Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 30

< December 29	December 31 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy deleted as an empty list. I will be bold and redirect the title to Education in the United States however as it does look like a reasonable term. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schools in the U.S[edit]

I thin a list of Schools iin the US is to long for inclusion in an encyclopedia and that wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Natl1 22:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most strongly, Burn most hotly, Nuke many times. Far too big, unmaintainable, no information in article as yet, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection, listcruft. ST47Talk 22:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we can speedy this ST47Talk 22:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Um, speedy keep. This guy appeared on the cover of Time trying to be the Democratic candidate for president of the United States. He's plenty notable outside the US. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Dean[edit]

Not known outside U.S. Not known by over 10% of world population

User: IgmarusM 00:32 AM UTC

Speedy close clear act of vandalism. Besides, 9.9% of the world's population knowing you IS pretty notable. FrozenPurpleCube 00:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (and redirected to Ahmad Kamal Faridi). Banyan Tree 22:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AHMAD KAMAL FARIDI ( hardstone )[edit]

This article seems to be copied from a site somewhere. The article makes no sense. This is also a second article based on this same page see here. --SkyWalker 20:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speed Delete since there is an existing Wikipedia article about the character. (I tagged the article for speed-delete without noticing the AfD -- should I remove the speedy tag? Unsure about protocol.) Bonadea 20:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't worry. You made a right choice. Well the both tags be there. Iam sure this article will be deleted fast. :)--SkyWalker 20:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, non-admin closure per WP:SNOW, only one "delete" !vote, and no citation of policy from the nominator. Yuser31415 05:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of MMORPGs[edit]

Every MMORPG have different jobs, graphics, quests, that is cannot be compared. KaiFei 15:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree, some aspects cannot be compared, but some can. Some arbitrary parameters of interest were selected and the result was this article. I don't think it needs to be deleted. TSO1D 15:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand, what policy are you saying this article is in violation of and why do you think that it needs to be deleted? The only problem you seem to have is that its scope is too broad? That is not criteria for deletion. NeoFreak 16:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep I'd ask this be closed due to the criteria for deletion not being met in this AfD proposal. NeoFreak 21:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there seems to have been discussion about creating this comparison at the parent article (List of MMORPGs), perhaps discussing with the other editors there or on the talk page of this article would be a better first step than an AFD? Kuru ^talk 17:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how this is a bad article. It promises comparisons and delivers comparisons. It needs organizing, yeah, but AFD is not the cleanup crew. -Ryanbomber 17:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I like the information in this article, but I think it would be better to combine it with List of MMORPGs which lists all of the notable MMORPGs already on Wikipedia. Tarinth 18:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't think it would fit in there..
Keep; just because the scope is large, doesn't mean it's not possible. ~ Ed B oy^[c] 21:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 21:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Do not see why it needs to be removed. Mikm 22:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep useful and maintainable list. — brighterorange (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per NeoFreak. --Jackhorkheimer 23:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What is the deletion reason? I see none. --- RockMFR 00:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What is the deletion reason?² I see none.Esurnir 00:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NeoFreak. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 00:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nom has not asserted any reason to delete. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how this is a bad list - it isn't "listcruft" or a game guide. Keep unless someone can find a policy that this is violating. Koweja 07:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too broud FirefoxMan 18:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to delete Da Big Bozz 21:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - As per pretty much everyone else above me. Greeves 00:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks fine to me, although could use a few more sources. --Alan Au 19:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - hoax; article is not even faintly plausible (per deletion process) as it is admitted on all sides to be a fictional biography. Metamagician3000 02:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Weathermen (American)[edit]

This article has been speedied once then reposted. It was tagged for speedy once again on the grounds that it does not assert notability. It does ("sold 300 jillion [sic] albums worldwide, generated hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars of concert revenues" for example) so I prod tagged it with the following concern
Nonexistent "band". No confirmation of any of the albums, band members, producers, etc, on allmusic or elsewhere. This is a hoax from start to finish
The author has contested the prod with the following comment on my talkpage:

While this page has been deleted before, it is NOT a hoax. This is a comedy trio from Chicago's Second City. The page in question is the back story of the characters created by the three. There is verifiable proof/evidence the group exists toward the bottom labeled "The Weathermen Tapes". It is a direct link to a few of the groups comedy clips. They also have a Myspace account at www.myspace.com/the_weathermen I assure you it is not a hoax and it is not fake. I hope this straightens things out. Having to repost is a bitch

I remain unconvinced. None of these alleged "created characters" seem to be verifiable, unless I'm looking in all the wrong places. The link is to a youtube site. If it is indeed a fictional creation à la Spinal Tap then the article does not appear to state this anywhere at all. Hence this AfD nomination. Tonywalton | Talk 00:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appears to be a hoax to me. TJ Spyke 00:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Skeptical It looks elaborate, but seems suspect. I'd ask the author to give us some better referecne material. Even if they are real, are they more than a local group? but local could be notable with non-trivial references. --Kevin Murray 01:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely strong delete and salt unless the author demonstrates verifiable notability. The article's author writes "it is NOT a hoax," the entire article is a fictional history of a comedy group- thus, it is a hoax. If an article can be written from a true (as opposed to fictional) perspective asserting notability as judged by reliable sources, then by all means, write it. Either way, get rid of the nonsense. -- Kicking222 01:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 17:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos Lands[edit]

Minor webgame. Alexa rank of about 1.2 million. The article's only two cited references are of the submit-a-game variety, with little content in them anyway. Google brings up no reliable sources. Not verifiable, doesn't meet WP:WEB. Wafulz 21:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:WEB, and like the article says "There are thousands of online games on the net and Chaos Lands is one of them". Jayden54 22:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 00:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Jayden54. Jacek Kendysz 01:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree the article fails the notability criteria of WP:WEB TSO1D 01:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:WEB. MER-C 03:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree fails WP:WEB. Davidpdx 14:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, google searches are inconclusive as there are several other products and games that use the name 'chaos lands'. Nothing other than cursory mentions found in the handful of applicable hits. As noted, refs are simply user-submitted lists. Seems recent and more promotional than anything else (WP:WEB concerns noted). Kuru ^talk 17:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. ---J.S ^(T/C) 20:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Euminl Er[edit]

Subject of article does not meet notibility guidelines of WP:BIO-Nv8200p talk 00:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Nothing in imdb. The film listed in the article is a student film. --Infrangible 01:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree, she is not notable enough. Sue H. Ping 01:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - entertainer without widespread recognition. Fails WP:BIO. MER-C 03:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it fails WP:BIO as it lacks non-trivial and independent sources. TSO1D 04:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO person is nn. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davidpdx (talk • contribs) 14:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, probable vanity/promotional piece (see author's userpage) of a non-notable actor in a student film. Kuru ^talk 17:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absymal failure of WP:BIO. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 00:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Infrangible FirefoxMan 18:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else... I think this can be closed. --Wizardman 18:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ---J.S ^(T/C) 20:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Crites[edit]

This article appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC yet I believe speedy deletion is inappropriate because deletion may be controversial. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 01:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete complete nonsense --Infrangible 02:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is actually a recognized composer and pianist in Ontario. Just because you have never heard of him does not mean he's not notable. Nobudy 02:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC) — Nobudy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment, the concern is that there are no references to his existence at the moment; much less his notability. Could you possibly add some references or cites to support the article? Kuru ^talk 18:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. Google hasn't heard of him either. MER-C 03:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable --RaiderAspect 03:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- utter nonsense, as well as WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Mack. 04:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO and WP:V. Davidpdx 14:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no references to establish WP:BIO, nothing online per MER-C; I don't think he's the 'jousting champion' hit. Kuru ^talk 18:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find any verifiable material on him through a google search, so unverifiable, and probably non-notable as well due to lack of sufficient V material (AFAIK, no V material at all!) or any other notability indicators. Could even be a hoax. He doesn't even have a website. So delete as NV, NN, possibly even OR, unless some source can be found. 74.38.35.171 21:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOV. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 00:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability can be established and sources provided. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because its so cool, plus you guys are dorks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamesstacey (talk • contribs) 23:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
— Jamesstacey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep this page. Albert is an amazing composer and pianist from Barrie Ontario and even at his young age he is becoming more and more known around his area. I have actually played with him and personally know his talent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.226.175.59 (talk • contribs).

Delete The fact that I have a friend (or know someone) who is great at <insert something> doesn't mean they are "notable". Perhaps when he is more well known. Chris M. 04:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - SNOW. Metamagician3000 11:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs associated with towns in the United Kingdom[edit]

This is listcruft, and possibly original research. It's unsourced, with absolutely no references cited to back this up, and no reasons are given why the songs are associated with these towns. It could also be considered fancruft too. I nominate this for deletion unless someone can find an argument to keep it. SunStar Net^talk 01:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot agree more with the nomination, this is pure listcruft. TSO1D 01:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough due to mentions on British radio. --Tawnyicer 01:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Listcruft, unverifiable, original research, take your pick. One Night In Hackney 01:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft. meshach 03:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 03:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OK, ONIH. I pick original research. -- Kicking222 11:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - listcraft and fails WP:V. Davidpdx 14:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the songs were things such as Ferry Cross The Mersey, there could be a weak case for keeping it, but there isn't even that. Oldelpaso 15:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research or insufficiently sourced list. --Metropolitan90 16:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - complete nonsense. - fchd 16:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft. Association with a British town is hardly encyclopedic, and the list is even unverifiable. JIP | Talk 17:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too arbitrary and unsourced.-- danntm ^T _C 20:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft. --Wildnox (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What Wikipedia is not. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 00:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete by Jimfbleak. Tevildo 15:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ciara Brady[edit]

NBC.com is currently doing an online poll to name a character on the show. The poll is on-going, and no name has been chosen yet. While there is a possibility that Ciara Brady may be the chosen name, there is also a possibility it could be Rori Joy or Cassidy Addison. There is no need to create a Wikipedia page for Ciara Brady, Rori Brady or Cassidy Brady until the final name is chosen. D'Amico 02:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G11. Obviously it fails for inclusion but I'll go out on a limb here and mark it for speedy. Having no encyclopdic value it can only be viewed as an ad. NeoFreak 02:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:WTH. MER-C 03:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above --BenWhitey 03:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete though I would say per A1 rather than G11. TSO1D 04:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. NeoFreak 05:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A1. --Sopoforic 05:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason I said at Ciara Alice Brady. Even after the final name is announced, this baby won't desevere its own page. TJ Spyke 05:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely weak and feeble Merge/Redirect to Days of our Lives, per my argument at Ciara Alice Brady. D'Amico, could you withdraw one of these nominations and make this a dual nomination? Tonywalton | Talk 11:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete by Jimfbleak. Tevildo 15:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ciara Alice Brady[edit]

NBC.com is currently doing an online poll to name a character on the show. The poll is on-going, and no name has been chosen yet. While there is a possibility that Ciara Brady may be the chosen name, there is also a possibility it could be Rori Joy or Cassidy Addison. There is no need to create a Wikipedia page for Ciara Brady, Rori Brady or Cassidy Brady until the final name is chosen. D'Amico 02:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this may be one of the most non-notable things ever. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G11. Obviously it fails for inclusion but I'll go out on a limb here and mark it for speedy. Having no encyclopdic value it can only be viewed as an ad. NeoFreak 02:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Not notable either. --SunStar Net^talk 02:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't help the article's case that you have to click on an external link just to find out what the hell the article is about (the name of a BABY on a SOAP OPERA). Hell, even after the baby gets a name I don't think there should be an article. TJ Spyke 02:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:WTH. MER-C 03:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above --BenWhitey 03:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A1 just like my vote above. TSO1D 04:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- added A1. NeoFreak 05:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A1. --Sopoforic 05:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely weak and feeble Merge/Redirect to Days of our Lives, with similar entries for Rori Joy and Cassidy Brady (to avoid WP being used as some sort of vote-stuffing device). It's not unthinkable that someone might search WP for these names, if this is a widely-watched soap. Tonywalton | Talk 11:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ---J.S ^(T/C) 20:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olen Steinhauer[edit]

Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. This page appears to be self-promotion of a non-notable person.--Bryson 21:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:AUTO or WP:BIO, non-notable person, self-promotion. SkierRMH 21:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Little assertion of notability, linkspam, reads like a copy of a CV - looks like a Speedy delete to me. So tagged. Tubezone 22:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Bridge of Sighs (2003)--Emil Brod, 1948 (nominated for five awards) seems to assert (though not cite) notability, and I can't see how this is, in the words of the speedy spam criterion, blatant advertising for a company, product, group or service. Tonywalton | Talk 22:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed the {{db-spam}} tag, as it's for corperations. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was set to vote to delete, based on the self-promotional tone (at least to my eyes) of the article, until I went to Amazon.com and saw that he had positive reviews from both Publisher's Weekly and Library Journal for the Bridge of Sighs book. He's published by a real (non-vanity) press. He's a young author with several published books to his credit. I see no basis at all for deletion. In fact, cut him now and we may end up putting him back in later, if his body of work and critical raves continue to grow.Shawn in Montreal 02:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BK says Publisher's Weekly and Library Journal are trivial reviews, and don't count for establishing notability of books. However, if you look him up on Amazon, he does have other reviews.. but OTOH, his best seller has an Amazon rank of 366,080, you can buy used copies for three bucks. Not exactly Tom Clancy territory. BTW, a book is a product, articles solely put up to promote a book or author are spam, spam isn't restricted to corporations. No problem putting him back in later if he establishes more notability, that's happened before. Neither Amazon nor the WP article mention which "five awards" his novel was nominated for. Tubezone 04:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point about Publisher's Weekly and Library Journal, thanks for that. I disagree with you that an article about a published author constitutes spam, though. I'm still for keeping it.Shawn in Montreal 05:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definite keep - has books from a large commercial publisher. Rightly or wrongly, we count an author as notable if he or she has even a single book that has sold 5000 copies. Any book published anywhere by HarperCollins will easily meet that test. Personally, I think the test may be too easy, but that's a debate for another forum and lots of much more crufty stuff gets into Wikipedia. Metamagician3000 02:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nominated for an Edgar Award[1] (by itself short of notability), nommed for an Ellis Peters Dagger[2], RS reviews from Guardian, NYT, Edinburgh Review. Additionally author is a former Fulbright Scholar. --Dhartung | Talk 03:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Metamagician3000, that's not the criteria given in WP:BK.
  This is an article about an author not about a book - obviously we have to be tougher about what individual books get articles. If you are saying that the policy on authors has tightened up recently without my becoming aware of it, that's a different matter. I'm relying on my memory of what it used to be, so I'm happy to be corrected if something has changed. Metamagician3000 03:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  Interesting. I've now checked: the policy always used to say: "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more." That wording seems to have been deleted recently, and replaced by ""Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." I can't quickly see what the circumstances were. This is surprising because such a change could render a lot of people with articles retrospectively non-notable. I don't necessarily disagree with the change, actually, despite that. Oh well ... Multiple independent reviews is not that much harder - any book published by HarperCollins will almost certainly meet it. Metamagician3000 03:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak KeepThe Fulbright award doesn't mean anything much in Wikipedia terms, but judging by website, this author seems to have picked sufficient positive critical attention in mainstream media Bwithh 03:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't agree with Bwithh about the Fulbright award: per guidelines "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." --Kevin Murray 08:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Fulbright award is unlikely to be encyclopedically notable, and it is not at all clear that it was awarded for his work as an author. His website simply describes it as a Fulbright grant for a year abroad[3]. This means it was probably a Fulbright student or scholar grant for study abroad of which there are 1,200+ US citizen awardees every year[4]. There are thousands and thousands of "awards" and "prizes" and "scholarships" and "fellowships" and contest honours etc. which are not encyclopedically notable. Bwithh 09:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keepThought the Fulbright alone does not make someone notable--it might have been to a graduate student who did no further work-- the Fulbright along with contributions in one's field does serve as a criterion of notability. I would not be surprised if we tracked them that more than half were in WP already or obviously ought to be. There are not thousands of awards of such prominence. Cf. Fulbright awardDGG 09:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dhartung --BenWhitey 03:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung's comments, but I think that there should be some better references at the article --Kevin Murray 08:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above - but needs work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anjouli (talk • contribs) 08:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Keep He is a published author though a major publishing house. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 00:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep recognized author. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously a self promotion FirefoxMan 18:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. -Toptomcat 13:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (Talk) 23:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Lynn[edit]

