles of this nature help to demonstrate the influence and significance of a subject and as long as they remain coherent and sourced and editors continue to work to improve them, they are worth keeping. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What isn't unsourced is sourced with non-reliable sources. Violates WP:OR, WP:V and WP:TRIVIA. Corvus cornix 18:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indiscriminate information and a list of loosely associated films, books, trivia, etc. Crazysuit 00:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is just a trivial dumping ground for every Saab mention and appearance. RobJ1981 04:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. The Saab is hardly a pop culture icon, and as such this list is unnecessary. Pablo Talk | Contributions 09:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julie hrdlicka

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

Deltion nomination Only claim to notability is as a candidate for public office. No claims to have ever been elected or served in public office, no evidence of notability, as defined by the notability guideline WP:N or the biography guideline WP:BIO seems to exist. Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Neil ☎ 13:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrell's Military Institute

Ferrell's Military Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Deltion nomination Non-notable school. No assertions of notability. Had a prod. That was removed without substantially addressing the problem. A speedy tag was then added by another editor. The speedy tag was contested by a hangon. As this has been contested twice, I thought it prudent to bring to AFD for furthr discussion. Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Objection The article has been nominated twice for deletion, and a hang-on tag added and then deleted, all in the span of 17 minutes after in was originally listed. Doesn't that seem a bit hasty?? User talk:sf46 04:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why it was brought here. Do you have any evidence that address the problems of the article, specifically a lack of notability in the form of multiple, extensive references in third-party sources? Such evidence would go a LONG way towards getting me to vote keep for this particular discussion.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete withut prejudice to re-creation if the creator can find some information about the place. But I'm doubtful of the notability: Google Books finds basic details in educational directories - FERRELL SCHOOL FOR BOYS, New Orleans; non-sect.; boarding; LC Ferrell, Prin.; 4920 St. Charles Ave - but that's about it. Gordonofcartoon 11:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as empty and lacking notability. Read the article, there is nothing there! Vegaswikian 21:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lushlife Presents: West Sounds (Kanye Meets The Beach Boys)

Lushlife Presents: West Sounds (Kanye Meets The Beach Boys) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Mixtapes are considered to be non-notable per Wikipedia:Notability (music). Daniil Maslyuk 13:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to even redirect. Those 30 were also deleted. Spellcast 08:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OpenProj

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

Contested speedy. This article was previously speedied twice, and the original author posted this article, which in its current incarnation is more of a complaint about its deletion. The original author has been indefinitely blocked because of his username being deemed appropriate, among other things. Another editor inexplicably removed the speedy tag. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Week Keep a possibly notable software. The administrator's decline of the speedy request was bizarre, because the article declined speedy was nothing more than a rant about previous deletions and the possible pro-Microsoft tendencies of the people who deleted it. It has now been edited as a one-line stub; and there are sources cited. However, the sources merely claim that the software has been launched. WP:Notable states that objective evidence of notability may include "Substantial coverage in reliable sources" (my emphasis) - a small handful of stories repeating a press release claim is coverage, but not substantial coverage. It serves to prove that the software exists; but not that the software is notable. As the notes on the notability guidelines state: "adverts, announcements columns, minor news stories, and coverage with low levels of discrimination, are all examples of matters that may not be evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation, despite the existence of reliable sources." However, IF more reliable sources can be found; and IF the article can be expanded then it should stay. At the moment, it is only notable because it intends to "replace" a Microsoft software (which is itself, not notable, and I've flagged that article with a request for sources). B1atv 05:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since we have some good sources to write an article from such as this. Oh, and maybe it's a good idea to encourage more competition in a field that doesn't have too much. Law & Disorder 09:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Marginal notability, but still warrants an article. ffm 12:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per L&D and FFM. I would note also that at least one of the external links certainly seems like a piece of substantial coverage. --Gwern (contribs) 16:01 24 October 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 delete given established lack of verifiability. Anyone may place a redirect to an appropriate article if needed. --Coredesat 01:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Masquerade (Haylie Duff album)

Masquerade (Haylie Duff album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:V. A Google search for Masquerade "Haylie Duff", returns 337 hits, mostly unrelated. Those which do mention this supposed album are either WP mirrors, wiki-based or social networking sites - one of which claims to be official but looks very unprofessional. Delete per WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL. Kurt Shaped Box 14:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Neil ☎ 13:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WebRank

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

No references can be found to support the claims in the article. - Jehochman Talk 03:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think more people would be searching for "pagerank" when they type in "webrank" then yahoo's toolbar. Seems that "webrank" would be a reasonable misspelling of "pagerank." Law & Disorder 17:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No real argument. In theory there could be a disambig page, but I'm sure it's not worth it. CitiCat ♫ 19:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As it doesn't seem to exist anymore (that article was from 2004) it doesn't seem worth mentioning in the Yahoo Toolbar stub (which doesn't even list many of the current features). If someone ever felt like writing an extensive article on the subject, and included the history, then it might be worth mentioning. CitiCat ♫ 05:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mapic

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

This appears to be a non-notable trade show but admit to having little experience in judging these for Wikipedia. I don't have an opinion either way. Perhaps it only needs more WP:RS. Pigman 17:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont agree, I know the show and am in the industry. There are almost 9000 global participants, and it is acknowledged to be an extremely important networking enviroment in the industry, and it is growing fast. Regarding it reading like an advert, I am no real expert on that but I guess it is hard for it not to. Note on the history that the author was specifically asked to "demonstrate notability" which I guess is not easy to do without giving it a "boost". In my opinion an important page and should stay. Laows 07:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - first off, notability is a prerequisite - see WP:N. Secondly, it must not read like an advert, regardless of what it's describing. It must be pruned down to ensure it's not just disguised spam. The Rambling Man 20:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please see this list of trade shows that take place annually in Cannes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannes_Film_Festival#Other_Cannes_Congresses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viv McCourt (talk • contribs) 15:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - you mean look at the list you added of non-notable congress shows? The Rambling Man 07:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Define notable. This congress is most certainly notable to the 9000 attendees. How many directly interested people would constitute "noteable", please? Presumably the Cannes film Festival, which is the focus of the page user Viv McCourt suggested for reference is "notable". It has 29 000 registred delegates. So where between 9000 and 29 000 is they line, please? Laows 07:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:N is the policy on notabillity, but moreover, any kind of notability must be verifiable using reliable sources. I see absolutely no evidence of such. The Rambling Man 07:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the author, I will try to improve on this in terms of verifcation. The reason I have not is that when I did in the first writing, it was flagged as "written as an advert". Most of the sources are official sources which eminate from the organisers of the congress. I will try though. There are literally 10's of thousands of articles in this site wbhich are less notable, worse written and with no verification. I am suprised this one is singled out. KnightStrider 16:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, I have updated and cited sources and references where possible, and where I the information has been gathered verbally and I am unable to provide a direct link to source I have deleted or re-written the reference. I trust this is okay now? KnightStrider 16:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep The article still looks like a fluff piece produced by their PR department. If that isn't fixed, then delete it. Article needs a major rewrite. Going by sources not in the article, it looks like one of the major trade shows in its industry.jonathon 18:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually the MIPIM Congress is general Real Estate, and this MAPIC congress is specific to Commercial Real Estate. You know, go ahead and delete for all I care. There are 9000 delegates to this congress, this page is already ranked 9 at Google.com and it is a well trafficked resource. I am an attendee to this Tradeshow for 6 years, and have tried to put useful information out here as is the purpose of this site. If you think it is not useful to have an overview/ official links and suchlike for a group of 9000 professionals then just go ahead and delete it. I am sorry I bothered trying to contribute something to this project. KnightStrider 14:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite. Has anyone bothered looking for sources? It is mentioned in major sources throughout the world (166 relevant Google News hits[37]), including Arab News[38], the Moscow Times[39], Il Denaro from Italy[40], ... While this gets a lot less media attention than e.g. MIDEM due to real estate being slightly less sexy than pop music, it is clearly an important event, recognised by independent, reliable, international media (and I haven't even searched in professional real estate magazines and the like). Fram 14:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fram and others. A trade show with 9,000 participants is almost notable by definition. It's going to get a lot of press, and people all over the world want to know about it if 9,000 people care enough to actually travel great distances attend - hence, encyclopedic. That seems to be borne out by the coverage. People know about this show, and they want to know about this show. Wikidemo 19:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It should be pointed out the prior AFD discussion was closed as no consensus, and a month is not unreasonable for a follow up AFD in that situation. However, even discounting those arguments to keep as this AFD was "too soon" after the first, the consensus is still to keep the article. Neil ☎ 13:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muten Roshi