Fails WP:NN. Subject's biggest claim to fame seems to be the title of Miss 2004 Beijing China Hawaiian Tropic International. (Also under "Awards" is "2006 Asian Beauty Calendar" - so I guess she won that calendar?) Mostly, this looks like a promo for her website. TruthGal 00:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A question as I am still relatively new to this process: Do I need to actually say Delete or is that assumed (as I nominated the entry for deletion)? TruthGal 21:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you nominated the article for deletion and explained why, then that is sufficient. Of course though, you can contribute to the subsequent debate by providing additional insight. This process is not meant to be a vote, but rather a discussion with the purpose of reaching a consensus. TSO1D 01:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TruthGal 06:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be a notable model, has won Mis Hawaiian Tropic International twice, could use a little bit of a clean up with the links though --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What article claims is not that she's won Miss Hawaiian Tropic International twice but the titles "Miss 2004 Beijing China Hawaiian Tropic International" and "Miss 2005 Hong Kong Hawaiian Tropic International." If you do a Google search for both titles [5] [6], you'll find no independent corroborating article for either.TruthGal 01:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article needs work, but the topic is notable with many non-trivial sources on Yahoo. Got over 500 Yahoo hits for "Alex Lynn" model. --Kevin Murray 08:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might I ask... notable for what? Article says she's a "popular Asian model," but not popular enough to have been in any mainstream magazine (Vogue, Elle) or notable adult magazine (Playboy, Perfect 10). Best I can tell, she's one of those gals who walks around in skimpy outfits at import car shows. Two other "import car models" of her ilk were just removed from Wikipedia for non-notability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lianne_Lin and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Flo_Jalin

Comment to above (anonymouse) poster. While I'm not 'voting' on this afd, I'd like to point out that your definition of 'mainstream' publications only seems to include major English publications popular in the US and possibly the UK. Given that this is an Asian model who has supposedly (though not verifiably) won some international/Asian awards it is possible she is notable in Asia (where, you know, half the world's population is located) without having appeared in notable American publications. --The Way 08:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article doesn't claim that the subject has appeared in a single magazine in all of Asia - so, you know, maybe you shouldn't assume that. TruthGal 21:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lynn does not appear to be notable in any field of modeling. Her personal web site is a year old but has traffic too low to be measured by Alexa, ranking as the 1,959,529th most popular site on the web. Only 805 pages in Google contain the terms "Alex Lynn" and model. Dtdennis 15:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This entry seems more appropriate for MySpace.com. None of the sites being promoted in this entry have Wikipedia entries; if those sites aren't notable enough to be listed here, why should one (of perhaps thousands) of their nude models be listed? Bourne 21:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 01:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nomination. No non-trivial independent sources corroborate her importance, thus the article fails WP:BIO. TSO1D 01:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs to be cleaned up but the subject would appear to be notable per the info presented by the article (i.e. her award winnings) and the info presented by Kevin Murray. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 01:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I reiterate that her "award winnings" are not verifiable. If you do a Google search for both titles [7] [8], you'll find no independent corroborating article for either. Also, there is no listing for either her or her supposed award titles at pageant.com TruthGal 06:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Not clear the pageant is encyclopedically notable Bwithh 02:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why is this getting relisted? This is not a vote and her only claims of "notability" have no verification by reliable sources and appear to be non-notable as well. Non-notable model advertisment = delete. NeoFreak 02:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --RaiderAspect 03:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , but give serious warning--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 05:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Bad article! Bad! If you don't get more notable and provide yourself with some reliable sources you're out of here!" Well, there we are...give it oh say...4, 5 days to celan up its act? NeoFreak 05:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, fails WP:V. This seems like a vanity article to me. Davidpdx 14:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. The Hawaiian Tropic International award is hardly grounds for notability. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 18:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete need better sources and a more pretigious award to be notable.-- danntm ^T _C 20:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently not notable. --Wildnox (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, competition win in itself does not seem to establish notability. Seraphimblade 00:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is verifiable enough --Sandy Scott 00:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She meets WP:Notability. She is notable, although her page may need some work. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 00:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No, no she doesn't. Are we reading the same guildline? Please tell me what portion of WP:N or WP:BIO you pulled that observation from. NeoFreak 02:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Sharkface. Just H 00:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete seems to be a working model but unless she's recognized by a more notable source than IGN Babes I don't think she makes the cut. The "titles" seem to be the sort of manufactured awards agencies give their models to make them more marketable rather than awarads won in actual competitions. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When a subject's tits and sex appeal (and awards resulting from it) are the only bits of notability, there needs to be strong evidence that they are worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia along with the tens of thousands of other chicks with nice racks. BTW, nice rack. --- RockMFR 05:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, non-notable wannabee who has three names when one will do and a "regular at import car shows". "Miss Hawaiian Tropic" is not even a light year from Miss World. Ohconfucius 09:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dekimasu 14:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Let me know if any content needs to be retrieved for GFDL. ---J.S ^(T/C) 20:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bedford Street, Crewe[edit]

This street is not particularly notable, and it has few links, as has been noted, and no verified sources. Some discussion on the talk page suggested merging this entry with that of Crewe, which I have now done. I propose it is now deleted. DDStretch (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to verify any notability with any reliable sources at all. NeoFreak 02:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. meshach 03:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Unremarkable street. MER-C 04:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the GFDL. As the nom noted, content has been merged; therefore, the page history must be preserved. Actually the content could probably be unmerged, given the lack of sources; but as long as it remains in the Crewe article, this must not be deleted. -- Visviva 14:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, fails WP:V. Davidpdx 14:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Visviva. Redirects from completed merges need to be kept to preserve the history for GFDL purposes. Oldelpaso 15:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect needs to be kept--Sandy Scott 00:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator and the person who merged this entry with the Crewe entry, I have now unmerged it. Consequently, this entry may be deleted without any need to preseve the page history. I consider this street to be not noteworthy, nor in need of being mentoned in the Crewe entry until some verified citations are made as to its claim to be notable. DDStretch (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entirely unencyclopedic. WMMartin 15:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Since when can a bunch of pot-heads get up enough energy to form a gang? err... oh, never mind :P. ---J.S ^(T/C) 20:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uptown Toka Clique[edit]

Would normally nominate for speedy deletion as a non-notable gang, but the article mentions some "notable" events, so decided it would be best to send through AFD. There aren't any links to reliable sources regarding the gangs actions and the only links google returns are links to Wikipedia and forks. Bobblehead 02:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN gang. TJ Spyke 02:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow, an article with zero sources about an "emerging" gang of "marijuana smokers". Seeing alot of "supposedly", "reportedly", "possibly", and other weasel words. Fails to provide verifiability of truth or notability backed by reliable sources and is 100% speculation and original ressearch and so fails criteria for inclusion. NeoFreak 02:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "The Uptown Toka Clique (UPTC) are a street gang started in the 14th ward of the Uptown neighborhood of New Orleans, Louisiana in early 2006 by a reportedly small group of habitual marijuana users." I stopped reading there. --- RockMFR 03:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Borderline speedy. MER-C 04:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, fails WP:VP. Davidpdx 14:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable gang. JIP | Talk 17:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete small time gang, not in the news... not that we are encoraging them to get on the news. *hides from angry gang members* FirefoxMan 18:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WMMartin 15:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. ---J.S ^(T/C) 20:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Return on information security investment[edit]

Yet another nn tech neologism. I count 251 non-wiki ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 03:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete return on xxx investment is just a corporatespeak form of "return on investment". Akihabara 03:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any useful information in there could be merged into Information security --Crocodile Punter 04:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Defines ROISI as a methodology, but it seems to me from Rate of return that it must be a ratio. Concepts described are security concepts that can be included in ROI without the need for a new set of acronyms. Phaedrus86 06:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, simple proposed methodology for calculating intangibles of security and risk management into an ROI/benefit assessment. I don't see anything notable about it other than the author's heavy promotion of it as a unique concept; most of the 37 unique ghits are from promotional sites or directory listings. Kuru ^talk 18:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply a proposed methodology, not suitable for an encyclopedia.-- danntm ^T _C 20:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's not really a neologism per se (I'm familiar with the concept) but is not encyclopaedic. Low google hits would simply point to it being a trade-specific term rather than one in general use. It belongs in a trade or university textbook, or maybe on Wiktionary once independent verifiable sources emerge. Agree with Crocodile Punter and Phaedrus86's recommendations. Orderinchaos78 04:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an emerging subject that bridges the well known area of ROI - from economics; and information security - from computer science. Hence the terms ROSI and ROISI which attempt to define methodologies that are tailored to the Information Security domain. Given that Information security deals with intangibles such methodologies are useful for the information security practitioner. I am the author of the papers cited in this article. Amizzi 16:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WMMartin 15:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 doubly so since it looks like a copyvio. ---J.S ^(T/C) 20:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regulatory asset management[edit]

Unsourced original research. Appears to be a non-notable buzzword phrase to boot, with 314 non-wiki ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 03:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a copy of a white paper from a vendor and is unsourced. I think Calibration covers the subject well enough. Phaedrus86 05:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to be a vendor created neologism/buzzword. As Pahedrus86 mentioned, it would also appear to be a copyvio cut&paste from a single vendor whitepaper.[9] Completely unreferenced/uncited original research at that. Note that the actual unique google hits are around 64, with many (if not most) being coincidental arrangement of those words. Kuru ^talk 18:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an uncourced neologism and likely original research.-- danntm ^T _C 20:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Wildnox (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequately referenced, and the strong smell of original research. WMMartin 15:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ---J.S ^(T/C) 20:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Colour Meaning Symbolism Guide[edit]

Unsourced essay about the meaning of rose colors. Basic information about this sort of stuff is already found at language of flowers. Highly recommend sending to BJAODN. --- RockMFR 03:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no useful news either IMO. TJ Spyke 03:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Unsourced original speculation. MER-C 04:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Redundant and unsourced. Phaedrus86 04:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. JIP | Talk 17:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Send this article the black rose of Deletion, and the pink-and-white-spotted rose that signifies inadequate article references. WMMartin 15:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD A7, no assertion of notability. --Core desat 05:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vulgar Comics[edit]

Non-notable webcomic. Salad Days 03:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 03:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as unremarkable webcontent. So tagged. MER-C 04:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does not need deletedMKHSDC 04:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 00:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Menstruation and the origins of culture[edit]

Non-notable theory. Authors of the page are Martinklopstock, Chris d knight, and at least one person editing from a dynamic IP address. Authors have resisted efforts to merge this information into other articles [10], and have also repeatedly deleted tagging of the article as POV [11] [12].

I believe the topic of the article is not sufficiently notable to have its own article. The lack of notability also means no one has taken the theory seriously enough to criticize it, resulting in a very unbalanced presentation of the theory. I have looked into doing research on each aspect of the theory and citing sources presenting opposing viewpoints, but am afraid applying such citations to this novel theory in a piecemeal way would be OR. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 03:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and WP:SOAPBOX. Academic colonization (WP:COI issues) of wikipedia space to support a particular theory without supporting evidence that the theory has had a major impact on discourse. The article presents a very simplistic view of the anthropological study of ritual, morality and kinship by suggesting that the origins of culture can be uncontroversially asserted to have emerged in this specific biological way. This discourse is actually highly contested. Most cultural anthropologists would be alarmed by the Darwinist/Marxist reductionism (as well by the sociobiologically-inclined author's apparent lack of fieldwork experience[13]). If it is proved that this theory has had a widespread enough impact to justify an article, the article would need to be much more balanced. 03:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. If "this discourse is highly contested", that means people are talking about the theory. If they are it's notable whether you or I think it's right or not. We have articles on many heavily contested theories. I'm concerned that squeamishness about the topic (especially by editors who have never experienced the phenomenon personally and might think it should be "not talked about" or "isn't important" because they don't experience it) might influence the AfD. --Charlene 23:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any examples of someone contesting this particular theory? Bwithh was, I believe, talking in general about this entire "class" of theories, not this one in particular. The lack of such examples is my primary reason for wanting to delete/merge the article. The fact that no one has taken it seriously enough to criticise it means it is impossible to present the theory in a NPOV way - creating our own criticism would be (I believe) OR. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 15:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What we as editors think about the theory is completely irrelevant. Anything we would add to the article would be WP:OR. The only relevant comments are the ones about the existence of reliable sources. ~ trialsanderrors 00:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could add (for example) a referenced source to a book from Frans de Waal noting food sharing between mates and the children of one's mate in two primate species, plus sharing food throughout the community in two additional primate species, in addition to humans. This could be added to the "Reproductive burdens of human females" section and would help make that section NPOV. I don't think this by itself would be OR. My fear is that doing this kind of thing point-by-point throughout the entire article would in aggregate be OR, since none of the sourced material would directly refer to this theory. Lyrl ^Talk _C 01:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above --RaiderAspect 03:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment about ORLyrl need not worry about OR, because locating opinions and putting them in the appropriate place in the article is not OR--if it were, how could any WP article get written? Giving and explaining his own judgement about the relative value of these opinions, or analyzing the details of their arguments, that would be OR. DGG 05:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science) ~ trialsanderrors 03:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it seems that the book bearing this title has been discussed in scientific circles and numerous reviews exist among established sources. So with great reluctance due to my personal beliefs I have to vote for keeping the article as I believe it can satisfy general criteria for notability (and the proposed WP:Science for that matter). TSO1D 03:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is kept on that basis, it needs a major rewrite for NPOV - and in that case, why not cut down and merge into Culture and menstruation? I'm not yet convinced that the book/theory has had sufficient influence to give it so much weight for its own article. Bwithh 03:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, however concerns about neutrality should not lead to the deletion of an article. The reason given for the deletion was that the topic was not sufficiently notable. Other considerations can be addressed later. TSO1D 03:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I take back the merge suggestion. The target page needs a lot of work, and I think a merge is not suitable at this time... Bwithh 03:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't think so either. The article about menstruation and culture mainly discusses the treatment of this process in various societies, whereas this article is a theory that links the origins of culture to menstruation. TSO1D 04:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A key reason for my support deletion is concern about whether this particular theory from this particular group of academics crosses the notability threshold. The cultural significance of menstruation is not a obscure or new topic by anthropology standards. Bwithh

~~Provisory Delete~~ The two cited main contributions to the theory (Knight 1991) and (Power/Watts 1997) get ~40 and 3 cites on ISI, respectively. Color me unimpressed. 40 cites is pretty much "talking among yourselves". No sign that this has been picked up by the community at large, although I'll do a closer check of the Knight cites. ~ trialsanderrors 04:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I would be this skeptical about the number of citations. I mean for the humanities or human sciences such as anthropology you will find a much smaller number of articles than for scientific fields, and considering how obscure this topic is, I don't think that 40 cites is that low. TSO1D 04:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well anthropology may be a modest field in size (but certainly not as small as I dunno, Anglo-Saxon, Norse & Celtic studies, say), but within that field, the question of the origins/construction of culture/society in relation to understanding human drives and functions (such as menstruation) is the central theme Bwithh 04:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But look at the impact factor for anthropology journals: http://www.in-cites.com/research/2005/november_7_2005-1.html. Even the 3 citations for one of the papers is above the average, and 40 citations is certainly more than the average, even for something like Nature or Science and that says a lot. So I actually think the number of citations should be taken as proof of the importance of the papers on this topic rather than the opposite. TSO1D 04:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Average isn't a very good measure as it might be the result of a long tail rather than less cites even among top contributions. Sadly ISI doesn't have a record on the book, only counts so I can't tell where the cites come from. ~ trialsanderrors 06:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Changed to Redirect with merger of appropriate content. Enough notability seems established that this can be seen as one point of view in a larger debate. The necessary threshold for a stand-alone article, that multiple researchers (or the general public) have weighed in with diverging points of view, has not been established. Also, there is no evidence that this article might attract editors with diverging viewpoints so that WP:NPOV can be ensured in the long run. ~ trialsanderrors 22:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Textbook OR. Just H 04:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but how is this original research? It is based on a published theory. TSO1D 04:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR -- Selmo ^(talk) 04:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm satisfied it meets notability requirements. I really don't see the original research, it could use inline citations though. Quadzilla99 10:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Very weak keep~~ changed to Delete and merge (as per Demiurge and Lyrl), provided that it can be rewritten to reflect more than one perspective and substantially revised in tone (Its proponents argue that it is at least testable and can be proved wrong. How might it be proved wrong?) so that it looks more like an encyclopedia article. Cited sources and JSTOR/AnthroSource seem to indicate that Knight is a notable enough scholar on the topic of menstruation.--Media anthro 12:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although it is not original research, the article is written to advocate a particular theory and does not use an encyclopaedic tone, thus violating WP:NPOV. This theory may be worthy of a paragraph in Culture and menstruation. Demiurge 14:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may also be worthy of a paragraph in concealed ovulation, as its explanation of why concealed ovulation was a successful evolutionary feature is a central part of this theory. Presentation in that article alongside other theories also better lends itself to NPOV than a stand-alone article does. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 15:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, what notability guidelines current apply to this article?
Also, I'm not convinced this article meets the proposed guidelines in Wikipedia:Notability (science), which has two sets of criteria, one general and one specifically for theories.

In the general criteria, this article does not at all meet #4-8. The first three criteria it might meet, but I think unlikely:

#1 "generally accepted scientific knowledge" - I'm not familiar enough with the relevant field to tell for sure. But from my familiarity with fertility and the menstrual cycle, their theory seems biologically implausible. From Bwithh's reaction, above, I would tend to think that people more familiar with this field also do not find it to have been "generally accepted".
#2 is kind of vague, requiring "a number" of peer-reviewed papers, but I can only find two possibilities in the article's reference list ("The human symbolic revolution: A Darwinian account" in Cambridge Archaeological Journal, and "The woman with the zebra's penis. Gender, mutability and performance" in Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute.) All their other publications appear to not be peer-reviewed. I don't believe two papers qualifies as "a number".
#3 - supported by major scientific institutions. There is one issue of an online journal published by the New College of California supposedly related to this theory, though most of the articles actually appear to have only tangentially related topics. I have not previously heard of the New College of California, and don't believe it is a major scientific institution.

In the theories criteria, this article does not at all meet #1 or #3-5.

As for #2 ("widely cited in its research area relative to other publications in the same area"), the debate above is not one I feel qualified to participate in. I'm not convinced, however, that possibly meeting this one criterion means it has sufficient notability to be its own article.

Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 16:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I followed up on the New College of California link, and did a little reading. The college does not appear to be a substantial institution, though it does appear to have some form of accreditation. WMMartin 21:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete non notable to my eyes.Droliver 18:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia, as a general knowledge encyclopedia, does not need to go so deeply into the concept of menstruation to require an entire article on this topic. Recury 21:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, theory that appears to be a large OR Synthesis. --Wildnox (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup, delete massive swathes of WP:OR, and possibly merge. I am not an anthropologist, but the theory sounds very silly. However, it seems to have been the subject of a peer-reviewed book from YUP. I'm aware from my own field that having these kinds of articles is intensely irritating because of the weirdos they attract, but really that YUP text does it for me. Do drop me a line on my talk page if there is something going on I don't see. Sdedeo (tips) 22:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TSO1D or Merge. While I agree that it seems like a relatively minor theory, I don't see how Wikipedia is harmed by having a mention of this theory. However, the problems with tone in this article, combined with the fact that no other articles link to it, might make merging a good option. --Jackhorkheimer 23:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful and sourced to Menstruation. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's tough to decide when a scientific theory itself is notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. this answer is going make it obvious that I'm in law school, but here it goes. I think any Frye-type general acceptance standard would be too stringent. Instead I'd prefer something closer to the Daubert standard. Of course, here we are not judging the reliability expert witnesses but evaluating the notability of a scientific notion. Nonetheless, some of the same criteria that are used to evaluate reliability are illuminating for notability: is the theory peer reviewed?, is it falsifiable?, is it testable?, is it generally accepted?, etc. This theory is obviously not generally accepted. Only two proven peer reviewed articles for the whole theory does not indicate, absent any additional indicia, that the theory is sufficiently reliable or notable in the scientific community to warrant an encyclopedia article at this time. Thus, Delete.-- danntm ^T _C 06:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The tone of this article is now heavily influenced by hostile editing. The fact that the theory is published in reputable journals and a reputable book publishers (e.g. Yale U.P, Edinburgh U. P.) might not make it 'generally accepted', but it does indicate that the content of the theory clears the threshold of academic respectibility. As various 'Keep' proponents have suggested above, being a minor theory does not necessarily qualify it for merger or deletion. Merger with articles which are in no way focused on the origins of human culture (which is the specific focus of this article) makes no academic sense and deprives readers of a coherent theory on the subject. Right from the start, this article has been threatened with merger or deletion, and - significantly - none of the critics seem to be professional anthropologists. Much of the criticism is vague and unsubstatiated ('non notable to my eyes' etc.), and, in my view, suffers from the very symptom it accuses the article of: point of view. A little more neutrality and democracy would be appreciated. Who exactly is harmed by this being a separate article? Why so hostile? I cannot but think that this is a more or less personal vendetta by a few editors, and has nothing at all to do with the science in this article.86.132.127.124 18:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (Rm duplicate) I would like to remind readers of the 'abuse of the deletion policy' comments on this website: Abuse of deletion process

The deletion processes all focus on whether an article meets the criteria for existence on Wikipedia; that is, they are to determine whether it is not original research, its central information is verifiable, and it is capable of achieving a neutral point of view with good editorship. XfD (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally. Using XfD as a "protest strategy" in an editorial or Neutral Point of View (NPOV) debate is generally an abuse of process and the article will usually be speedy kept. Many of the comments above fall, I believe, into this category. The article is clearly NOT original research (it is published); the information contained in this article is heavily referenced; there is reference to the theory in other publications (e.g. Watts, I. 2005. ‘Time, too, grows on the Moon’: Some evidence for Knight’s theory of a human universal. In W. James & D. Mills (eds), The Qualities of Time: Anthropological Approaches. New York: Berg, pp. 95-118.); and the style is capable of being made more neutral. On this basis, I propose to remove the deletion tag and engage with the content of this article, instead of threatening deletion.86.132.127.124 18:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI agree with the anonymous .124, and add that in the social sciences such as cultural anthropology, the distinction between notable theories and those that are not is not quite as marked as in the natural sciences. It depends a good deal on how other subsequently make use of it. Since the concept has found its way into mainstream literature, that's as much as we need. If the article needs improvement, improve it. It sometimes seems that we resort to Afd in order to get improvements made, which is not exactly the intent. It should get deleted only if they can be demonstrated to be be improvable enought to meet our standards.DGG 09:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The originator of the theory published a book. Later, years after the book, he and his two partners seem to have published two peer-reviewed papers, amoung other (non-peer reviewed) publications. No one other than these three people seems to have worked on the theory.

Others have commented that the book publisher (Yale University Press) is highly regarded. Not being familiar with them, does that mean that all 3,000 books in print from YUP are notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article?

My main concern is that it is not possible to present this theory as a stand-alone article in an NPOV way, because there is no criticism of it. If someone could find a critique of this theory, or explain to me that piecemealing together other people's comments that contradict specific bits of this theory into a critique is somehow not OR#SYNTHESIS, then I would happily withdraw my nomination. ] ^Talk _C 13:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like Bwithh I feel uncomfortable with "academic colonisation". Feelings, however, are not what I use here. Here I support deletion because there is clear COI from at least one editor ( WP:SOAPBOX ). In addition, I have in mind the various comments of Jimbo Wales on original research. The WP:OR guidelines seem to me to be slightly biased towards the physical sciences ( dealing with perpetual motion machines and so on ), so in areas which are at best "soft" sciences I think we have to tread with a little extra care. In the soft disciplines people can advance all sorts of ideas in journals, and have them discussed, without these ideas forming part of the mainstream, or even a significant part of the broader dialectic. It seems to me, on the basis of reading the article and some googling, that the case for counting this idea as one sufficiently significant to have its own article has not been made coherently enough. For now I suggest the a brief paragraph be added to the article on Symbolic Culture noting this topic, but that we delete this article. In addition I'd like to encourage the authors of this article to expand the Symbolic Culture article, if they can resist theory-pushing, with more general information on this subject. Finally, as an entirely personal comment: I found at least six logical flaws and lacunae whilst reading the article before I stopped counting, which doesn't inspire much confidence in the subject of the article as a whole. WMMartin 15:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I almost forgot: per Lyrl I also suggest slightly more in Concealed Ovulation than the current single sentence - not a whole paragraph more, just a couple more sentences on the main points. WMMartin 15:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given that there are only slightly fewer 'Keep' than 'Delete' votes, can someone please explain how a decision is ultimately arrived at? The fact that this is clearly not a clear-cut case suggests that at the very least that there are genuine differences of view which cannot simply be settled by carrying on this kind of dialogue at infinitum. I therefore suggest that this article should be kept, that the content should be improved where it merits improvement, and that as the encyclopedia content for cultural anthropology grows the situation is reassessed in the future. (Merger with Symbolic Culture is a future possibility, but that article is currently a stub, and merger should only be considered when it actually improves the content). The main problem with 'merger' or reducing the article to a paragraph is that the theory itself is then all but lost. With regard to the point raised above about Yale Univ. Press, I can only surmise that the comment was made by someone who has no clue about social science publishing. Yale, Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Oxord, Cambridge and Chicago university presses are among the most respected English language academic publishers whose content is rigorously peer reviewed. While this clearly does not mean that all their publications merit inclusion in Wikipedia as articles, it does mean that this article is not some kind of crackpot theory that should be deleted just because attempts to find references to it on Google failed. A reference to the theory in the literature was given above. Can we make a decision and concentrate on improving the content rather than spending all this time on debating deletion?Martinklopstock 17:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Martin, perhaps the first thing to understand is that this is not a "vote". Although most of us tend to express an opinion in AfD discussions, what we are looking for is some kind of consensus on what should be done about an article, working as closely as possible within the guidelines we use to decide what constitutes a suitable article for Wikipedia. You can understand why this article has been nominated for deletion by looking at the guide to deletion. It's very clear from the article's "talk" page that Lyrl ( the person who nominated this article for deletion ) has tried to engage you and the other major contributors to the article over the past several months, to get the article up to what he would feel is encyclopedic standard, and I can certainly understand why he has eventually, and presumably with some reluctance, decided to put the article up for deletion. ( Although I haven't checked with Lyrl, most people hate nominating articles for deletion after they've spent a while trying to get them improved, as deletion means all their work has been in vain. ) Nominating the article for deletion is not an attack on you, and in general it's useful to assume good faith on the part of editors.

Now, there's the question of "the facts". I'm here "assuming good faith", because I don't have access to the offline references cited in the article, but I'm quite prepared to take the existence of suitable academic references to this theory on trust. I'm sure that the theory has been written up in a paper in an academic journal, and cited in a few other papers. Are the references there ? Yes, I trust you when you say they are. As I noted earlier, it seems to me to be a poorly reasoned and logically weak theory, but that's because I'm from the hard sciences, and we don't expect the same kind of rigorous thinking in the softer disciplines. A similarly presented theory in physics or chemistry would not be treated seriously, but that isn't the point here. There are plenty of other articles about weakly reasoned theories in Wikipedia, ( Freudianism and astrology, for example ), but we keep them.

So, that the theory exists is true, and its logical quality is of no relevance. So why are we having this discussion ? Because we also need to establish a couple of other things: notability, and absence of conflict of interest. In this case it seems to me that the two things are closely inter-linked.

A notable theory is one that is widely discussed and cited in its field. Now, Chris Knight's theory is certainly discussed, but what worries me is the people who are discussing it. In particular, the two main people who have worked on this theory other than Knight were both PhD students of his, who would have had a clear vested interest in supporting their supervisor's work. The other people who seem to mention Knight and this theory are very often linked to something called the "Radical Anthropology Group" ( http://www.radicalanthropologygroup.org/class_lecturers.htm ), which seems to be largely run by Chris Knight himself, or share its fairly overt political stance. So whilst the theory may be, in some sense, "notable", it seems to be notable only in a kind of "walled garden" in which people are mostly talking to themselves. You can now see why I think there's a kind of conflict of interest going on: much of the google-hittage about this article ( once we ignore the mirrors of Wikipedia ) seems to have some kind of personal connection to the theory's originator. If you check my contributions to Wikipedia you'll see that I spend a lot of time looking at deletion debates: one thing that we see a lot is people putting in articles about themselves to somehow try to make themselves seem more significant, for a whole variety of reasons. As it stands, this article gives me that feeling: it gives the impression of trying to "big up" a particular theory, which is why I think it should go, at least for the moment. What would make me change my mind is this: a couple of good solid references to academic articles taking this theory seriously, not written by people close to Knight and his colleagues. Ideally, they should link this theory into broader currents in anthropological thinking, and show why this theory is different from, and should be taken more seriously than, any of the dozens of other theories that emerge from the minds of academics every day. If this theory is notable, it will be widely debated, not simply taken on board by its originator's students. So far, despite the efforts of Lyrl, I already forgot and others, it hasn't been shown clearly enough that this is the case.

I hope this is of some help. Feel free to contact me anytime. WMMartin 22:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

commment Despite the much greater detail and obvious subject knowledge, this is at heart similar to the statement above that menstruation isn't worth much coverage in WP.

I think judgments based on personal impressions about what theories are important are irrelevant. On the other hand, I think judgements based on discussions such as you've just given are OR. It is not our role to give our impressions of whether a topic is important, nor is it our role to evaluate the true scientific significance. It is our role to judge whether the evidence supplied about notability is sufficient. Numbers help--and 40 cites for a book in the social sciences in ISI is way above the average. Just check some other books. There is a certain tendency in these debates to be particularly strict aboutthe more recondite academic topics, or about topics that seem unusual. These sort of topics is what an encyclopedia is for--especially WP. DGG 02:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG: I think you may have posted this comment in the wrong place, but if it is directed at me, here is a response:

(1) I'm certainly not saying that "menstruation isn't worth much coverage in WP". A careful reading of my comments will reveal that I don't use the word once, and, so far as I can tell, haven't referenced it implicitly - I've tried to keep to the topic of this debate, which is a theory about possible cultural phenomena arising from or related to menstruation, and not about menstruation per se.

(2) I agree that my personal impression of the theory is irrelevant, and explicitly say so ( "its logical quality is of no relevance" ). I have in the past participated in many deletion debates in which I have supported retention of an article despite poor logical content. I believe I understand the general principles applicable in this and other cases.

(3) So far as I can tell, I haven't done any OR in making my posting, I've simply stated my opinion. I have been careful to "own" my comments by using phrases like "I think" and "my feeling".