AfDs for this article:

(View AfD)

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

It's been more than a month and none have taken the time to improve the article. It remains unreferenced, and is filled with so much original research. Now I'm aware of the character's notability and all, but there isn't any real world information that can be attributed here since the character lacks real-world perspective. Merge to List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball#Muten Roshi. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 04:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Quasirandom 04:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the more notable anime characters and very notable in Dragon Ball (although less so in Dragon Ball Z). Rename to his official English name of Master Roshi though. For far too long the members of the DBZ Wikiproject have thought that they are allowed to ignore policies and guidelines and use the English translation of characters names rather than their actual English name (as required). It's the reason I stopped editing Dragon Ball related articles. TJ Spyke 05:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The character definitely qualifies for notability, and the problems in the article are not so great that they can't be corrected without starting over. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 06:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The real problem is that Muten Roshi has no real life sources, and this article will continue to remain like that since there are none whatsoever. Who will take the time to place any references to the article? Obviously, no one cares. Also, WP:WPDB does not ignore any guidelines or policies, here they are right here. The page should actually be deleted per violating WP:V and WP:OR, but I say a merger would be best to save the data. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, you don't ignore policies and guidelines because you followed unofficial policies and guidelines that cannot be enforced ever? Well, if you can create such a guideline, I make one that says the opposite of your naming conventions. Oops, already made - it's called the official naming conventions guideline. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correction - it appears that your guidelines and policies are official. However, you are arbitrarily enforcing certain policies and ignoring others. Why would there be a guideline that says we should use the English name, if the MoSJP was intended for this? There is a proper English name for Muten Roshi, it's Master Roshi. The MoSJP does not cover fictional characters in the slightest. Would you also support using direct translations of video games developed by Japanese developers? On multiple occasions, the idea that fictional subjects are covered by MoSJP has been considered bunk. The only fictional subjects that apply are those that do not have proper English names, and this is definitely not one of those subjects. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Notability is rightly undisputed; sourcing issues are trivial - would Lord Sesshomaru have the article's editors give specfic episode references? <ref>Episode 47, 13:47</ref>... And I don't know that a mere lack of out of universe perspective merits what would amount to deletion of the lion's share of the article. A merge isn't a good idea either for an entirely other reason; Master Roshi figures in how many disparate parts of the DB franchise? etc. --Gwern (contribs) 16:05 24 October 2007 (GMT)
  • Strong Keep Per above comment by Gwern. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per pretty much all of the arguments provided. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sppedy Keep as a snowball. AfD is not the venue for article cleanup or to initiate a merger discussion. --Farix (Talk) 11:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it has nothing good going for it; there are no primary sources to support the article's veracity, no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. What it has got is not good: the article has a long "Background" section written from an in-universe perspective that is just a plot summary. There is no real evidence that this article should be kept.--Gavin Collins 13:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as blatantly premature - one month isn't at all long in the circumstances. To the best of my knowledgte, AfDs a month apart are considered unacceptably close together. --Kizor 15:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Didn't we already go through this? The last very recent AFD was keep, and there has to be secondary sources on Master Roshi, he is a central character to a very popular anime. Viperix 21:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment doesn't matter how many keeps this page gets. Per WP:VERIFY policy, "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. How is it original research? Original research is something with no sources. The article says that it is derived from anime/manga. Sure it doesn't have every seperate comment individually referenced, but that is not required under WP:VERIFY--Marhawkman 00:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep- for same reasons as last time, bad faith nomination so soon, when the last vote was not "no consensus" by a firm keep based on the voting outcomes and reasoning.JJJ999 01:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to add that LS's arguments, aside from being bizarre, are ridiculously aggressive and basically wrong. The argument about sources is completely irrelevant, it would be like arguing that an article on President Bush should go because it lacked sources... since it requires almost zero effort to find real world notablility on a single google search, it is baffling that he makes these assertions. the answer is simply to add sources, not delete the article. I am offended that the previous AfD's were closed as no consensus, there was a clear consensus, in both reasoning and votesJJJ999 09:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources beyond the plot itself, fails WP:FICT, WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NOR. Non-plot being derived from plot is original research. Jay32183 20:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kretzer magnitude scale

Kretzer magnitude scale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Ghits = none. No sources, but I'm not taking it to speedy as it's not my area. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Nomination Withdrawn. Icestorm815 19:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gibbage

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

No notability asserted. Miremare 22:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the massive laundry list of pop-culture references. Someone another 13:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, possible notability... However, ign's claim may be wrong, as a search on the official PC Zone site [41] yields no results. Unfortunately, no one on the Magazine project has that issue, so we're a bit stuck with that. Gamasutra is certainly reliable, but I'm not sure about gametunnel.com, as it seems to be a site that specifically covers independent games. Whether that's an issue or not I'm not sure, but it seems that any "popular" independent game is going to be featured there whether or not it's covered by the mainstream gaming press. What do you reckon on that? Miremare 17:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The PC Zone review is also listed at GameRankings, with a score of 71%. The game author writes for the magazine sometimes so the review was probably placed as a favour (though it wasn't given a silly score of 98% or whatever, so I count that as perfectly OK for reliability). Game Tunnel does just review indie games, but I'm quite happy that their reviews are reliable and that a review from them provides some notability. It is an actual review rather than a selling piece, and GT does have reviewing standards overseen by the webmaster. If nothing else the PC Zone score can be cited to gamerankings and the GT review can also be used to write about the game's reception, and the development section can be written with gama sutra and self-references.Someone another 10:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending investigation into the magazine issue. Unavailability of a certain source to Wikipedia editors at a certain time does not tell us anything about notability. The other sources look good. User:Krator (t c) 20:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Dan Marshall did a series of development diaries for PC Zone. Gamasutra interview him about his entrance into the 2007 IGF competition, but the game wasn't shortlisted for any awards.[42] - hahnchen 18:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John254 03:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Concur with previous comments about magazine and gaming media-in-general coverage. --Gwern (contribs) 16:09 24 October 2007 (GMT)
  • Weak keep. It's at least somewhat notable as per above (direct reference to the PC Zone UK issue would be nice though), and after shortening the introduction and adding a section about its development (the fact it was created by only one person seems to be the most notable feature), I can see an adequate encyclopedic article. --Allefant 16:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn sorry, this escaped my watchlist somehow. Anyway, PC Zone seems to have featured it on more than one occasion, and there's the other web sources, which Someone another says are likely reliable, so away with this AfD. It would still be nice to see the PC Zone coverage referenced in the article though if anyone can do this. Miremare 18:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Duncan