(4) I've tried to express clearly why I feel it would be better to delete this article, at least for now. To repeat and paraphrase a bit: my worry is that when I try to find evidence of a broad discussion of this theory I always end up with the same small circle of people. I believe a notable theory is one that is broadly debated or understood in its discipline, and at present I see no evidence to support this contention. I explicitly state what I feel would help ( "a couple of good solid references to academic articles taking this theory seriously, not written by people close to Knight and his colleagues" ). The problem is that despite the efforts of several people to improve this article over the past few months, there is still no evidence that this is anything more than an idea circulating among a small group, and that's why I think it's on balance not suitable for inclusion here.

I hope this is clear and helpful. If not, please get in touch with me. Please note, though, that I shall be online only intermittently for the next few days, so my responses may be a little slow. WMMartin 14:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think we can all agree it could use inline citations. Quadzilla99 07:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ---J.S ^(T/C) 20:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Samek[edit]

A speedy deletion was overturned at deletion review on the grounds that having an Air Force camp named after him is an assertion of notability. It is now here to discuss whether this claim can be sourced or whether other reasons exist why this article is not a memorial. This is a procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 03:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a memorial. MER-C 04:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the assertion of notability isn't sufficient. Heimstern Läufer 04:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - Wikipedia is not a memorial. Agree with MER-C --Kevin Murray 08:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT. --Wildnox (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per --Duke of Duchess Street below. --Wildnox (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I found two AP articles on him here[14], one in the Las Vegas Sun[15] and there are a few paragraphs in the Congressional Record[16]. Naming a USAF camp at Kandahar Air Fired Camp Samek does make him notable enough IMHO. I suggest working the citations into the article or at least including them as external links. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I rewrote and added references. Made it an article and not a memorial. KnightLago 20:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Gilbert (game designer)[edit]

A prior AfD keep closure and its follow-up have been overturned at deletion review after the first closer brought in new information which on review turned out to be from a single source. The decision at DRV was to give this another round at AfD to allow full consideration of the new source. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 03:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to meet WP:BIO if he was the subject of media coverage: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. --Infrangible 05:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the deletion review, this is the same Reuters story carried by different news outlets. ~ trialsanderrors 05:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that the Reuters articles are all duplicates of the same thing. However, there are other completely separate articles about him and his work. For example, I found: http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060926/hawkins_01.shtml GamaSutra is a well-regarded publication in the game development industry. I've updated the page's references accordingly. Tarinth 08:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Not only are the so-called sources merely a reprinted Reuters article, even that article does not prove notability, as Dave Gilbert is not the primary subject.
- Splitting hairs. I don't know how you can separate the work of an individual, independant developer from the developer (the artist) themself. Tarinth 16:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andre (talk) 06:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Game designers who have created notable games are like any other artist and are thus notable. In addition to the Reuters coverage there are other stories as well (see the Gamasutra link above). Satisfies WP:BIO on that basis, and would also meet WP:CORP if one treats him as equivalent to the "publishing business" that released the game (since he appears to release games directly). Tarinth 08:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This Gamasutra link's primary focus is not Mr. Gilbert either. We agree that The Shivah is notable. The contention is that Gilbert himself isn't. Andre (talk) 13:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - If a company published The Shivah then there wouldn't be any question of having an article listing them as a video-game developer; if an artist had been noted to the same extent by the media, we'd be including an entry for the artist and not simply thw work. I don't see how this is any different whatsoever. Tarinth 16:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep award winning game designer who has had plenty of media coverage... if this is deleted I will quit wikipedia, because its clear no one gives a rats ass about worthwhile content. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 12:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, that's ridiculous. The man's a minor adventure game maker. Miyamoto, he is not. Andre (talk) 13:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your opinion that he's "minor" is purely subjective and not at all relavent; he's been noted by the media as an innovative indie game developer. Tarinth 16:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Border-line notability, and per the Gamasutra link provided. Also he was featured in the various sources as said above (although not independent). --Nearly Headless Nick 13:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but add something of substance to the article or we will be here a 4th time Alf photoman 14:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the two reasons mentioned by Alkivar, but do think it needs some rewriting. JN322 14:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep his mention in numerous non-trivial and important sources certainly allows the topic to pass WP:BIO TSO1D 16:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Meets WP:BIO, etc. ~ Ed B oy^[c] 21:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 21:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. Seems notable enough in my eyes. Havok (T/C/e/c) 22:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep per sources. — brighterorange (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CNN report makes him notable enough. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looks notable enough to me. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Duke --BenWhitey 05:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong~~ delete The CNN report (Reuters story) mentions him in passing, he's not remotely the primary subject of that article, and it's even hard to say that the article itself is nontrivial (it's just a couple paragraphs about the video game). If six instances of the same Reuters story is multiple independent works, then JK Rowling is the author of hundreds of different books (by counting separately all the UK, US, hardcover, paperback editions, etc. of the Harry Potter series, to say nothing of the foreign translations. The criterion is independent of each other which means they can't all stem from the same origin). Subject is also not the primary subject of the Gamasutra article either: that article is about several different games, and he gets some mention the section about the game that he worked on. George Lucas is similarly not the primary subject of an article about the Star Wars movie that mentions him, but he is the primary subject of something like this.
Wikipedia is not a publicity agency, we are not here to plug anybody's games, this biography subject absolutely fails to meet the consensus-developed WP:BIO guideline based on the documentation presented, and people should stop looking for ways to to pretend that he is. Either come up with better documentation per WP:BIO or justify a departure from the guideline on some reasonable grounds. Otherwise delete. 67.117.130.181 14:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I'm just not looking at it in the correct light, but if seperate news agencies/publications choose to run the same article, doesn't that still make the subject noteworthy? Talk radio, for example, frequently uses AP wires as a base for the stories they air, does that the coverage (for example) of a forrest fire originally covered by one agency mean that other agency coverage doesn't exist? Or does an organization such as CNN have to take the time to re-write the Reuters article for it to count as coverage? JN322 15:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - According to WP guidelines, since all of these (including CNN) are reprints of the same Reuters article, they are considered one source. However, this is all irrelavent since there are additional, totally unrelated sources that easily push this subject over the minimum bar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tarinth (talk • contribs) 16:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

- - Multiple works means the pieces are independent of each other. If the subject is really notable, more than one person would have sat down to write something about him/her (e.g. Reuters and AP might have written separately). There should be no need to resort to multiple recyclings of the same article. See WP:BIO#fn_5 for what this is all about:

All of these criteria are in fact simply special cases of the general primary criterion of multiple non-trivial published works from independent sources. A person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer.

In short we're looking for enough published documentation to support a real biography. There is no depth in the biographical coverage of those articles.
Looking at WP:BIO again though, I can see a case for the Gamasutra and Reuters' pieces counting as multiple reviews of an author's work (I had remembered a requirement that the author have multiple published works that had been reviewed, but either it's changed or I was confused. It does seem lame to me that someone writing one published/reviewed book results in two WP articles (one about the book and another about the author)). I'll back off on "strong delete" to just normal delete. I'll confess to still being in reaction mode over the against-consensus "keep" closing of this article's first AfD. 67.117.130.181 17:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- The Gamasutra article spends 3 out of 5 pages either discussing his work, as well as an interview with him. If the article had ended at that point, we'd still consider it to be a good source; the fact that it continues on to some other subjects does not detract from it. And I don't regard the Reuters coverage non-trivial. As for comparisons of J. K. Rowling or George Lucas, I'm not sure what point you are making with that. The fact that they are notable does not mean that other individuals needs to reach their level of notoriety to be considered for Wikipedia. WP:BIO sets a relatively low bar for notability, one which the individual described in this article easily reaches. If you think WP:BIO should be a lot more stringent so that you have to be Lucas or Rowling to get included, that's not a debate for this AfD discussion. Of the 1.5M articles on Wikipedia, surely this one is more notable than most? Isn't there a better way we can spend our time? Tarinth 16:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The point of JK Rowling is we don't count multiple editions of the same novel as multiple works, and we don't count multiple publications of the same Reuters' article as multiple works. The point of mentioning that book about Lucas is that he's the primary subject and it says so right in the title. If you show either the Reuters or Gamasutra piece to someone and then ask them what the piece is about, they won't say "it's about someone named Dave Gilbert", so Dave Gilbert is not the primary subject of those pieces. And spending 3 of 5 pages discussing Dave Gilbert's work is not the same as spending those pages discussing Dave Gilbert. We already have a separate article about his work--why do we need 2 articles? If really are additional, totally unrelated sources as you say, then great, let's see the cites (and no, that web forum discussion linked from the article does not count). As for why this matters, see this email about the amount of publicity seekers trying to wiggle their way into Wikipedia and WP:BIAS for why having external influences warp our article selection isn't good. We already have enough unavoidable bias from our editors' demographics, we should definitely resist more bias resulting from people with financial incentives to get documented here. 67.117.130.181 17:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to my point above: the inventor/creator of a notable work is essentially indistinguishable from the work itself. Just as we have articles on musicians who are primarily known only for having created a notable song, or entries for videogame companies that are effectively unknown aside from their notable games--I don't see any difference here. As for bias or an individual's desire (or lack thereof) in being listed, again, that's a discussion regarding overall policy that really has nothing to do with this specific case. Tarinth 17:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the inventor/creator of a notable work is essentially indistinguishable from the work itself, then we should not have separate articles about the work and the creator. I'd be ok with inserting a biographical paragraph about Dave Gilbert into the article about his computer game. It just boggles my mind that one Reuters article is supposed to generate two Wikipedia articles (and therefore two separate sets of extlinks generating pagerank: ka-ching!). I don't know how you get this concept of indistinguishability though. If someone seriously told me I was indistinguishable from my works, I'd be pretty annoyed.
Yes, the same thing happens all the time with musician articles and I don't like that either. We have ridiculously weak coverage of the Wilhelmshaven mutiny, a genuinely important historical topic, while we fill the encylopedia with music-industry marketing junk. I usually just roll my eyes and keep quiet by now. As mentioned above, I made an exception for this afd because of the bad closure of the first one. 67.117.130.181 17:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I can't think of many worse arguments in favor of deleting an article you don't like than "other important articles aren't good enough yet." Tarinth 18:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That part only says we're spending our time on the wrong things. Why we should not have so much marketing is explained at WP:NOT, WP:COI, the Brad Patrick letter I linked to, and elsewhere. Any article topic whose notability results from somebody's marketing efforts (whether on-wiki or off) and whose inclusion in Wikipedia is likely to result in someone selling more of some product (video game, music CD's, or whatever) should be assessed with rigor and skepticism and held to a high standard. Wikipedia is not a shopping guide. 67.117.130.181 19:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that we're spending time on the wrong things. This AfD, for one. Tarinth 21:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the Reuters article it credits him directly, and he is featured prominently in the Gamasutra article and as such the page fits within WP:BIO Da Big Bozz 21:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious, what about this article from an adventure gaming website that I included in the links part of the page? The interview focuses more on Gilbert and his choice to enter the field than his projects. http://www.adventuregamers.com/article/id,699/ JN322 03:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good one, and should probably be referenced in the article. Tarinth 14:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I referenced it, but I'm not very good at this sort of thing, so someone else may want to revamp it. I also added references for his AGS awards. But if they're unnecessary, someone please feel free to delete/edit or whatever you do. JN322 15:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - To The Shivah, this seems to be the only notable game he's done. There's not really much information on him outside of the context of this game. Wickethewok 19:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Wickethewok. Borderline notable, and only really for To The Shivah. He can have his own article when he becomes independently notable. --Alan Au 19:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ---J.S ^(T/C) 20:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Dumas[edit]

nn minor league hockey referee whose contract was not renewed, was deprodded only because of a relative being notable by the author, still nn Delete-- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 04:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nomination, this does not pass WP:BIO TSO1D 04:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN --Wildnox (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7 by Pilotguy. Tevildo 19:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obsidian Reign[edit]

Contested speedy. Neutral Drew30319 04:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND. —ShadowHalo 04:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. Was properly tagged as a speedy delete as it is a re-creation of an article that already went through AfD and the result was delete. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 05:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nope - speedy wasn't appropriate based on available info online as I already pointed out. I requested that you AFD but you refused and continued to revert. Just chill already.
Speedy delete as repost. So tagged. MER-C 06:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ShadowHalo--Tainter 18:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. —Centrx→talk • 05:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death Before Dishonor (ROH)[edit]

Fancruft. Results of shows promoted by an indepdendent wrestling company are not inherently notable, no assertion of notability One Night In Hackney 04:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Delete all per nom. TJ Spyke 04:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. MER-C 08:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it appears that wikipedia retains articles on wrestling PPVs and they are similar to these articles - there are WWE, WCW, TNA, ECW articles and ROH are the next organisation in line in terms of size/fanbase/dvd sales. MLA 09:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These are not pay per views though, these are just shows taped for DVD with no overall notability. One Night In Hackney 10:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see what difference being PPV or straight to DVD makes, what's notable is the content of the show, in context of the history of the company, storylines, title changes, debuts, departures etc. Obviously regarding Ring of Honor, these events are considered more notable than regular 'house shows', because they are the only type of show the company promotes and also exist as DVD releases. If cards like Showdown at Shea, all the Clash of the Champions, Royal Rumble '88 and all the ECW non-PPV cards, none of which were PPV, and in some cases weren't released on home video and/or televised, are worthy of pages, then so are the ROH cards. JustJoe4Life 17:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Comparing these to other articles is a strawman argument. It does not make these any more notable, and if the other articles aren't notable they may well be deleted as well. Clash of the Champions were live TV specials, Showdown at Shea was a huge stadium show in the days before PPV attended by over 35,000 people, how many people attended the Ring of Honor shows? Having checked through the Wiki pro wrestling project, several ECW shows (including ones released on home video) have been deleted, so there is a clear precedent. If you believe the articles to be notable, please improve them. One Night In Hackney 23:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the lot as cruft. Some Americans may have a complete obsession with professional wrestling but having this many detailed Wikipedia articles is ridiculous. JIP | Talk 17:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out: if/when these get delete, Category:Ring of Honor shows will also need to be deleted (since all the articles in it are part of this AFD). 00:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep the Lot First of all, The Era of Honor Begins was a live recording in certain area's. Lots of people have brought that one just for the match of Super Crazy v Eddy Guerrero! They are all on DVDs, are for sale on RoH's main website. This is wrestling history. If this was a library and these where books. You would be book burning! The way I see it, if you delete all of these you might as well do the same for WWE and TNA's. So you wont be doing that to them. So I say keep them. Govvy 11:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ROH is still just an indy fed, and these are just indy shows. Being released on DVD doesn't make that much of a difference. Also, the comment that "lots" of people bought a DVD just for that one match is unsourced and a weasel statement. TJ Spyke 02:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know if this helps, but they are currently being aired on TWC(The Wrestling Channel) in the UK. Govvy 10:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Era of Honor Begins was not a live recording at all, if you insist it is please provide verification from a reliable source. Ring of Honor currently airing on TWC makes the promotion more notable, it does not make the results of shows more notable. One Night In Hackney 10:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ring of Honor on TV.com Govvy 11:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see the episode guide [25]. That is nothing more than a list of Ring of Honor live shows, those are not TV episodes. One Night In Hackney 12:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment TV.com is every show that has been on TWC channel. They have been televised in the US. Not sure what channel know.