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

Doesn't meet WP:N. Unsourced article that reads like an ad. Torc2 06:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John254 03:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er... why the relist here? The keep immediately above is the nominator, withdrawing... Tony Fox (arf!) 03:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, though this closure is not in any way an endorsement of the blatantly incivil behavior shown toward the article creator in this AFD. --Coredesat 04:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Dunin

AfDs for this article:
Stanley Dunin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Stanley Dunin is a non notable aerospace engineer who fails all 6 points of WP:PROF. All scientist have been a part of something, nothing makes him exceptional. Also, being born in Poland moving to the US doesn't make him important by any means. Thousands of people move to the US, nothing makes him stand out. No independent, reliable sources exist to prove he is notable, and notability is not temporary. Simply being named by a Senator does not make you important, or notable. Being a business consultant doesn't make you notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Carbon Monoxide 23:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CO, I'm a little confused--you say it's improved, and yet you nominate for deletion? DGG (talk) 04:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How so? It hasn't improved. All of the OR research was taken out and no independent, reliable sources have been brought to show the article's notability or importance. Carbon Monoxide 15:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This time a firm delete, as no independent sources attesting to the importance of this individual's contributions have been brought forward in the intervening month. --Dhartung | Talk 00:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close this as last AfD was less than a month ago. This seems to me to be verging on an abuse of the AfD process. If I hadn't have participated in the last debate, I would prob have closed this. WjBscribe 00:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WJBscribe, I would hardly call this abuse of the AfD process. If the last AfD was speedy keep or even keep, sure. But both AfDs have closed with no consensus. Carbon Monoxide 00:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You wouldn't of course. I think its high time we brought in a proper rule against such repeat nominations though - all it takes is one delete outcome at AfD and articles tend to be gone regardless of the number of times they have been kept previously. It leads to excessive amounts of time spent by people defending articles that would better be spent elsewhere. WjBscribe 00:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not even close to meeting the general notability criteria - the first reference is nothing more than having your name mentioned in a government letter, which doesn't count. The second reference apparently indicate he was part of a major engineering project - ok, but every major project by definition, involves hundreds of staff, so this is meaningless. Lastly he was a consultant on a report - the reference isn't about him, so this again doesn't count. Addhoc 00:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Addhoc. I disagree with the process wonkery going on on this AFD. Consensus can change in less than a month, and this is not an abuse of the "process" at all. Majorly (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources fail to establish any sort of notability as outlined in WP:BIO. Deor 00:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I believe Dunin's aerospace engineering work to be notable - in particular that he calculated the most fuel efficient manner of launching a geostationary satellite. The sources don't confirm all of this at present but it seems to me a little pointless to delete this article only to probably end up recreating it later when further material is located. This man is not a figment of someone's imagination - he clearly exists, the problem is that the sourcing needs to be improved to more encyclopedic standards. However, the article seems harmless and frankly there are worse ones out there. AfD isn't cleanup. WjBscribe 00:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article has been around for more than a year and a half, and because of the contentiousness surrounding it, I feel sure that extraordinary efforts have been made to find reliable sources. That none have been forthcoming suggests that your "when further material is located" is oversanguine to say the least. Deor 00:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Working for someone who received a notable award is not notability. In general when I see such a claim in an article I start looking more closely at other claims, as it's a very telling bit of puffery. --Dhartung | Talk 06:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to form a delete "concensus" over and over again like this abuse. Tim Q. Wells 23:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other two discussions ended with no concensus (which defaults to keep). I bet if it defaulted to delete you would actually want this discussion. But, of course, defaulting to delete would be absurd so here we are to actually form a concensus. --Slartibartfast1992 02:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am traveling, always edit anonymously, and what business of yours is it to purport to tag comments in any case? 72.106.196.73 23:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because anonymous contributors don't typically get any say at AFD. If you wish your input to be considered for AFD, please consider signing up for an account, it only takes a few minutes.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Their contributing... CO 02:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because the fear is that anonymous IP voters probably will lead to sock-puppeting [43], instead of constructive criticism. I'm not accusing 72.106.196.73 of doing this, but you can easily see how it can be done. Perhaps this article could be boiled down and merged with Elonka Dunin's article, avoiding the whole deletion process? Mindraker 02:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Elonka Dunin's article is the appropriate place for this information. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was just an idea. I'm quite suspicious of this article being here, for the only reason it might be here is the link to Elonka's claim to royalty -- see: this link surprise, the second sentence is that he is a "Count" -- and it references, surprise, surprise, Elonka's personal web page. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what's going on here. Mindraker 15:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds a little bit like a personal attack on User:Elonka. Tisk tisk. Also, that link appears to be a mirror wiki; you're just citing an older version of the article in question. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was being critical, yes. I'm working on the Dunin disambiguation page and the whole issue of royalty comes into question: see the old version of the page here and the link cited here. It's not the first time that people have used Wikipedia to make claims to royalty, you know. Mindraker 17:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you mention it, I came across something similar to Dunin (surname) recently: Griffin (surname). I was somewhat surprised to see such a thorough article about a surname. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 03:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (although I have some vague reservations about bringing this back to AfD so soon). The claims to notability made in the article when it was nominated for deletion a month ago were largely debunked over the course of that AfD. I think that shows some value in nominating borderline notable articles for deletion, many of them appear notable because the authors of the articles have puffed them up with over-reaching claims. The article last nominated for deletion claimed achievements for Stanley Dunin more correctly attributed to other people. With those spurious claims now removed from the article, it clearly fails to demonstrate encyclopedic notability. Stanley Dunin was a member of a team that put up a satellite, his role and contributions were such that his name does not appear in NASA histories like this, I see no grounds for a claim of notability. Pete.Hurd 04:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On a related note to this discussion, I consider the rarity of engineers on Wikipedia an example of our systemic bias, even though systemic bias is typically portrayed as being overly western and/or academic. I also believe that a month is too soon to hold another deletion discussion, and that there should be a guideline (not a policy) somewhere about how long you should wait before trying again. There's probably already an essay about it somewhere in project space. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone was lamenting the scarcity of poets (while defending a NN poet), so I told them to start with Category:Poetry awards and mine for redlinks. Category:Science and engineering awards doesn't have as many as you think (most of the major prizes have 100% bluelinks, which isn't true for poetry) but it does have some. Best start there, with the engineers that other engineers have recognized. --Dhartung | Talk 07:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 12:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are also all the members of the National Academy of Engineering. Several hundred, and almost none have a WP page. Membership in the US National academies is generally considered a certain indication of notabilityDGG (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as per Pete Hurd. --Crusio 11:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am normally very much opposed to rapidly repeated AfDs, but the previous one was no consensus, not keep, and was no consensus in good part because of extraneous factors such as family relationships. Read it--I consider it a travesty. See Dhartung's comments there and here, which I fully support. See what I said there about the nature of the references used then. The AIAA paper that remains cited in the article has him as a junior author--and it has been cited only 7 times in the whole period since 1962. DGG (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Slarti (1992) 22:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I support the work of Elonka Dunin, and it is really obvious (to me) that some folks on Wikipedia really have it out for her, but on this one article I have to agree, the subject fails the relevant guidelines for inclusion. RFerreira 06:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps some do have it out for her. Speaking for myself, I had no problem with User:Elonka (and supported her most recent RfA) until I witnessed - and was ultimately myself the victim of - the hardball tactics to which she resorted to defend this vanity series. Several administrators have carried her water, proxying for her original research and/or threatening, megablocking and irrevocably violating the privacy of users who've attempted to scrutinize these articles. These articles must go for many reasons, but another very good one is to protect editors who mean only to uphold our sourcing policies from the vindictive actions of their creator and her IRC-based allies.Proabivouac 06:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I just don't see notability here, at least not in anyway that is verifiable with reliable sources. Sarah 16:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nominator and Burntsauce. No offense to anyone but nothing notable here, sorry. Thats just how it is. If its deleted and if anyone finds any non-trivial reliable sources on this, feel free to recreate. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC) (withdrawn for Elonka. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete (as article creator). Life's too short to deal with griefers, let's just delete. Back when I was a new editor in early 2006, I created this article about my father in good faith, about an individual that I felt meets WP:BIO. He was born to Polish nobility, was involved with the launch of a historic satellite, and helped with the cracking of a famous code. After I created this article, per Wikipedia guidelines I asked an uninvolved editor to review it, and they gave it a thumbs up. Now, if I would have just created the article and then never edited Wikipedia after that, it probably never would have been a problem. But because I am an active Wikipedia editor, it seems that some other editors are using this article about my father as a constant target as a way to seek revenge against me for other disagreements on Wikipedia. I've seen editors come in and systematically dismantle the article, removing a sentence here, a paragraph there (yes, even removing sourced information) until they get it down to a stub, and nominate it for deletion again. My 70-year-old father (who really has led a remarkable life and has already overcome incredible odds at even surviving the chaos of World War II) truly doesn't deserve this kind of constant harassment. And to be honest, the information about him doesn't have to be on Wikipedia. I've already got the information in multiple other places on my elonka.com website. If Wikipedia wants to "lose" the data, well, fine, it's Wikipedia's loss (shrug). Let's leave my dad in peace, delete this article, and just move on. --Elonka 01:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Elonka, removing original research isn't "harassment." Threatening other editors for upholding the sourcing policies, using back channels to get them blocked and their privacy irrevocably violated…that's harassment. Such machinations have de facto banned me from most of the spaces to which I used to productively contribute, brought Matt57 one step away from a formal ban, all to protect these articles from scrutiny. Fact is, Matt57 was right. Many other people are seeing that now. This article will surely be deleted, and if policy is to be upheld, without reference to personal alliances and favoritism, more will follow. But there's nothing you can do, is there, to undo what your IRC friends did to me.Proabivouac 01:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion isn't about one of the many editors of this article or any past Wikidrama, it is about whether or not this article meets the notability guidelines of WP:BIO. Please do not allow this discussion to move off topic. Tim Vickers 02:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Elonka, please be assured again, this is not about you or revenge or anything, its about: whether the article meets notability criteria. Almost everyone here has said delete in this pretty much extensive discussion and given their reasons especially the nom who laid it out. None of these people had any 'griefing' to do or wanted to take revenge on you. Just for you, I'll withdraw my vote. Please see the opinions of uninvolved editors. I hope you'll be able to see all of this impartially. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have seen much less notable articles that has been kept based on the argument that "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia". If there is any original research there that Elonka does not verify them, we should keep them out. Many of the humanities majors and their publications are really working based on trust and assumption of good faith on the part of those who collect the data. I haven't checked all the sources closely; others can do. I myself, in my vote, have gone beyond the letter of wikipedia to its spirit. Let's separate this discussion from Proabivouac's case or Matt's case. --Aminz 02:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John254 03:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-noteworthy - also, let's watch the close of this Afd to ensure it reflects policy and indeed consensus this time - no shenanigans. And, Ms. Dunin, your comments above are very touching but at odds with this quote..."Please don't assume that I made this page because I actually like my father" [[44]]. I for one don't even know you, but this gentlemen (who seems very nice and must be quite capable) doesn't meet notability guidelines. A cursory review of your editing shows that you know these policies well. Your remonstration above can be reversed: would you have created this page if the subject was not your dad? I think not. 75.224.244.206 03:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC) — User:75.224.244.206 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Konstakuten