Comment Untrue. The last episode on TV.com is dated November 4 [26]. As of the last website update at the end of November, TWC had just aired When Hell Freezes Over from Januray 14 [27]. From memory, only approximately 12 hour long episodes of Ring of Honor TV were ever shown in America and they were not shown live. One Night In Hackney 02:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Having an event on DVD does not make it notable. Vegaswikian 01:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Only "The Era of Honor Begins" was shown live as far as I know. It was on WGTW TV 48 first in Philadelphia 2002. Other shows where aired on the same channel. This obviously was shown in the UK and US on TV! As well as being on DVD. These arn't just DVDs they are shows on TV! You consider them a small promotion, maybe yes, but you have stars who have performed here. Eddie, Super Crazy, Paul London, Brian Kendrick, Full Blooded Italians, Samoa Joe, That fallen Angel Guy even got Mick Foley in the lata eps. This is all history to me, this is evidence of where they where, what they where doing. Awards they earned in Ring of Honor. Remove these and all those belts suddenly mean nothing. Remove these and then all other Ring of Honor pages become less, remove these and you're taking away half of what is Ring of Honor. Removing these is removing wrestling history and I don't like lost history. If you remove these you leave the same question for everyone! "Ye I know he was in Ring of Honor, but what did he do?" So in final, Don't remove this history. These in my view shouldn't of even been considered for deleting. Keep Please Govvy 10:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide ANY proof that have been on TV? I haven't heard anything about it, at most it might be in some local markets. Also, many WWE wrestlers compete in indy feds (which ROH is, it's not a major promotion yet). Just saying you lke ROH is not a reason to keep an article, especill events that were only on DVD (not TV). On ROH's own website they admit they don't have a TV deal (with a discussion about would they be willing to give up TNA wrestlers if it meant getting a TV deal for ROH). TJ Spyke 02:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ROH did have a Philadelphia area TV show in 2002, called High Impact TV. However it was never shown live, and was an hour long show. The debut show DVD release is approximately 3 hours long, and factoring in intermissions and suchlike, it's reasonable to say the whole show would have lasted somewhere in the vicinity of 4 hours. A TV station would not give a brand new independent promotion running their first show 4 hours of live coverage on a Saturday night. If Govvy can prove otherwise, please do so. One Night In Hackney 03:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really help his case of keeping it though. The local indy fed in my area has a TV show too, local TV shows are not notable (especially it wasn't live and only last briefly). TJ Spyke 04:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 00:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Emory[edit]

Delete: Non-notable. Hu 04:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable per WP:PORN BIO no results at iafd.com. Quadzilla99 04:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PORN BIO -- Selmo ^(talk) 04:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PORN BIO. --Sopoforic 05:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:PORN BIO. MER-C 06:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete until after Beta testing (when it becomes more notable). Cbrown1023 00:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiMusicGuide[edit]

A site still in beta testing. I tagged the article with {{Unreferenced}} and {{Notability}} rather than adding it to AfD to see if it indeed might be notable, but I don't see the article going anywhere. The references are links to blog-like sources that don't seem to fit WP:RS, and the primary contributers are User:Ericgo and User:Ric168, who seem to have a conflict of interest. ShadowHalo 05:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently in Beta testing hence not yet notable for me Delete.BigHairRef | Talk 08:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence from reliable sources is provided that this meets WP:WEB. MER-C 08:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that since the article refers to a real-life website, that the article would be better off added to and improved than deleted. --Kevin ^(TALK) 18:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:WEB. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 18:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; no referenced assertion of notability from a reliable source. --Muchness 21:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. May become notable at some point but not yet. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being in beta does not mean not notable. Here are notable references Music 2.0, eHub, TechDigest, Glide Magazine, Wired. The site is also notable since it has been Dugg, Delicious popular and in StumbledUpon. --Biendavid 04:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References and reference are two words with different meanings. The former plural and the latter singular. One reference though came from a blog source, but not "references" as there is only one from blog source. And that we accept that particular reference be removed. Ericgo 03:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I said "blog-like" sources since the wired.com reference has "blog" in the banner and URL, and the digg.com reference seems to have been written by an individual user, meaning it probably doesn't meet WP:RS. The wetpaint.com link says "Latest page update: made by wikimusicguide, Yesterday", hence my concern about self-promotion, and the emilychang.com link is from what appears to be a blog. I'll stop there to prevent this from getting too long, but I'm very concerned about this article not having sources that meet WP:RS and about WP:COI (see diffs: [removed with my apologies]). —ShadowHalo 05:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what's the problem with a blog entry from Wired. It's not a blog entry from an unknown source. About Digg, the point is that it has been Dugg and has been given attention and no longer an unknown site. About Music 2.0, it's the fact they creators added WikiMusicGuide to the list. WikiMusicGuide editors can edit the content if they want and not under the same restrictions as Wikipedia. eHub is a very popular tech blog site. And what about the TechDigest and Glide magazine mentions? I still see we have enough references. About COI, yes, I am an editor of WikiMusicGuide as well. However, I did not create or edit the WikiMusicGuide page. I'm here point out that the site meets your guidelines. The initial stub page was created by a regular Wikipedian. --Biendavid 06:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That "it has been Dugg" does not mean that the source meets WP:RS. As you'll see at WP:RS, sources with editorial oversight and recognition by other reliable sources are far preferrable. The TechDigest could be a borderline reliable source since it briefly evaluatees information about the site. The Glide Magazine one does not fit the requirement at WP:WEB since it is "a brief summary of the nature of the content". The one at del.icio.us fails since it has no information about the site itself, same with StumbleUpon. I apologize for using your diffs; you're right that you didn't edit the article. I was thinking of User:Ericgo and User:Ric168 who both added similar links. —ShadowHalo 07:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Google "wiki music" or "music guide" and WikiMusicGuide is in the first page. I know Wikipedia has it's own definition of notability but it seems Google thinks WikiMusicGuide is notable using their definition. If the problem is COI, the article should be cleaned up to achieve NPOV and not be deleted. --Biendavid 06:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB.--OriginalJunglist 18:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources are weak, the site is brand-new, etc. 21,035 edits? 159 registered users? If this was a forum we were talking about, it would have been speedied already. --- RockMFR 19:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 00:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shows-inside-a-show in Codename: Kids Next Door[edit]

The article is listcruft and uncyclopedic. In fact, this article has only two "shows-inside-a-show" listed. Squirepants101 05:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because I don't even know what the heck it is supposed to be about. Article doesn't even provide a basic explanation of the subject. --- RockMFR 06:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Show-within-a-show apparently refers to shows within a fictional universe, but as far as I know these aren't an integral part of the series. The entry in the list in that article and maybe a mention in whatever episode of KND the show appears in, if anyone knew what that was, is plenty. BryanG^(talk) 07:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - woefully incomplete list of non-notable meta TV shows. MER-C 08:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't say I understood thia article at all.--Tainter 18:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Consider merging the part about Rainbow Monkeys; the card game is fancruft, and this page is unnecessary. —ShadowHalo 23:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more KNDcruft. Danny Lilithborne 14:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this was made for a joke and unnecessary.**My Cat inn @ (talk)** 10:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete by Jimfbleak. Tevildo 15:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArnoldSpeaks.com[edit]

Speedy deletion under db-web contested. Article makes no claim to notability, fails WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:WEB. Should be deleted. RWR8189 05:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Heimstern Läufer 05:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB guidelines, very low Alexa numbers.[28] Quadzilla99 06:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - still a speedy candidate 3 hours later. So tagged. MER-C 08:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN 8[edit]

A fictional television channel used in the movie Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story Non-notable; any information worth keeping can go in the Dodgeball or ESPN articles. ‣tregoweth (talk) 05:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's already mentioned in the Dodgeball article, and that's more than enough. TJ Spyke 05:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was a funny joke in the movie but come on be serious. Quadzilla99 06:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story since it's a joke exclusive to that movie. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. --- RockMFR 06:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dodgeball. -- Kicking222, the Ocho! 11:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. ~Inkington 12:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story. Although I somehow doubt that anyone will take advantage of the redirect, it costs nothing and after all, Wikipedia is not paper. TSO1D 16:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Wikipedia is not paper, but it would be more efficient to have many similar concepts in one place rather than spread out. --Kevin ^(TALK) 18:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge as above - merge in anything that isn't already there in trivia, etc. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 21:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Funny, but fails WP:FICT.-- danntm ^T _C 05:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story. Fancruft. —ShadowHalo 08:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was A7. - Mailer Diablo 08:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Hard Flash[edit]

No assertion of notability made. No mention in reliable sources. Article fails WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:WEB. Should be deleted. RWR8189 05:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the failure of WP:WEB as pointed out by the nominator. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as unremarkable webcontent. So tagged. MER-C 08:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, bad faith nom. MER-C 06:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hu Jintao[edit]

A nonimportant and relatively unknown weak leader that is unarticle worthy. User:Siii112 5:39 AM UTC

Speedy keep as patently noteworthy. As this AfD is the account's only edit, I'm quick to suspect ill motives. Heimstern Läufer 05:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, bad faith nom from SPA. ColourBurst 05:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, easiest decision of my day. Quadzilla99 06:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, as obviously noteworthy -- president of the People's Republic of China, which makes him at least titular chief executive for a billion people; it's hard to be more noteworthy than that. I'm generally in favor of assuming good faith, and I am not sure that one (clearly invalid) nomination for deletion is sin enough to block that assumption... let's not murder anyone yet? Deltopia 19:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 00:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Projected Reality[edit]

This is a non-notable neologism or protologism invented by a graduate student one year ago with no evidence of wider usage. Prod removed by anonymous IP. Delete Aagtbdfoua 05:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in grad school one day. ~ trialsanderrors 05:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism. Heimstern Läufer 05:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Will Mak 050389 06:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn neologism, 615 ghits. MER-C 08:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete -- RoySmith (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Float (CSS Attribute)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage guide, or collection of source material, so it is probably also not a programming reference. --Takeel 05:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Move/Merge per nom. Might find a home in the Help namespace or as part of the article on cascading style sheets. MER-C 08:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cascading Style Sheets. Anthony Appleyard 09:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete
Wikipedia is not a reference manual.
-/- Warren 12:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 00:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Position (CSS Attribute)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage guide, or collection of source material, so it is probably also not a programming reference. --Takeel 05:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Move/Merge per nom. Might find a home in the Help namespace or as part of the article on cascading style sheets. MER-C 08:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cascading Style Sheets. Anthony Appleyard 09:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a reference manual. -/- Warren 12:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Possible bad-faith nom from user who has created several dubious afd noms today (actually user: Siii112, not user: Sii112). bad faith nom earlier today (user:Siii112). Grutness...wha? 10:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kwai Chi[edit]

Known only because of Youtube video's. The movies he stars in are relatively unknown User:Sii112 5:53 AM UTC

Keep. Role in movies seems fairly notable. Assertion that he was the British International Taekwondo Federation champion is very notable. --- RockMFR 06:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep bad faith nom per nominator's user page and nomination of Hu Jintao for deletion. Besides that, this actor has had roles in multiple feature films, one starring; led an Adidas ad campaign, and also achieved rankings for pool. He also has a "fan base"/"cult following" on YouTube. This means that he satisfies WP:BIO inclusion guidelines. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 06:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet WP:Bio though article needs proper sourcing and citations and the trivia section needs to go. --The Way 09:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep athlete who competes at the top tier of their sport. Tarinth 09:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the acting credits do seem a bit weak, but combined with the sports credits, I think there is obviously sufficient notability here. Xtifr _tälk 10:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 01:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BSTJ papers[edit]

An unencyclopedic list of information available elsewhere, per WP:NOT#DIR Alison Chaiken 06:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#DIR.Anjouli 08:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This information could be useful to people wanting info about electronics. I have put it in Category:Electronics. Move it to a more informative title, e.g. Bell System Technical Journal papers. Anthony Appleyard 09:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A complete list of every paper published in a technical journal is not encyclopedic, nor is it feasable to maintain such a list (which contains thousands of papers). Dr. Submillimeter 10:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hope they cut and pasted most of this because that's a lot of work to waste on an obviously non-notable matter that's bound to get deleted.Quadzilla99 10:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. This sort of list is not useful and is in all probability available elsewhere. --Philosophus ^T 10:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Transwiki if possible. Iiiiiiindiscriminate. ~ trialsanderrors 11:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. May even be a copyvio. MER-C 11:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:NOT. --ScienceApologist 14:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOT is not a speedy criterion. (And per below, WP:USEFUL is clearly not a speedy keep criterion, or a keep criterion at all.) ~ trialsanderrors 21:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. These are not even the 'greatest hits'; they seem to be ALL the papers. EdJohnston 14:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Per EdJohnston's comment, I could see the utility of a short list of the most notable papers from the journal as a section in the Bell System Technical Journal article. What specifically violates the Wikipedia is not a directory injunction is having a long, unorganized list as a separate article. Alison Chaiken 18:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I began this article and would like to chime in as to why it was begun and why it is so important. A year ago I was performing research into some history of telephone systems. Once I discovered the Bell System Technical Journals' existence, I scoured both the internet and libraries searching for a listing of articles and papers included in the Journal over the years. None was to be found without seeking out a major technical library, and not even usually then. I contacted the San Francisco Public Library and the had the collection, but could not produce an index of the articles or subjects contained within. I could request papers, but could not discover which papers to request! I contacted several other major libraries and discovered that the University of California at Berkeley had the collection in the stacks of their engineering library. However, they also did not have an index available without being physically on-site. I journeyed to the Cal engineering library and an idea came that perhaps an index of the papers would be useful to those performing research. I realize that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but as such it is also a reference system and a listing of other reference materials can be extraordinarily useful. Additionally, there is no other method, short of physical presence, of obtaining something as simple as a list of journal paper titles from any location on the internet. Google Scholar, contrary to others assertions, does NOT have this information available in any manner. Additionally, listing the titles of journal papers from a publication would not constitute a copyright violation, or all library systems would be inherently in violation of the law. Jory 20:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Wikipedia has no obligation to record something just because it is not available elsewhere. WP:NOT is still applicable. If Jory feels that disseminating this list to the world is important, perhaps he should create his own website and place the list there. (I also reformatted Jory's comments into one paragraph; the paragraphs were not all indented properly. Please forgive the reformatting.) Dr. Submillimeter 21:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wonder if we can transwiki this to Wikisource. It's certainly not -pedia material, but I agree with the assessment re copyright. ~ trialsanderrors 21:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Check out this Google Scholar listing of BSTJ papers: 16,300 hits. The argument that the table of contents information is not available elsewhere probably used to be true but is no longer. Alison Chaiken 23:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Info is available elsewhere" is really neither an inclusion nor exclusion criterion, unless it's copyvio. If the folks at Wikisource think it's something to keep that's ok with me. Clearly it fails policy here. ~ trialsanderrors 23:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Response to Alison Chaiken - Thank you for providing that link. However, you will notice that a vast majority of Google Scholar hits in regards to BSTJ papers are citations, rather than the papers themselves. As an example, I can tell you there are a total of 386 journal papers in the BSTJ from years 1955 through 1960. If you perform an advanced search on Google Scholar, you will see that only 47 entries are found and they are all citations. However, I can understand the concerns of those discussion the deletion proposal. I am happy to provide a website where the journal papers are indexed if no other public location is available. I had just felt that this information was of vital importance to the research community and was unsuitably unavailable. It should also be noted that since beginning this article on WP, 68 additional journal paper titles were added by WP users other than myself. I provided the initial 386 paper titles. So it is clear that there is some desire from users for this information to be available, whether it be here or someplace else.. ~ Jory 04:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Response to Jory But aren't the citations at Google Scholar listing the exact equivalent of what BSTJ papers provides? I don't understand the additional utility of the BSTJ papers table over the Google Scholar listing. On the other hand, a short list in the regular Bell System Technical Journal article of the most cited papers would add value to that article. Alison Chaiken 05:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Response to Alison Chaiken - It's not the same thing. Citations may help you discover previously-referenced papers, but will not help in identifying a paper that has not been previously cited, but is still useful to new research. My idea was to provide the titles of these papers so researchers could locate papers they were seeking and then be able to request the appropriate volumes from libraries that store the collection in off-site storage. I agree that citing some oft-used articles in the main BSTJ article would enhance that article, but it wouldn't provide additional reference for those seeking more information. I am guessing you have never perused the BSTJ itself, as I hadn't prior to December 2005. It is an amazing wealth of discovery and knowledge that is still very pertinent to current research, but is nearly forgotten, except where already cited. This tome of information contains not only the history of technology used for telephone systems, but also the initial understanding of sound perception (Fletcher & Munson's research into hearing), the initial discussion of how to refer to amplitude (a 1931 paper essentially creating the decibel), the development history behind the UNIX operating system, the creation of the transistor, and much much more. Just the number of actual papers available in the 5-year period I previously mentioned should illustrate how inadequate Google Scholar's contents are. 47 citations out of a possible 386 papers. Jory 05:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment - I have decided to put up a database-driven directory of the BSTJ papers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jory (talk • contribs) 22:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. --EMS | Talk 04:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Many of these were before 2000, and GS coverage is very weak before that. And it is unsystematic in any case--just look at the reviews cited of the GS page in WP. The question is how to deal with this material, because WP is not really a scientific indexing service--and if we included them all the page would be somewhat large and unwieldy. But we do in practice justify many of our articles on the grounds that there is no systematic coverage elsewhere--and this has been the case since the start.

However, I think it highly likely that they are all indexed in the standard engineering indexes, which are available in major libraries. I think Jory's index is a much better way of handling this, and the list should be whittled down a good deal and kept. I think that including highlights from a journal is a good use of WP, but I am not sure whether they should simply go at the bottom of the article on the journal. DGG 09:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Reply to DGG - Yes, the papers are all available via an engineering index, but that index itself must be physically accessed in order to discover any information. I have only found that index available at the UC Berkeley Engineering Library, but again, one must actually visit the library and locate the printed index for it to be of any use. No online index of any form exists, other than that which I have begun. Anyway, I have decided to go ahead and create my own website for the directory, as mentioned previously.—Jory (talk • contribs) 19:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Engineering Index is available online as Compendex. They are also probably in Inspec, also available on line. Of course it takes being a member of a university which has paid the five-digit amount for access. And thus good free lists like this are indeed very useful.DGG 07:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's definitely a point to keeping track of this kind of information, but Wikipedia is not the place to do so. Build your own website or complain to the folks at Google Scholar. Anville 16:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just you try complaining to the folks at GS. (ironic smile). DGG 07:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transwiki. This is not the sort of information that belongs in WP. —David Eppstein 22:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Doc^g 01:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Headley[edit]

Minor league baseball player. Speedy deletion overturned at Deletion Review, now listed here for full consideration. Procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 04:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When he reaches the majors (or, at the very least, wins the Triple-A MVP award or something of that sort), give him an article. Until then, he's not sufficiently notable. -- Kicking222 04:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I hate to delete a Missions player but there is no assertion of encyclopedic notability here, just a minor league player. Eluchil404 04:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Confirm delete, but weakly. The new sources do go a long way to asserting notability, but many of them are still trivial and I'd rather wait until he makes it to the majors. Eluchil404 07:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original speedy should never have been overturned. Massively more bytes have been wasted on debating this than exist in the article, and the article itself completely fails to establish notability. Guy (Help!) 08:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now (untill he reaches the majors). Minor league players are not notable. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 11:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:BIO --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing notable about this person. Minor leaqguers don't meet the criteria for articles. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:BIO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that minor leaguers do not meet notability standards unless they are likely to become major leaguers (for example Philip Hughes). This guy is no exception. 129.98.212.144 05:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, you shouldn't be voting delete. He was an invite to spring training last spring, which is typically a good sign that they're "likely" to become major leaguers. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:N. I don't know Minor League players from Adam (so how did I get into this, again?) but these articles do seem to say he is likely to become a major leaguer. In any case, they do make for meeting the prime criteria of Wikipedia: Notability, "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works".
- "Vols' duo on way to Padres system: Headley, Alley both drafted by San Diego", By Kevin T. Czerwinski / MLB.com, June 17, 2005
- "Headley named to AFL 'Rising Star Showcase'", By MadFriars.com, October 24, 2006, Scout.com
- "Headley has 'makeup' to be a star", By Amanda Branam / MLB.com, August 31, 2006.
- "Headley headlining Arizona Fall League", By Benjamin Hill / Special to MLB.com October 13, 2006
- "Q&A with Padres' Prospect Chase Headley", By Denis Savage, September 19, 2006, Scout.com
- "Scouting Padres' Prospect: Chase Headley", By Denis Savage, April 2, 2006, Scout.com
- "Padres Prospect Interview: Chase Headley", By John Conniff, August 29, 2005
- "Daily Dish: July 5" by Chris Kline, July 5, 2006, Baseball America

So what do these stories say? Well, "surpassed Todd Helton for most walks in a single-season in Tennessee baseball history."; "Top prospect in Padres organization"; "former college standout at the University of Tennessee"; "He's a poster child for being a baseball player"... AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Here, I expanded the article, added all those links to the article as in-line references, and found a fully free picture. He's actually an interesting guy, using his mental abilities (he was his high school valedictorian and an academic all-American in college) to make up for not being quite as physical as some of his peers. Please look at it again, folks. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, sports variations on the ol' crystal ball, that by-golly he's going to be somebody someday, from specialist websites. Pretty thin beer to base an article on. --Calton | Talk 23:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, I don't know how i missed this leaving DRV. As AnonEMouse showed (and I had two of those links bookmarked), he definitely meets WP:N and already meets WP:BIO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep references demonstrate WP:N. --Oakshade 00:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AnonEMouse. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AnonEMouse. --Kevin Murray 08:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- No vote. I relisted this debate on the grounds that AnonEMouse's edits may have saved this from deletion, given the last three opinions after the rewrite. So, I give this back to the community to re-evaluate. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AnonEMouse's links. --- RockMFR 07:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know much of anything about baseball, so to me the difference between "major league" and "minor league" isn't relavent (and appears to be a purely subjective judgment). What's important is the fact that this person has been noted by the media on several occassions, which qualifies them per WP:BIO. Tarinth 09:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Mouse. I loathe baseball (except as a soporific), but I can't dispute that it's notable, and the refs seem to demonstrate that this fellow is too. Xtifr _tälk 10:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per anonemouse. Incidentally, good work mouse. You really put a lot of effort into analyzing this article and not just giving it a cursory glance. Quadzilla99 11:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rewrite demonstrates notability. Oldelpaso 15:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even with the work by the Mouse. I don't really think minor league players are notable, but this player hasn't even played AAA ball. -- Bpmullins | Talk 22:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A minor-league player? Lowers the bar of WP:N or WP:BIO to meaninglessness. And before badlydrawnjeff cuts-and-pastes his standard reply, perhaps he could cite the specific portions --plural -- of WP:BIO that this meets, other than the techinality of "fully professional"? --Calton | Talk 23:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not Jeff, but if I could? The main part of WP:N, featured in external sources. In WP:BIO it reads: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person."

I have to admit, I don't know anything about playing in the minor leagues, if someone says it's not notable, I can't argue with them. But I do know about multiple independent published works. He's got them. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well sourced. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that playing in the minor leagues is notable. --BenWhitey 05:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Article was deleted by the sysop Mailer diablo (talk • contribs • count) CSD A7. Navou ^talk 08:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Prossies[edit]

I can not verify this, and I do not seem to be able to establish notability. Speedy deletion was contested, we shall discuss it here. Navou ^talk 07:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC) The Prossies[reply]

What? How come this has been deleted without a vote? Am I missing something here? Maybe it deserved deletion, but should we not see it first? Where can I see the pre-deletion version? Thanks and sorry if I'm being an old fuss-pot.Anjouli 08:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I reackon it met the CSD in the admins eyes, it was tagged before the afd started. Navou ^talk 08:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for deletion, though I recommend taking the discussion to the article's talk page and considering the move suggestions made below. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Speiden[edit]

No assertion of notability. Deleted under proposed deletion and recreated, so I'm sending it over here RedRollerskate 17:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable per nom, article is poorly sourced. --Eqdoktor 18:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poor composition and weak sourcing are not grounds for deletion. Let's fix the problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Murray (talk • contribs)

If you feel that strongly about it, consider this a friendly invitation to join WikiProject Wikify. We can use your help to fix this article (and thousands of others). RedRollerskate 20:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & provide sources I think that the Kennedy/Goldwater connection lends some ironic notability. Coupled with his other exploits this seems to creep into notability. There is one source given (poorly formatted) which is credible and non-trivial (per Wiki standards). I think that the topic is interesting and could be expanded. --Kevin Murray 19:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the article, Kennedy and Goldwater were associated with the Jay Six Ranch, not to Speiden personally. They might make the ranch notable enough for an article but that doesn't necessarily make Jack Speiden notable (and, interestingly, whoever created the Speiden article has not gotten around to writing an article about the ranch). Leaning towards delete. Tim Pierce 06:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I relisted this article on 12/30/06 to get a better consensus. RedRollerskate 07:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Jay Six Ranch. Most of the notability of this person has to do with the ranch he operated. Move the article there and reformat it as an article about the ranch. --- RockMFR 07:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this with a redirect from his name --Kevin Murray 19:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. NN. Google search found 16 hits ignoring Wikipedia & duplications. Anthony Appleyard 09:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The g-hit criteria will always be problematic for obscure but notable historic figues. We want WP to grow beyond the scope of a high school history text, but how can we if we just include articles about recognized people. Notability is not the same as general recognition. --Kevin Murray 19:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article doesn't mention this (since the source material was written in 1953) but Speiden ran for Congress in 1956 and again in 1958 losing to Stewart Udall [29]. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also "John G. Speiden, a southern Arizona rancher, drew 15114 votes in a no-contest ... his rather colorless, older opponent, John G. Speiden, 79651 to 51140. ..."[30] and [31] which lists the candidate as "John G. (Jack) Speiden" so it's the same guy. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is he still notable if he lost both times? (Not trying to start a fight, just curious.) RedRollerskate 04:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A mildly colorful life is not the same thing as notability. WMMartin 16:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to confuse notability with prominence. Notable is not a very high standard, just worthy of "notice." I think that the guidelines purposely avoided words like famous, important and prominent and chose "notable" as a lower threshold. --Kevin Murray 00:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. MER-C 07:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex marriage[edit]

I am creating the discussion page on behalf of nominator Nkras. His given reason for placing the notice is "POV fork." DanB†DanD 07:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is a POV fork of Marriage. User Nkras was in a good faith negotiation to end the dispute in Talk:Marriage. See "In the wayback machine" onTalk:Marriage. User Coelacan marked Traditional Marriage for deletion as a fork to Marriage, currently under dispute and locked. If Traditional Marriage is a POV fork, so is Same-sex marriage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkras (talk • contribs)

Speedy keep: The topic and phrase are obviously notable enough for a separate article. I believe this nomination is frivolous and an example of WP:Point. DanB†DanD 07:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Nomination was by a user in violation of WP:Point in retaliation as part of his content warring at Marriage. Threat of this action by said user is found here. AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 07:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per above. Justin Eiler 07:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as nom being a WP:POINT violation. Note that user nominated the article in retaliation for the Traditional Marriage article (which he created) being put up for deletion. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was half-speedy delete The JPS ^{talk to me} 19:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bulBS[edit]

Don't want to be a wet blanket, but is this band really notable? There are a few references, but I think we have to be particularly demanding for bands since there are so many hundreds and thousands of them! Anjouli 07:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7, no assertion of notability. Tarinth 09:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable minor band. (Google search for name would drown in refs to flowers and light bulbs.) Anthony Appleyard 09:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speedy A7 and tagged as such formerly. Clearly not a notable band with no releases and no chart ratings I can find- Peripitus (Talk) 09:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC, no concrete assertion of notability. Borderline speedy. MER-C 12:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 00:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J-Walk Blog[edit]

First AfD

Blog makes no assertion of notability. It fails every criterion of WP:WEB. No reliable sources are given, and is unverifiable. Should be deleted. RWR8189 07:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Generally I would say delete most blogs - but with 116,000 Google hits, including several newspaper articles, this seems one of the more infulential blogs. Source, reference and verifiability for a blog is surely the blog itself? The only issue is notabilty and I'd say it has that. Personaly I think this blog is rubbish - but that's not grounds for deletion. Anjouli 08:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not a web directory. In the first 40 Google hits I didn't see any newspaper articles. The article fails WP:WEB in that it doesn't seem the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself, it doesn't seem to have won a notable independent award from either a publication or organization, and the content doesn't seem to be distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.--RWR8189 08:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're not serious? Even a quick Google shows otherwise. Is this in good faith or personal? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anjouli (talk • contribs) 12:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I don't know what I'm doing wrong, I put "J-Walk" into Google, and I can't find any of the sources you are talking about. I refine it to "J-Walk blog" and I'm looking at 4 hits.--RWR8189 12:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get "1 - 4 of about 273,000"... huh? Tubezone 14:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the hits appear to be within their domain - Google only shows two results per domain. The 272,996 missing hits are all hidden by this process. Zetawoof^(ζ) 03:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs references as to what makes it notable, but that shouldn't be hard to come up with. I recognized the name because it's been mentioned several times in newspapers. Tubezone 08:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you are familiar with some newspaper references, then if you add them that should easily mollify those calling for deletion. Unfortunately, just "remembering them" isn't going to make people here happy. Tarinth 18:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither existence, nor a moderate readership, nor moderate googlehittage, is an indicator of notability. There are numerous blogs like this, and nothing here asserts notability for this one. WMMartin 16:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Anjouli. I too am not particularly fond of the blog in question but it has been written about in newspapers and if that's one of the basis of notability here then you have to live with it, RWR8189. Personally I don't think it should be a litmus test since newspapers aren't blog directories either (and they do a crap job of keeping their articles online, thus many blogs have to archive those mentions on their own blogs), but if you don't like it, then we should create new tests for determining blog notability. DelPlaya 10:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment would it be too much to ask for some sort of verifiable proof that this blog gets some sort of non-trivial mentions in newspapers or other reliable sources? If someone can show the site passes WP:WEB I have no problem with its inclusion, so far that hasn't happened.--RWR8189 09:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 00:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helgoland Radio Tower[edit]

Completely unremarkable mast. Contested prod. MER-C 07:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No vote, but have seen several VfD listings for radio masts. Do we need/have a policy on radio masts generally? I can see the info may be useful to some future historian interested in the subject and 'Wiki is not paper', but there are a lot of masts I guess. What makes a particular mast notable? Anjouli 07:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is some centralised discussion on the subject (albeit from about 18 months ago) at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Masts. Oldelpaso 15:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little information beyond height and location. Should someone be interested enough to write about it, I'm open to reversing my vote in line with previous AfDs of these. If not, it's easy enough to recreate when someone does get the urge. Akihabara 09:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced, no claim to notability. Salad Days 20:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Delete boring stub article per User:Ohconfucius/Far2manymasts and plenty of precedent. Prod was removed without qualitative changes to assertion of notability. Ohconfucius 19:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and precedent. WMMartin 16:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per precedent - the majority of the prior deletes have been articles similar (i.e. stubs) to this one. SkierRMH,23:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 00:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Buckaroo[edit]

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day Article should be deleted. RWR8189 08:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but not for above reason. Seems to be a genuine emerging term for a common practise, but not yet notable enough as only 1KiloGog - Another emerging term I just made up :)
Delete per above. Fails WP:V as far as I can tell because Google only turns up blogs and discussion forums. MER-C 12:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WMMartin 16:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Cat Buckaroo" turns up about 1500 ghits, and it legit (not made up at school), however with such a low ghit count it doesn't reach the notoriety 'bar'. (But, if they were to balance Buckaroo Bonzai on a cat, I'd consider changing my vote ;) SkierRMH,23:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (merger completed by User:Meshach). thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of aspect ratios[edit]

Redundant; wholesale replication of material from aspect ratio (image). Most likely stems from original editor's discontent with his reverted edits; see aspect ratio (image) history for further reference. In any case, it's a redundant article, as the primary topic has a more or less identical list (sans what was reverted). Girolamo Savonarola 09:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Aspect ratio (image)#Previous and presently used aspect ratios. There only needs to be one list and the article is the most logical place to put it. --TheFarix (Talk) 12:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. MER-C 12:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. JIP | Talk 18:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since Merge seems so popular I have gone ahead and created it. meshach 19:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 00:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Universal grinding wheel[edit]

Non-notable comedy performing/writing group. Notability not asserted or referenced. Few ghits; most for something else entirely. By its own admission they rarely use the name now anyway. Akihabara 09:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to grinding wheel. 151 ghits for the band AND the industrial tool-making company together, ignoring Wikipedia & duplications. Anthony Appleyard 09:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. —ShadowHalo 08:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete applying (loosely) WP:BAND they would be very non-notable. Would then make it a redirect to grinding wheel per Anthony Appleyard's suggestion. SkierRMH,23:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghouls Gone Wild[edit]

This is short zombie/music film made by low notability rock band The International Playboys. As well as being the stars of the film, The International Playboys are also listed as the 'distributors'. Despite the claim of an 'international premiere' in Kabul, I have been unable to find any evidence that this film has ever graced the silver screen. It is listed on IMDB, [32], but this is not a cast-iron indicator of notability.