AfDs for this article:
Konstakuten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was kept in an AfD in January, but no independent sources have been added since then. Google gives a number of hits on the term, mostly in CVs, but I did not find really relevant news coverage or the like. So, unless someone can suply sources now, the article has really little chance to expand. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 17:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Bobet 13:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bulma

AfDs for this article:

(View AfD)

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

It's been more than a month and none have taken the time to improve the article. It remains unreferenced, and is filled with so much original research. Now I'm aware of the character's notability and all, but there isn't any real world information that can be attributed here since the character lacks real-world perspective. Merge to List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball#Bulma. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I don't have time right now to do a quick re-write, but I can do one later. I think it would probably be worth keeping a seperate article on Bulma as she is an important character in DBZ. Red Fiona 13:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I recognize her fictional importance but there isn't much or any

out-of-universe data. The page should actually be deleted per violating WP:V and WP:OR, but I say a merger would be best to save the data. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep as blatantly premature - one month isn't at all long in the circumstances. To the best of my knowledgte, AfDs a month apart are considered unacceptably close together. --Kizor 15:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment clean-up tags should be allowed time to work and AFD is not a process to force clean-up in a "timely" manner. However, the article has existed without references for almost a year!- Ukulele 20:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A year's not much. Just some time ago I was cleaning up and referencing an article that had needed them for over one and a half, and longer periods aren't implausible. --Kizor 14:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I also agree with Sesshomaru on WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR, WP:WAF and WP:NN as well as all of the policies I have in mind. My vote is neutral. Greg Jones II 22:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep- another bad faith nomination in an indencent amount of time (given it was such a firm rejection last time anyway, if there was genuine ambivalence I could agree). Same reasons as last time. Someone senior needs to have a word to this guy about his AfD's.JJJ999 01:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to add that LS's arguments, aside from being bizarre, are ridiculously aggressive and basically wrong. The argument about sources is completely irrelevant, it would be like arguing that an article on President Bush should go because it lacked sources... since it requires almost zero effort to find real world notablility on a single google search, it is baffling that he makes these assertions. the answer is simply to add sources, not delete the article. I am offended that the previous AfD's were closed as no consensus, there was a clear consensus, in both reasoning and votesJJJ999 09:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I am not friend of anime or manga and even me have heard of Bulma --Zache 14:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, even non-fans know of the importance Bulma's eventual relationship with Vegeta brings to the future developments of both DBZ and it's spin-off Dragonball GTDr. R.K.Z 18:24 31st October 2007

]] 14:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete. No notability claims here apply to guidelines. CitiCat ♫ 23:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Mata

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

Non-notable spiritual person. Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Cap'n Walker