The article itself is unsourced (and probably unsourceable), and reads like a first-hand account. Nydas^(Talk) 10:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional delete, I think the movie would be notable enough if the band itself is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, just as their albums would be, but the need for reliable sources is non-negotiable. Change to keep if and only if sources are provided before the AfD runs to completion. Xtifr _tälk 10:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the band is notable enough - barely - but there is no call for this elaborate article on a 33 minute independent film without distribution; mentioning it in the band article is sufficient. --Brianyoumans 02:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete paralleling the argument for album inclusion (debated, but basically, if the band is notable, their records are notable) this would be a keep, however, as Xtifr stated, there are no sources, which, while not a criteria for an album, are usually included for other types of media, such as movies. SkierRMH,23:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; in five days, given it was a procedural nomination, there has been no reason given to delete, and several good ones to keep the article. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Harding[edit]

Came across a few editors who tried to reopen the first and second nominations. Procedural listing, no opinion. MER-C 11:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the last nominations the story of Matt Harding's video has been the topic of several newspaper articles (La times, wash post, guardian). This meets the threshold for notability- that tag should be removed. If the travel editors of those newspapers found this story to be of interest to their readership I think this should be left up for wikipedia readers. Sidestepping the philosophical issues about whether having this entry will feed egos (see comments in afd1) there should be a central depot at wikipedia where people can find information on this story. Better to err on the side of providing more information than less.Sourcesleuth 11:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verifiable sources establish notability. Quadzilla99 12:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Notability established. Tevildo 13:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Verifiable.--JayHenry 04:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes the "is he more notable than my socks?" test with ease. WMMartin 16:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 00:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Vista RTM Software Compatibility List[edit]

Indiscriminate list of software that works in Windows Vista, which is WP:NOT what Wikipedia is about. Such a list could contain tens of thousands of items. Aside from that, this list was started from a verbatim copy of a similar list on another wiki-style site. -/- Warren 10:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An OR instruction manual, not an encyclopaedia article. -- IslaySolomon | talk 11:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE I agree with wikipedia rule. Microsoft are not going to give a list of vista Compatibility List. I think in future all the application is able to run on Vista. So i think the article should be deleted. Google search results gives lot of result so that people check that. --SkyWalker 11:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, not to mention some glaring obmissions. (Please don't start a flamewar because of my !vote...) MER-C 12:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What, you mean spell-checking software, perhaps? -/- Warren 13:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish kingdoms[edit]

I am concerned with the inclusion criteria (or a lack of it).

Also see (all three below and this list was created by same user):

Some of the linked articles are about fictional work (book) such as Mardi, or about an extinct food such as Manna.

--Cat out 11:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Poorly written (no prose) article with terrible inaccuracies and totally unverified:

There is just a list if "Kurdish Kingdoms" with no intro, explanation, description of why are these Kurdish kingdoms. And to which historical period do they refer?
There are no sources or citations verifying that these are indeed Kurdish kingdoms.
Of the 20 unsourced "Kurdish Kingdoms" that are mentioned, only 5 of them have blue links. All the other 15 are unverifiable (because of the lack of sources) red links. So, 75% of the article is red and unverified - while the rest 25% is only unverified!
Let's see the 5 blue links: Lullubi links to an ancient tribe (not kingdom). In Lullubi's article there is no reference that this tribe is at least Kurdish or linked to the Kurds. Manna links to the Biblical food "manna"! No Kurdish kingdom here of course! Let's continue our effort to save the article! Mardi links to Herman Melville's third book (1849)!! My amazement flares up! Where are these Kurdish kingdoms?! But I continue: it is Mittani's turn now. I learn that this was a Hurrian kingdom in northern Mesopotamia from ca. 1500 BC. Nothing about Kurds in this article and in Hurrians as well. My hopes are not yet dead. I still have one more link: Nairi. But I go to a disambiguation page! Does the editor want me to go to Nairi people? But in this article I learn about this nation's links with the Armenians and nothing about the Kurds!

To sum up: This is a terrible, completely uncyclopedic article.--Yannismarou 15:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, the article seems OR and has little content. Even most of the blue links don't redirect to an actual kingdom, but to disambig pages or even a random novel. TSO1D 16:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Yannismarou.--Aldux 16:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to History of the Kurdish people which is a much better article that covers the same subject already. In fact, I'd say do that with at least two of the other three you nominated already. FrozenPurpleCube 17:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the exact same reasons that I've stated in the AfD's on Kurdish Principalities and City-States which are linked to above. No need to copy and paste those same arguments here. --The Way 21:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Mittani? Kurdish? Noooooo. MaxSem 07:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7 by Jimfbleak. Tevildo 16:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The A.S.S.[edit]

Non-notable - no Google hits for American South Shore -wikipedia. Searching A.S.S. -wikipedia reveals a different group with same initials called Asylum Street Spankers. Also, rampant crystal ballism: to quote from article itself "emerging group"; "scheduled to release their debut album sometime near June 2007"; "official website is under construction and will be available soon before February 2007". Emeraude 11:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete makes no attempt to establish the notability of the group with outside sources. Quadzilla99 11:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no assertion of notability yet. -/- Warren 12:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 12:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Fails to establish claims of notability. Maxamegalon2000 15:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as it doesn't assert notability. TSO1D 16:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nukontrast[edit]

Non-notable "online flash magazine". It has been mentioned in "printed publications such as Incepem or Omagiu", but both are also very small self-published zines. Ayatollah's hashish 11:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence from reliable sources that it meets WP:WEB. MER-C 12:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough. WMMartin 16:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only 531 ghits, and lots of them on blogs. The two active referents are non-notable themselves, thus it fails both WEB & RS. SkierRMH,00:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 sources are in the article barring one website. Reliable sources are the foundation of an article or even a merge and there aren't any in this article, exactly as the delete recomendations suggest. as always, I'll happily restore a deleted article into userspace if someone wants to work on making it up to the inclusion standard. - brenneman 02:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitrios Zaphiropoulos[edit]

Delete - non-notable leader of minor Greek political party. Google produces virtually no hits if you exclude Wikipedia and its more obvious mirrors - see here. Nothing verifiable to say about this person who has never held office and who isn't deemed worthy of mention by the media, judging by what's on the internet. --SandyDancer 12:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep He is notable because he is the leader of a political party. If you want more google hits you must put his Greek name on search. More sources will be provided. Mitsos 12:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If he was notable enough for an article on English Wikipedia, he would have been mentioned at least a few times by English language publications. There are plenty of English language Greek news sources, and none of those seems to have mentioned him. Hardly a "strong keep". --SandyDancer 12:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - If Antonios Androutsopoulos is notable, then he is too. Mitsos 12:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are free to nominate that article for deletion. We are talking about this article, not that one. --SandyDancer 12:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sources are now provided. Mitsos 12:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable enough to get some notice in Greece though I have my doubts about the 25 year test Alf photoman 14:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment where is the evidence he is notable in Greece? If I am missing something major, happy to withdraw the nomination - but I just can't see how anyone needs an article on English Wikipedia if they haven't been mentioned in any mainstream press sources. --SandyDancer 17:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/Comment May be notable enough, though needs more sources. Also, I have a real problem with using the 'Google-Test' for subjects that aren't going to be prominent in English language publications. Google may be a decent means of gauging notability for bands, people and such that are English speaking but when dealing with politicians and such from non-English speaking countries this simply is not the case. A lot of these countries don't utilize the internet nearly as much as English-speaking countries and such topics aren't going to be well represented on-line though this does not indicate a lack of notability. Also, the above statement that if he is notable he'll be in English publications sounds, and I don't mean any offense, rather arrogant and a symptom of Wikipedia's systemic bias as it indicates that if something is written about a lot on English websites then it is automatically non-notable which is simply ridiculous. The vast majority of the world's population is NOT English speaking. --The Way 21:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about Greece here - internet use is as prevalent there as it would be anywhere, I'd imagine. Greece is not a third world country, pal! My point is that there are lots of English language Greek newspapers etc throughout the world and in Greece itself and the net doesn't produce a single article from any of them mentioning this guy - I think that says something about his notability, personally. And it certainly means we can't very easily improve the article with reliable sources - because there aren't any. --SandyDancer 21:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never insinuated that Greek was a developing country, I am perfectly aware of it's status in the international community. No need to be hostile towards me. I am simply saying that we can't hold individuals who are not English speakers to the same exact standards given to native English speakers. Someone who may be notable in Greece isn't exactly likely to get proper attention in major English publications like the Washington Post, New York Times or The Economist, for example. Now, I do recognize that there are English papers in Greece and a source from those would be nice though I'd be perfectly receptive to a few sources written in Greek, though we should require more than one or two when using sources written in other languages. If you'll notice, I did not vote for keeping the article and actually am leaning towards a delete as nothing is provided in Greek either. My point was simply that a google search is NOT a valid reason for deletion, even when dealing with topics that are English in origin. This is standard policy. Google may be used as a secondary reason for deletion, but not as a primary reason. If valid sources can be provided separate from Google then we should keep the article, if not then we should delete it. --The Way 21:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not intend to be hostile. Apologies. I agree with what you say, more or less, and sorry if I came across as aggressive. --SandyDancer 01:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Neither he nor his party has an entry in the Greek Wikipedia (unlike Hrisi Avgi, which has had an article since 2005). --Aleph-4 22:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The Greek WP is very small, and has very few articles. Mitsos 22:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless properly sourced, per WP:RS, which as far as I can tell, does not require sources to be in English. Absence of his entry in the Greek wiki is also not relevant, nor is the presence or absence of an article on Antonios Androutsopoulos. - Aagtbdfoua 00:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Patriotic Alliance. There seems to be nothing notable about him which is not about either Hrisi Avgi or the Patriotic Alliance. Argyriou (talk) 01:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Regarding this statement If he was notable enough for an article on English Wikipedia, he would have been mentioned at least a few times by English language publications, there is no such thing as "notable in Greek but not notable in English". Also WP:N: "Notability is not subjective". He's either notable or he's not, period, notability being primarily determined by multiple instances of non-trivial coverage. I'm not qualified to judge non-trivial coverage since I read absolutely no Greek, but the Google hits on his name look like passing mentions (based on the fact that his name appears only about halfway down in the articles, instead of in one of the lead sentences), which would make me lean towards a delete vote. cab 02:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, if he was in an English-speaking country we wouldn't even be discussing this. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability in Greece hasn't been established, so I don't understand your comment. --SandyDancer 16:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DoDS seems to be saying that if he were American or English, he'd be considered notable. I'm not entirely certain that's true, but considering some of the minor American politicos who get articles, it is definitely an arguable point. Argyriou (talk) 02:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 09:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Patriotic Alliance, per Argyriou above. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per --Duke of Duchess Street. This guy appears to be the Nick Griffin of Greece - plenty notable enough for me. WMMartin 16:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pilotguy. For future reference, you can replace speedy-delete tags if they're removed by the author. No need to push the article through AFD. Zetawoof^(ζ) 03:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Sort[edit]

Speedy Delete: This article is complete nonsense. It says "similar to throwing a pile of papers in the air and them picking them all up and hoping that they are in order". I nominated it for Speedy Deletion, but an anonymous IP address removed the notice, so I Proposed it for Deletion. The article's creator removed the ProD. It is annoying when people force us to go through such bother. The creator has done three things on Wikipedia: created another article that was Speedily Deleted, uploaded an image that was Speedily Deleted, and created this nonsense article that should be Speedily Deleted. It boils down to vandalism. Hu 12:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Wikipedia is not for something made up in school one day". Sam Blacketer 12:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yeah, exactly... "Eric Sort was originally created by Eric Augustine in 2005". Not patent nonsense, but why would one write a bad sorting algorithm instead of using one from the JDK? MER-C 12:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism/WP:NFT. (Not actually complete nonsense, see Bogosort.) Demiurge 12:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NFT. Hello32020 15:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This is just a different name for bogosort. Making up a nickname for an existing algorithm does not create a new algorithm. I could make up hundreds of new names every day if I wanted to. JIP | Talk 18:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete It's an interesting piece of culture, and the code is written out for this. It seems that the amount of information in this article is constantly growing. I predict that this article will iprove in importance in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChaosSonic (talk • contribs)
- Read the article bogosort. Everything that your "Eric Sort" claims to be was already invented decades ago. JIP | Talk 18:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above endorsement for Don't Delete is made by a single purpose account ChaosSonic whose only edit is here. Folks, you are being wound up by a vandal. The article should have been removed long ago. Hu 19:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Aside from the clear argument that Eric Sort is merely a rediscovery of bogosort, this may also violate WP:VANITY if "3riq" is the "Eric Augustine" mentioned in the article. Dr. Submillimeter 21:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 00:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chip on one's shoulder[edit]

has been moved to Wiktionary JianLi 12:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced dictdef. May be persuaded to keep of someone can write an sourced encyclopedia article about this idiom. MER-C 12:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per MER-C. - Aagtbdfoua 00:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's already been transwikied as a dicdef, and there doesn't appear to be much hope of this becoming more than what what is at wiktionary now. SkierRMH,00:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close after redirect and move had been fixed. --- RockMFR 18:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St Paul's Grammar School[edit]

AfD nominated by Antony Mayrhofer. No reason specified, but he is the article's creator and there have been no other edits since its creation. Based on the article history, my opinion is Speedy G7 (Author requests deletion). Tevildo 12:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. So tagged. MER-C 12:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep. The author actually nominated St. Paul's Grammar School (with the period). Author attempted a cut-and-paste move. Apparently "St Paul" is the correct form for this institution. As the old form is now a redirect, it is not appropriate for AfD. Gimmetrow 12:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close now the issue seems to have been resolved. No reason why the redirect needs a delete. MER-C 12:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the page. I mistakenly created a page with a period after St and did not know that deleting it was a problem. I thought I listed the mistaken page (with the period) for deletion. The current page is fine. --Antony Mayrhofer 14:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Antony MayrhoferAntony Mayrhofer 14:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7 by Jimfbleak. Tevildo 16:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vinegar strokes[edit]