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John254 02:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As stated above, she only gets 278 Google hits (some of which aren't even about her), and no non-trivial coverage. Crazysuit 04:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourcing is improved... a book someone wrote is not generally a great reference on the events of their own life, and a passing mention in another book isn't enough either. --W.marsh 20:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable Sfacets 23:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Firstly, the article is verified and there is potential for the article to be expanded greatly (more research needs to be done). Secondly, Tara Mata is a very notable member of Self Realization Fellowship. She was the main editor of Paramahansa's books when he was writing extensively. It must also be taken into consideration that SRF in itself is a very notable organization. Moreover, using google to establish notability here is not accurate because Tara Mata was a very reserved monk. She was highly praised by Yogananda during his lifetime and she was a larger-than-life presence in the organization until her death in 1971. Tara Mata was one of Yogananda's most trusted disciples, heading the organization's publishing operation and serving for many years on the SRF's board of directors. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable; the question is not verifiability... the Ghits do not show any non-trivial coverage. Leaving the Ghits aside, notability would need to be proven in other ways, which isn't apparent in the article. SkierRMH 22:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I fail to see any notability. --Slartibartfast1992 00:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Well, she was the main editor of Yogananda's books and writings. Surely, that is notable in itself? Moreover, she was also a member of the board of directors within SRF. That in itself is a notable position. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Google hits are, of course, not the most reliable of proofs, but only 287 hits doesn't exactly scream "notable!". In addition, it has to have independent notability, that is, notability by itself. It shouldn't solely rely on a parent entity for notability. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Sure, Yogananda is notable enough to have her own article, but that doesn't necessarily mean that her editor is notable enough. There are cases where this doesn't hold true, but in my opinion, this isn't one of those. --Slartibartfast1992 22:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Bobet 13:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kuririn

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

Page has barely two references; perhaps the character is notable but there isn't enough any out-of-universe information to apply for him. Merge to List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball#Kuririn. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep One of the more notable anime characters and probably third most in DBZ (after Goku and Vegeta). Rename to his official English name of Krillin though. For far too long the members of the DBZ Wikiproject have thought that they are allowed to ignor policies and guidelines and use the English translation of characters names rather than their actual English name (as required). It's the reason I stopped editing Dragon Ball related articles. TJ Spyke 05:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The real problem is that Kuririn has no real life sources, and this article will continue to remain like that since there are none whatsoever. Who will take the time to place any references to the article? Obviously, no one cares. Also, WP:WPDB does not ignore any guidelines or policies, here they are right here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits)
  • I know what they say, but they do ignore guidelines and policies when it comes to the names used for characters. In all move requests, they use numbers to get move requests done the way they want. TJ Spyke 23:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

15:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well do so, and it may alleviate the concerns here. However, until this is done, we have no way of knowing if the refs will do so. i (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am still afraid that it will be deleted and I would have wasted 2+ hours of my life. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep- Lord dislikes them getting their own pages, but since this is the first nomination I will explain this keep in more depth than previous "see previous reasons". This is not OR, of which he has a bizarre understanding, and notability cannot be disputed. However, of all the DBZ characters, Krillin is pretty firmly in the notability section. He has been in basically every manga I believe as a key character. DBZ is a huge franchise, see the numbers thrown around in his previous Bulma and Roshi AfD's, and Krillin has more than enough real world notability from the show to exist on his own.JJJ999 01:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to add that LS's arguments, aside from being bizarre, are ridiculously aggressive and basically wrong. The argument about sources is completely irrelevant, it would be like arguing that an article on President Bush should go because it lacked sources... since it requires almost zero effort to find real world notablility on a single google search, it is baffling that he makes these assertions. the answer is simply to add sources, not delete the article.JJJ999 09:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a speedy keep candidate; it is a legitimate AfD. This article, without sources, is original research, by definition. I dispute notability, as he does not have notability by our standards, so arbitrarily saying he is firmly notable without any real-world sources is just as "basically wrong" as you say the nom's are. If you seem to think that it would be cake to source this article, then by all means do so; until then, however, it does not meet WP standards for inclusion. i (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't been editing long, and even I know this is a silly line of argument. "Real world notability" does not mean Krillin had to live in our world and become Karate Champion at the Olympics, as you effectively infer, it just means he has significant notability as a fictional character, like other fictional characters who get their own pages. 5 seconds of google search confirms what I already knew, why is this prima facie assumption wrong? If you reply with another generalistic assertion like "lacks RS" I'll know I don't need to bother to reply.JJJ999 01:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are 370,000 google hits for Krillin...he is among the main characters of a franchise than has spanned decades, sells millions of toys, hundreds of millions of books, his character is discussed on Amazon.com or movie/TV review sites like this (http://www.amazon.com/review/RW2YWW4BM0VED) at least as much as your standard character. While I doubt the BBC news has ever featured a "How awesome is Krillin" interview, it becomes obvious the character is noteworthy when giving even the most casual observation to these facts. If what you want is a news article "why Krillin rules", you will not be satisfied, but you would likewise not be satisfied for almost every other fictional character, from Indiana Jones to Buzz Lightyear. This is not the accepted standard for notability on wikipedia, the fact is he is notable because he has exposure and noteworthiness/fame among millions upon millions of people. This is not complicated, you seem to have some agenda for making it so...JJJ999 05:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is the accepted standard for notability, read the criteria. Being popular, famous or often talked about does not necessarily make someting WP-notable. Significant coverage by reliable, independant sources does. You keep citing the thousands of things on him that make him notable, I have yet to see one. The article you linked is about a movie he starred in, not him. And it's not a reliable source at any rate. i (talk) 05:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way you have interpreted that is totally at odds with the way it has been interpreted by the overwhelming majority of wikipedians. Your analysis would render untold thousands of subjects on wikipedia now deleted, needless to say I don't agree, and I think what is happening with other articles IS relevant as far as finding the standard for this debate goes.JJJ999 09:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While there are many wikipedians who agree with the inclusionist view of the notability guideline, there is a significant who agree with a more deletionist, and thus it is not correct to say the "overwhelming majority". And yes, I do think thousands of fiction-related articles should go. I just don't have the desire to AfD them all. As I see some that have been, I comment. Hence this duscussion. And we can compare other articles yes, but the fact that other articles that may or may not be similar have articles has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. i (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Ecologists

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

Article about a small political association linked with the new Democratic Party (Italy), with no content, no sources and a short list of mostly redlinked politicians and activists claimed as "leading members" (not a NPOV sentence in its own). I also thought about merging its content within Democratic Party (Italy), however there is no source confirming it will actually be a significative wing within the party, jointly with a recent declaration by the new party leader claiming no political wings will be accepted within it (at least not officially). Have your say. Angelo 11:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John254 02:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of towns or cities that have grad or a similar form in their name

List of towns or cities that have grad or a similar form in their name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wildly indiscriminate information, the only connection between Leningrad in Russia and Belgrade in Missouri, USA is that they both have "grad" in their name. Almost as pointless as a List of countries that have "land" in their name. Masaruemoto 01:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete Duja► 10:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

100 Best Places to Work in America

100 Best Places to Work in America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-encyclopedic list copied from the Fortune Magazine article Ewlyahoocom 02:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - KrakatoaKatie 08:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Theatre

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

This article is about a defunct theater in Brenham, Texas. The article's claim to notability is that the building was designed by Alfred C. Finn, but there are no reliable sources cited (of the 4 sources listed, one does not mention the topic, one is self-published, and the other two are non-reliable. A Google search of "Simon Theatre" (and "Simon Theater") with Alfred C. Finn or A.C. Finn gives no useful information at all. The contributor has previously asserted that it is important in Jewish Texan history, but it's only tie to that is that the theater was built by a Jewish family. Karanacs 02:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asia DeVinyl

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

Non Notable model. She hasn't modelled in any of the mainstream magazines. She has received plenty of google hits but most of them are from her site or blog or myspace. The books subsection in the article are not the books written by her but by different people. Delete WriterListener 18:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Books subsection includes publications in which she has modeledRozDeMinion 04:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. CitiCat ♫ 23:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Suicide Club Berlin 1995

The Suicide Club Berlin 1995 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Release by a notable artist, but this seems to be a very non notable release. The title as used on Wikipedia gives 6 Google hits, none of them independent of Wikipedia[52]. His label gives a slightly different title though (and indicates that it is a limited order release)[53]. With this title, we get an edditional thirteen Google hits[54], again none of them indicating any notability through reliable independent sources. It is nowadays so easy to release some Live CDs (certainly DJ sets), that simply being by a notable artist can hardly be considered enough anymore. This record is a perfect example of a release that has gone completely unnoticed outside the fan circle of Alec Empire. Fram 18:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mix has been referred to under various titles, googling "Suicide Club" "alec empire" returns about 1,000 hits. the mix was released under a notable record label, given its own catalog number and given a wide release via his tours and website. --AlexOvShaolin 00:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And most of these near 1,000 hits are not about this record, but about the club in general, or even a completely unrelated club (e.g. the Chicago Suicide Club), or about a similar titled record by the Snic Subjunkies. Removing only the last one reduces the Google hits directly to a mere 78[55]. Fram 07:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totally Integrated Automation

Totally Integrated Automation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Babel fish-written article about a non-notable brand name. Essentially an advert for Siemens. -- RHaworth 02:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's clearly no consensus to delete, but allegations of canvassing here and here are somewhat troubling. — Scientizzle 15:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tri-City Skins

Tri-City Skins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable website. The article alleges that this website was run by two individuals of questionable notability. There is no evidence that the claims that this website was run by these individuals is true. Does not meet criteria of WP:WEB, only two out of the five reference work in this poorly written article and in the two sources that does work, the website is not the subject of the article. Moreover, the website is now defunct. Also, we should be very careful about WP:BLP with the unsourced claims made in this article. Delete Pocopocopocopoco 01:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Firstly, most of your sources do not work and the few that do work do not sufficiently support your claims of notability. Secondly, this had miniscule reference to the case that you are referring to and that case was not a landmark case as Zundel v. Citron (2002) was the landmark case. Pocopocopocopoco 00:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources that were listed worked at the time they were added. Am I at fault because I haven't been babysitting the article? And I'm afraid it is a significant legal decision that has had an impact on the Canadian right. AnnieHall 07:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, you asked whether I "actually looked at the sources here" and I responded no, they don't work. You might consider citing the sources properly, that way other people know what the sources are and you won't need to babysit the article. Consider reading WP:CITE#HOW. And the case you are talking about is irrelevant to this website or group (if such a group even exists). The ruling found no conclusive connection to the site with either of the accused and found no conclusive evidence of a group called tri-city skins. If anything the case you are talking about confirms the non-notability of the subject matter. Pocopocopocopoco 03:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't ask if you looked at the sources. I had stated that at the time they worked properly. And this was one of the first articles that I created here so you'll forgive me that, at the time, I was uncertain of exactly how to cite the sources. The sources listed below by Will Beback could be included as references to back up the article. AnnieHall 16:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This isn't a website, it's a former white power group. The proper notability guide is WP:ORG. This groups has been the subject of articles:
  • Comment Your first source (Now Magazine) does not qualify under WP:RS and the article is written in a gossipy style. Your second source does not establish this to be a group but a website. And it has brief mention in that article. Pocopocopocopoco 00:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is patently false. Please re-read the statements I have made in the AFDs. Also, since these websites are of questionable notability, we can also delete the articles in order to deal with BLP issues. If we removed the unsourced statements from this article, there would be very little left in the article. Pocopocopocopoco 00:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - definitely notable and well sourced, don't even understand the AFD. Seems like some people are just bored and AFD things these days. --Mista-X 05:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A significant group with a well-documented history. CJCurrie 17:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Everyone in this AFD indicating that we should keep this article has been canvassed by user:AnnieHall. Eventhough she has not explicity directed the users how to vote, she has only canvassed users who agree with her not canvassed anyone who has disagreed with her in the past. This should be taken into account by the closer of this AFD. I also believe that WP:COAT applies to this article as this article attempts to give excessive focus to the articles Alex Kulbashian and James Scott Richardson which are of nominal notability. Pocopocopocopoco 00:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How would AnnieHall know how I would vote? All she knows is that I have edited articles related to far-right groups before. That indicates that I have an interest in the subject, and therefore may be better placed than some other editors to comment on whether this article should be kept or not. Indeed, if you read the article a bit more carefully, you would see that it is about an organization. Your nomination is based on the incorrect belief that it is about a website. Ground Zero | t 01:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have a very very large editing history and I'm not going to comb through at this point in time, however what is obvious is that she has not canvassed anyone who has disagreed with her views in the past on these types of issues (you can find these users in the Category:Canadian_far-right_figures) and she has canvassed many people who she has canvassed before and they have canvassed her and they have tag-teamed in the past on these AFD discussions. For example [56] Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Merle_Terlesky. Many of the users in that AFD are also in this one and they voted the same way. In terms of the subject being a group and not a website, there is no evidence of this whatsoever and the 2006 case the 'keep'ers are referring to said that it was not established that tri-city was a group. If it is a group, it is even far less notable than the website. Pocopocopocopoco 01:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You have challenged the validity of my vote on the basis that she made me aware of the AfD even though you admit you haven't looked at how I have voted in the past. As I noted, I believe that she alerted me to this vote because I have edited articles on far-right groups before. I do not believe that there has been any previous occasion on which I have voted on article she was trying to defend. I did not vote on Merle Terlesky You are not assuming good faith here. Quite the opposite: you are assuming bad faith. Ground Zero | t 01:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fine, see my edit above. I have not assumed any bad faith in your edit, the canvasser is at fault and not the canvassee. Pocopocopocopoco 02:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • But you did assume bad faith in my case. My message was open, non-biased, neutral, limited, and not limited to only editors whom I have agreed with in the past. I would ask this user to please assume good faith. Thank you. AnnieHall 05:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Please don't try to turn this back on me. You clearly canvassed and you admitted that you have a history of canvassing as well. [57] I reiterate that the closer of this AFD should take this into account. Pocopocopocopoco 04:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • No, I did not admit to canvassing in the past though I did admit that I should have worded my comments more carefully because they could be interpreted as such even though that wasn't what I had intended. Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote instead of taking snipits to try and prove something. So then I can assume that you're not going to assume good faith? Nice. AnnieHall 07:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Rather than sparring with me about good faith. Why don't you assume the assumption of good faith and deal with my valid concerns I believe I have made about vote stacking in this AFD? Pocopocopocopoco 03:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I am an editor of long standing at Wikipedia, and have been elected as an administrator. I resent having the validity of my opinion about an AfD challenged on the basis that the AfD was brought to my attention by another editor. You have not presented sufficient evidence of vote-stacking to make this claim stick. Ground Zero | t 11:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • How can I assume good faith when you continue to claim that I was vote stacking inspite of all the evidence to the contrary? I would much rather deal with the merits of your argument concerning the article than this dog and poney show but as long as you claim that I was canvassing I will continue to defend myself. AnnieHall 16:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team. This organisation is notable and backed by reliable sources, but since there seems to be so much crossover with the CECT group I think we would be better served by having one article to cover both. Terraxos 02:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is certainly a notable group. Black as pitch 16:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe user:AnnieHall needs to explain the following: An AFD for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Western_Canada_for_Us occurred a month ago. This article is another article that user:AnnieHall created and it is also a white supremacist hate group. That group is more notable than this one. As mentioned, everyone voting 'Keep' in this AFD was canvassed by user:AnnieHall except user:Black as pitch and everyone voting 'keep' in this AFD except user:Ground Zero and user:Black as pitch voted 'keep' for the Western_Canada_for_Us AFD. user:Ground Zero and user:Black as pitch did not vote at all in the Western_Canada_for_Us AFD. Note also that one of the comments in that AFD criticized user:AnnieHall for canvassing.[58] My question is why did she not simply canvass the entire list of people who voted in that AFD since its a similar AFD and it occurred fairly recently? She choose instead a seemingly arbitrary list which seems to all have voted the way she wants. I ask this question in good faith to everyone involved. Pocopocopocopoco 02:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unbelieveable. I don't think that I need to explain anything, but since you asked. As I've said before, I contacted editors that I knew had an interest in and knowledge of the far right in Canada and who could offer informed input on the article. And yes I was admonished for canvassing however as I've already stated it was NOT my intent, though how I worded my request could have created the impression. As such when I contacted users regarding this and the Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team articles I was very careful about how I worded my request that they look at the article. And while you say you are asking this question in good faith, it strikes me as a bit passive aggressive. Since it doesn't look like an apology from you will be forthcoming regarding your accusation, then I think it best that I stop commenting directly or indirectly on your writing and focus solely on the merits of the article. You may have noticed that I made some changes to it (not perfect by any stretch of the imagination) so perhaps that will indicate notability more effectively for you. AnnieHall 03:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't need to apologize for trying to ensure fair AFD's. You said "I contacted editors that I knew had an interest in and knowledge of the far right in Canada and who could offer informed input on the article" but why wouldn't this simply be the users who had participated in the Western_Canada_for_Us AFD? Like I mentioned, the subject matter is similar and that AFD occurred recently. Pocopocopocopoco 03:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously an article which speaks volumes on unfortunate acts of organized hate activity in southern Ontario. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Pais (talk • contribs) 06:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This group was a very notable neo-Nazi group; those who follow and monitor this type of activity know that, and those who don't may have read about them in the newspaper. The Tri-City skins members who are no longer associated with this group have moved on to various other neo-Nazi groups. I highly recommend that we keep this article as it serves good purpose and they meet the notability guide. --Eternalsleeper 07:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a noted group unfortunately. Wikipedia is not an ostrich hiding its head in the sand. IZAK 11:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 11:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I thank user:Spylab, user:AnnieHall and others for their recent edits to the article. Despite still having some questionable sources, it looks much better now. However, I still believe it should be deleted for lack of notability (and I sympathize with the editors for there hard work). The reason is that the Warman v. Kulbashian Decision in paragraphs 125-132 clearly states that there is no evidence that Tri-City skins was anything more than a domain name. I believe this is the kiss of death in terms of notability. Pocopocopocopoco 15:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this seems to be a well sourced article which proves notability.--Yahel Guhan 00:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sourcing has improved a lot since the start of the AFD but it is still far from being called well sourced. I already expressed my concerns with using NOW magazine. Secondly, the B'nai Brith article is written in an editorial style. Pocopocopocopoco 04:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat ♫ 23:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crystallization (love)

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

This article was created by User:Sadi Carnot as part of a concerted effort to introduce original research and pseudoscience into Wikipedia. There is no need for this article. All edits by User:Sadi Carnot should be carefully evaluated by experts. --JWSchmidt 18:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)This AFD was listed incorrectly. It is listed correctly now. GlassCobra 19:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I go for the former. They are rather different in that Limerence is a psychological theory, while crystallization is a lay literary idea. Gordonofcartoon 14:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of television series with voice-over commentary

List of television series with voice-over commentary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#IINFO, just TV trivia. Masaruemoto 01:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as spam. --Coredesat 04:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skydive westernport

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

Non notable organisation, no independent sources asserting notability have been provided and the article reads like a brochure.

The article was previously speedy deleted as spam. Mattinbgn\talk 01:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 'merge to Congregation B'nai Israel. - KrakatoaKatie 09:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Cohen Community House

Henry Cohen Community House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is no assertion of notability in this article. Of the two sources, one is not a reliable source, and one mentions this topic only in passing. Karanacs 01:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. → AA (talk) — 16:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of drummers who also sing lead vocals

List of drummers who also sing lead vocals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#IINFO; they're all drummers and they all sing. Not an encyclopedic topic, and a bad precedent for many similar List of X who also sing lead vocals lists. Masaruemoto 01:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 point in redirecting from a dabbed title with a capitalization error. Nothing to merge since all of the relevant content has already been included in the proposed merge target by the original author (if you have a problem with having a mention of this person there, go edit it). - Bobet 13:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Levin (Businessman)

Joe Levin (Businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The subject of this article does not meet the criteria in WP:BIO for notability. Of the four sources listed, 2 are not reliable sources, while a third mentions Levin only in passing. I do not have access to a copy of the 4th source, but I suspect that it also mentions him only in passing. Karanacs 01:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. What should be mentioned in the iPhone article is probably already in the history. This split has led to an excessively-detailed quasi-ad, a clear violation of WP:NOT according to consensus below. Xoloz 22:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

iPhone availability, sales, and pricing

IPhone availability, sales, and pricing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I really can't see how this highly ephemeral information is encyclopedic in any sense, including "wiki is not paper". It lists the current deals offered by Apple on the iPhone, and quotes a few articles in the tech media that speculate on pricing. If you want to know what The Carphone Warehouse is asking for an 18 month contract, you will probably go to their website -- not to a wikipedia article. I can't tell if this is fanboyism at its finest, or just someone who misunderstands wikipedia trying to be helpful. Sdedeo (tips) 01:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This may be a very good article for a newspaper but not for an Encyclopedia. -- Magioladitis 18:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete: Closing without prejudice; open to creation of a well supported article in the future. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 09:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tovo - Unified Communications

Tovo - Unified Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This reads entirely too much like an advert. Is there something notable under all the promotional cant? I don't know. The lack of WP:RS is a flag for me. Pigman 19:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original editor was Martin Heath. One of the shareholders is ... Martin Heath. Looks like an advertisement to me. Marjaliisa 18 October 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 22:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. I'd be willing to userify the content upon request if someone wants to flesh it out more and make it into a proper article... — Scientizzle 15:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lighter tricks

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

Thinly disguised advert for Lightertricks.com (confirmed by the first edit to the article). As an article about a website, it fails WP:WEB. If the advertizing was removed, it would be original research about lighter tricks. Masaruemoto 01:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was never my intention to advertise the lightertricks website but to inform people of what lightertricks themselves are. The art of performing lightertricks is deeply rooted in the lightertricks website, and seeing as the website played/plays a major role I thought it deserved recognition. I don't want to be violating any wikipedia regulations so I would appreciate suggestions (I am not a seasoned wiki editor) for fixing the article so it may remain online. Combat Fetus 21:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's clearly no consensus to delete, but allegations of canvassing here and more detailed here are somewhat troubling. — Scientizzle 15:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team

Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable website run by two individuals of questionable notability. Does not meet criteria of WP:WEB, two out of the five reference do not work in this poorly written article and the three references that do work, this website is not the subject of the article. Morover, the website is now defunct. We should also be very careful about WP:BLP as this article makes many serious unsourced claims about two individuals. Delete Pocopocopocopoco 01:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The group easily meets WP:WEB, having been the subject of multiple newspaper articles:
    • Racists ordered to stop spreading hate over Web: Landmark decision Natalie Alcoba. National Post. Don Mills, Ont.: Mar 11, 2006. p. A.11
    • Web-hosting service found guilty COLIN PERKEL. The Gazette. Montreal, Que.: Mar 11, 2006. p. A.13
    • Web messages hate, tribunal rules Richard Blackwell. The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Mar 11, 2006. p. A.18
    • CANADA RIGHT-WING GROUP CUT AS ROAD SPONSOR BARRY BROWN. Buffalo News. Buffalo, N.Y.: Apr 22, 2001. p. B.7
  • BLP issues can be handled by editing the article. Note that BLP does not prohibit properly sourced information about individuals. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I did work to improve the Tri-City Skins article and I would like to do the same for this one when I get the time. AnnieHall 05:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge and redirect; a clear view and the merge has already been carried out. TerriersFan 02:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boesen School (District 28)

This article contains historical information about a school in a US village. However, all sources (including images) seem to be from a private collection, not published in a reliable source; I do not see the notability criteria fulfilled here.

The page was PRODded in last October and undeleted in February. See also: Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/MonteBoesen -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 19:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. → AA (talk) — 16:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jettison (Steady Ground album)

Jettison (Steady Ground album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable album by an almost-non-notable band. No sources or formatting, no release date or any further info. - eo 00:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. I know it's a little presumptuous to do a snow closing with a single keep vote, but the fact that this "list" contains no items and has not contained any items in its nearly full year of existence makes it borderline speediable in any case. —Verrai 22:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of dubious and uncertain giant squid sightings

List of dubious and uncertain giant squid sightings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A list with no contents, which is just as well, because if it had "sightings" it would be original research to decide which ones were dubious and which were uncertain. I've just seen a giant squid walking past the window, it's a bit dubious and uncertain, can I add it to the list? Masaruemoto 00:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, doesn't assert notability, no reliable sources. NawlinWiki 17:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaotic Alliance

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

Does not affirm notability. The site that is used as a reference is just a listing, where apparently almost anyone can contribute to (judging by how many bands are listed, the criteria for inclusion isn't very strict). Their myspace group is inactive, as well, they haven't been playing since before the article was created.

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

The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sindhis

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

Unmaintainable listcruft. Full of red links of non notable people. Majorly (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if there's a Category:Sindhis then the actually notable folks on this list could get added to that cat. --Orange Mike 15:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Air Brand

Hot Air Brand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

New (2007) clothing company. Previously speedied as advertising; the spammy text is now gone but I don't see an indication that this company is notable yet. The only external citation is to a French magazine called "Spray", which does not have an article here. NawlinWiki 00:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I nominated this page for CSD when it first appeared, and although the new version reads much more like a neutral, encyclopedic article, I agree with NawlinWiki's point about notability. That being said, I'm open to revising my opinion if the authors can come up with enough references to establish notability by the time this AfD closes. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 01:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE:

Hot Air is building hype quickly and is looking to make a major move in the exploding Los Angeles Street Wear scene. Here is some more info about the brand that I can't wait to rock.
Hot Air was featured in Hypebeast on September 2007 for their new collaboration with New Era and Grey One. They were also highlighted on The Hundreds feed The Hundreds on August 31, 2007 regarding the Holiday 2007 collection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BMUSE (talk • contribs) 02:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, articles require reliable sources indicating a subjects notoriety, and this has neither. meshach 02:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete - Hot Air will be featured in COMPLEX MAGAZINE (on wikipedia), Antenna Magazine (harris publications - on wikipedia), Nylon magazine, and several others in the next 3 months... They are a VERY viable entity and have many reliable sources...

Hot Air Brand sells to stores on wikipedia
- Fred Segal
- Barney's New York
Same brand distribution as many pentland group (wikipedia) brands, LRG clothing (wikipedia), Billionaire boys club (wikipedia). These brands are in the same stores they sell and have entries:
Edwin
LRG
BBC/Ice cream
J. Lindenberg
nike
converse
reebok
puma
adidas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linollium (talk • contribs) 04:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC) --Linollium 04:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A subject must be notable now, not in three months. The stores the company sells to are not indicators of notability. Hut 8.5 10:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Silent War (The Asteroid Wars III)

The Silent War (The Asteroid Wars III) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#PLOT Treygdor 20:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 15:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bread Givers

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

This was previously deleted as a prod for being a book review. I think the same concern exists, the article consists mainly of plot summary, and what little criticism there is is unsourced. Article has been tagged for clean up for six months, with no clean up forthcoming. Hiding Talk 00:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Hiding Talk 00:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was snowball delete. Acalamari 18:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Circle Line Pub Crawl

Circle Line Pub Crawl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page is about a pub crawl. Wikipedia is not a place for articles on things people made up in school one day, or indeed University. This is not notable as it is not in any reliable third party references or sources. I would put it up for a speedy but i couldn't really think of a tag that is suitable. Woodym555 00:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete via Snowball--JForget 00:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

House of Camino

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

Appears to be a genealogical entry for what appears to be a very minor line of nobility. Aside from that, the article appears to be a POV original research essay, and all but one of the links given as sources don't work. The one that does doesn't appear to be relevant. Coredesat 04:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A place to bury strangers

A place to bury strangers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable band, fails WP:MUSIC, multiple reposts so now to AFD for discussion. Sandahl 06:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this same article was previously moved to A Place to Bury Strangers and deleted as an NN-band--Sandahl 21:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Where are the previous AfDs then? The band might not have met WP:N before, but certainly does now. Torc2 21:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The afd for A Place to Bury Strangers [61]. The deleted history of csds can't be seen by non admins. It's here for discussion as to whether it meets notabiliy or not.--Sandahl 22:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, repost. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 15:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delyan Slavov

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

The same one as Delian Slavov, the article for who, has been already voted and deleted . Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delian Slavov Self-promotion of non-notable person. His page at bulgarian wiki is protected for re-creation. bg:Делян Славов--Darsie 08:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tv-links.co.uk

AfDs for this article:
Tv-links.co.uk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article deleted at AFD two weeks ago - the only thing different is that it was shut down, therefore it violates WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a news service. Will (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

→ Note: Tv-links.co.uk was moved to TV Links (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


Did you read the closer's extended closing rationale? It wasn't snowball kept, it was speedy kept. There is nothing barring me (and I was even suggested) from opening a new AFD. Will (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale for the last AfD was weak, and it did show any real failure to meet Wikipedia policy. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone said "speedy keep" because the deletion rationale was invalid. This AfD was created under a different rationale. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alexa rankings only sample a subset of the population, not the entire population. Will (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As does the Nielsen ratings. So? Speciate 00:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Nielsen ratings have a much more rigid system than Alexa, allowing their extrapolation to be much more reliable. Nielsen randomly sample TV families. Alexa's is just a toolbar anyone can install. Will (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alexa is quite limited. You can easily rig your site's ranking by getting a few dozen friends to access your site a number of times per day. You can't do that with Nielsen ratings. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And how do explain away the Guardian calling it a major piracy site, and its 423,000 ghits? Speciate 00:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_October_24&oldid=1234119137"