I believe this band fails both WP:BAND and WP:BIO with 338 Google hits not concerning the band and no albums sold on amazon. This, however, doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria seeing as they do perform live and in pubs. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pub band performing cover songs. (No assertion of notability so it would qualify for speedy in my opinion.) Demiurge 13:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7 per nom. Fails WP:BAND, no assertion of notability. Appropriate tag added. Tevildo 13:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7, I agree with Tevido, it doesn't even assert notability. TSO1D 16:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 00:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raid on Black Mesa East[edit]

After several weeks, I believe that this article has amounted nothing more than to fancruft, original research, an in-universe plot, and - furthermore - too many unknowns. Being a HL2 player and contributor myself, I find this article to be an embarrassing attempt at defining a non-notable event. Therefore, since appropriate speedy deletes and PRODs have failed, it's time to bring this to the high court of deletion. WaltCip 14:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, HalfCruft. -/- Warren 14:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fictional event. `'mikka 19:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cruft. Artw 00:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - sheerest cruft. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Be advised: I'm aware that this is cruft. I'm also aware that there is also useful cruft, such as the Seven Hour War entry. In this case, I'm arguing notability rather than calling a spade a spade.--WaltCip 23:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment - Checking over the history, there was a PROD that met the required date for deletion, until an anonymous IP removed it without an edit summary or a reason. This should therefore receive a speedy deletion and a snow.--WaltCip 22:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Otherwise you might as well write an article for all the other action events in the game. Especially one on the uprising. Seriphyn 20:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Disgracefully speculative and obscure. Not even in the most rabid fanboy's HL compendium would this feature as an especially notable event. -Anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.70.178.165 (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as per above - DannyB!! 16:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Qjuad 21:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - as a non-gamer reading this, my only thought was WTF?! Reads like typical fancruft. SkierRMH,00:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 00:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sword[edit]

This seems very much like a fan page and gives biased information , one sided information and irrelevant information. Most of the information on this page is wrong. NOT doom metal , NOT heavy metal. Who say's The Swords music is original? Who say's Nebula are stoner rock icons? This is not supposed to be an ad for video games. What gear they use is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huseregrav (talk • contribs) — Huseregrav (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Well I removed and modified some of the content in the Wiki page. I left the genres alone due to sources I have found in Rockdetector and Metal Archives (now offline). I also don't find gear they use irrelevent to the group; but what was mentioned was just unescessary. AKnot 02:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares who the band tours with , go to their website for that info. Again this is not a place for people to advertise video games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huseregrav (talk • contribs) — Huseregrav (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Maybe you are correct about the touring (unless a biography is made). But look at some Wiki pages (like the Wolfmother album for example) they have information on their video game contributions, specifically from that album. Those notes before I believe weren't really intened to advertise but to release some extra information and to let people (who are unfamiliar with the game[s]) what were their contributions. AKnot 03:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong ~~Support~~ Keep (I must be celebrating the New Year a bit too early) Although this article may not be up to WP:BAND yet, I know for a fact that The Swords reaches WP:Notability. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 04:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs to be rewritten, but not deleted.Trendkill 08:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE! This has become a fan page! Useless info is always put on here. Doom metal? No way! This is trend metal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.90.137.157 (talk • contribs). — 66.90.137.157 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It should be worth noting that the above unsigned poster has a been editing the same articles as Huseregrav. I call sock puppet on that. The Kinslayer 12:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and clean up - Notability is established by this song being a major setlist song in Guitar Hero II. A main set list song, not a bonus song. The Kinslayer 15:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs cleanup. People want it deleted because they don't like the band or because some wingnut thinks they are too trendy to play doom metal/heavy metal. Whether you like them or not is not relevent to whether the article should stay. Olliegrind 18:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to meet WP:MUSIC, since the band has also toured the USA. [34] Prolog 12:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cleaned the article up a bit. It no longer reads like an ad. It still needs some citations but all the point of view stuff has been removed. I left in the heavy metal/doom metal tags although I know some people disagree. Numerous sources on the net cite them as a metal band. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Olliegrind (talk • contribs).
- Surely it it should be what the band say there music it is that counts, not what other people think it sounds like? I always think you should go with the genre the band say they are over any other opinion. The Kinslayer 13:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Band's own opinion of their musical genre is irrelevant, though it can be trivially mentioned somewhere in the article (with a reference). We need to go by reliable sources. Prolog 15:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your right. I suppose a band would have absolutely no idea what kind of music they play. How foolish of me to think they might. The Kinslayer 15:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very high curiosity for this band after the release of Guitar Hero 2.

Comment - in the current version the reference to the tour(s) is gone, which is one of the important criteria for WP:BAND. The other main criteria (albums on major labels) appears to be there. (and a vote to keep this semi-protected until the heat of this discussion is past - based on the 'history'). SkierRMH,00:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G4 by Jimfbleak. Tevildo 16:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Shepherd Community Church Scarborough[edit]

Page was deleted following debate on 20 Dec 2006. It has now been recreated exactly as before by an editor who took part in the debate in favour of keeping the article. Presumably, what applied then still applies and this article should be deleted again. The original debate is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Shepherd Community Church Scarborough Emeraude 14:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy G4 per nom. Appropriate tag added. Tevildo 15:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 00:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salvatore Alamia[edit]

Non-notable county district judge. WP:BIO states that local politicians are not automatically notable; this surely is relevant to other local officials as well. State trial-level judges are generally not notable enough to warrant Wikipedia articles under WP:BIO unless they have received extensive press coverage. Emeraude 15:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claims of notability beyond local judgeship. Eluchil404 07:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 02:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Structured Liberal Education[edit]

A non-notable, three course sequence at Stanford University. No point in merging to the Stanford article, as is not a directory or course catalog. Only references are associated with the university and therefore not independent of the subject. Delete Aagtbdfoua 15:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add - prod removed by IP account with no comments. - Aagtbdfoua 15:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

del nn. `'mikka 19:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I deleted the prod. I'm not the original author in disguise, but I also made a significant number of changes unmentioned by AAgtbdfoua before removing it. I made no comments only b/c (like many) I'm new to editing Wikipedia and have limited time and access to someone else's computer while on vacation to sit around registering, learning all the protocols, and otherwise trying to learn what amounts to a new language for a non-techie. (So much for a truly "democratic" knowledge base.) In any case, I just made some additional edits, adding external links to non-Stanford-"associated" publications discussing SLE, clearly demonstrating that the topic is NOTABLE. (Furthurmore, AAgtbdfoua's apparent definition of "independent of the subject" leaves much to be desired. Just because a journal or magazine is "associated" with a university "associated" with the topic, doesn't mean that the sources are not independent. We're not talking about a Microsoft newsletter about Windows.) I also added a paragraph about SLE's beginnings containing an internal link to the Hannah Arendt wiki, which already mentions her involvement with SLE & contains an internal link to the SLE wiki. Furthurmore, SLE is much more than just a course at Stanford. It is a veritable and long-standing part of Stanford tradition/culture (and there is an entire wiki category on Stanford Culture alone), as well as a well-known, highly unique, innovative, and somewhat controversial program that has served as a model for other such programs worldwide (see external links). I have also added internal links to the independent wikis on Directed Studies at Yale and the Core Curriculum at Columbia, which are comparable. There are tons of other less significant things on Wikipedia to delete if Aagtbdfoua is hell-bent on deleting things. More writing; less deleting.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article made no sense at all to me for anything to be salvagable. - Mailer Diablo 16:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Randytec[edit]

A piece of absolute nonsense about Randytec created by Randytec - user's only contribution so let's be thankful for that. I can't belive this has been here over a month. Emeraude 15:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A1 - no context. Appropriate tag added. Might also be worth a G1 or A7? Tevildo 15:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G4 by Jimfbleak. Tevildo 16:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes of Ivalice[edit]

Non-notable, fails WP:WEB. Also re-creation of an already deleted article, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heroes of Ivalice. For similar discussions, see the arguments put forth for the deletion of True World Simulator, WorldPower, SuperPower Classic, Superpower Classic (again), Qpawn, and, finally, the page of the genre they all belong to: Geo-political web-based simulator. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy G4 (recreated content) per nom. Appropriate tag added. Tevildo 15:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. apparently, it was speedily deleted - could someone close this AfD? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 16:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 02:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nation-simulation game[edit]

Primarily Wikipedia:Original research. Information in it duplicates the information found in Government simulation, and the now deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geo-political web-based simulator. A number of actual nationsims have also been deleted through AfD. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and more to go: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Government Simulation (2 nomination) `'mikka 19:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per being the nominator. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional delete. My comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Government simulation (2nd nomination) apply here too (except that in this case, I haven't marked up the article). -- RoySmith (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree that this is original research. However, sources are definitely needed. --- RockMFR 18:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: How is it not original research? All "sources" I can find are hardly worthy of being called as such - they are nationsims themselves and as thus does not constitute a third party. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 18:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It seems odd that you acknowledge the existance of this category (what you're calling nationsims) yet you want to delete all the articles that deal with the subject. Tarinth 19:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: It is not like I am on a crusade on nationsims. I don't hate nationsims, and I acknowledge their existence. I just don't think they're notable and/or verifiable enough to be in the encyclopedia; just like everything else I think should be deleted. You may review my contributions to the Wikipedia: namespace if you so wish; while I do actively look for unencyclopedic nationsim articles they do not constitute my only involvement in the AfD process. Oh, and please stop cutting my signature in half! :( Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~Redirect to Government simulation, which appears to deal with the same subject. If anything is in this article that isn't duplicated, merge it there. Tarinth 18:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: it should be noted that Government simulation has been nominated for deletion (yes, also by me). Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 18:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think Government simulation is a fairly obvious category of computer games/simulations that exist, and seems like a better title for the article. The collective article could be made better, but I don't see any reason to get rid of it. Tarinth 19:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The problem is reliable sources. If it is a so natural term, why it is not among Strategy games yet? Even a "natural" classification is original research, if not backed by a source which explicitely and directly discusses this category, not just mentions the word. `'mikka 19:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
del nn original researcg. `'mikka 19:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject exists, it can be substantiated with numerous games in this area. Arguing over what to call it is a subject that has nothing to do with deletion, but the closest comparison would be the recent discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ghost_ramp_%28second_nomination%29 where there was widespread agreement that the subject of the article existed, but there was a lot of disagreement on the particular wording of the article's title--ultimately resolving in calling them "Unused highway" as a vague and generic term. I don't think this is any different. Tarinth 21:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 00:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AOL Senate Sim[edit]

Constitutes Wikipedia:Original research, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. For similar discussions, see the arguments put forth for the deletion of True World Simulator, WorldPower, SuperPower Classic, Superpower Classic (again), Qpawn, and, finally, the page of the genre they all belonged to: Geo-political web-based simulator (although this one rather belongs to Government simulation, which I am about to nominate). Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per being the nominator. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as explained by the nominator. It's nice to see such work put into a nomination, though - kudos. Haemo 06:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: thank you! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with kudos to nominator Fails WP:VAIN —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SirFozzie (talk • contribs) 23:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete unsourced as it is, it could only be considered as OR; this would also be per precedent, per nom. SkierRMH 00:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 00:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piccadilly Records (shop)[edit]

Article about a shop in Manchester. There is nothing particularly notable about this shop, and I say that as a regular customer. It has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works, the closest it gets is mentions in shopping guides for the city. Oldelpaso 15:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Jusjih 15:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WMMartin 16:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 00:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

)project-open([edit]

CRM software with totally no mention of satisfying WP:SOFTWARE. Initial article written by the founder of the software's company, thus a conflict of interest. [35] Reasoning on the talk page is invalid and assumes that inclusion is an indicator of notability. Flyingtoaster1337 15:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

del nn soft. `'mikka 19:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability here. --Wildnox (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete NN. —dima/s-ko/ 01:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 02:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Government simulation[edit]

see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Government Simulation (2 nomination) `'mikka 19:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although nominated once before, that AfD hardly addressed the issues of what's wrong with this article. While it may be so that "this article serves as an excellent guide to a subject matter that is a vibrant community on the internet" or "the history of govsims is an intriguing one", the article on vibrant internet community Yay Hooray was deleted, and so would an article on the intriguing story on how my parents met be. Basically, it constitutes Wikipedia:Original research and fails Wikipedia:Notability. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per being the nominator. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional delete. The original AfD certainly reached a clear consensus to keep, but the article is almost completely unsourced, and thus fails WP:V. I've marked the article up with a bunch of citation request templates in places where I thought source references would be particularly useful. If over the course of this AfD, those get filled in with citations to reliable sources, then the article deserves to be kept. In it's current state, it does not. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The question is, how is it notable? And sure, the last AfD reached a quite broad consensus - however, no "valid" (according to my POV, that is) arguments were put forth. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 18:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a somewhat more slippery concept than verifiability. In any case, I don't know how it is notable, just like I don't know if it is verifiable. That's why I put the {{fact}} tags all over the article; to prompt people to supply the citations which will allow me to verify. I suspect that if they do that, they will also show that it is notable. Or not. But I'm willing to be patient and see what happens. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to contribute some more information on this subject once the AfD is complete. The most immediate example of the category that comes to mind is the relatively-famous Balance of Power (computer game) (famous at least to those of us who might consider ourselves gaming historians) which defined the early history of this genre. I have no doubt that it's possible to come up with quite a bit more. Tarinth 19:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Nation-simulation game. --- RockMFR 18:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: it should be noted that Nation-simulation game has been nominated for deletion (yes, also by me). Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 18:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this article title seems more generic and encompassing than Nation-simulation game. The fact that this category of game/simulation exists is self-evident, and I think there's a good opportunity to improve this article over time and make it good (I have a few ideas on things that could be added, but I'll wait to see which article remains before investing the effort). Tarinth 19:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It is indeed self-evident that it exists. So is my existence, but there's no Jobjörn Folkesson. The question is, is it notable? And verifiable? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Verifiability should be a no-brainer given the large number of computer game magazine articles that we should be able to come up with, and notability is merely a reflection of such articles existance. I'd say give the article time to improve, and if there's no useful sources in a few months we could revisit this. Tarinth 19:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Right. Find ONE article published in a reputable computer game magazine and I'll change my mind. You can be sure we have tried before though - you might want to look through the already finished AfDs. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
del nn coinage. `'mikka 19:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This article isn't about a neologism, it is simply a generic term for a reasonably obvious category of videogame that has existed for about as long as computers have existed. While the thing to call this category might be up for debate, the content itself and fact of its existance isn't. Tarinth 19:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Has it? The article traces the thing back to mid-1990s, it seems. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes. Clearly the article can be improved (see Balance of Power, an 80's game, as I mentioned above; and we can find earlier examples amongst Mainframe-based games). I have no doubt that the category may have originally been created by someone who wanted to promote their own less-notable titles, but it's a real category. When the Sword of AfDocles isn't hanging over the article anymore I'll see about bringing those subjects in, or just make a new and better article if it does get deleted. But I think it should just stay for now. Tarinth 21:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Additional findings: here are a couple more articles on the genre:

This article uses the term "international relations simulations" http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-0027%28198706%2931%3A2%3C333%3AAEOT%22O%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5&size=LARGE

IGN called "Balance of Power" a "Cold War simulation" http://pc.ign.com/articles/090/090970p1.html

I know I'm using this one particular game a bunch, because it is probably one of the earliest (and most notable) within the genre, but I don't think it will be hard to expand it with further examples once the article is given an opportunity to grow. Here's another more recent example that has gotten a number of reviews: "Democracy", a political simulation: http://jaguarusf.blogspot.com/2005/12/democracy-review.html

Keep. The article needs work, but there's plenty of reliable sources that talk about this type of game. Even though they don't use the term, I've found articles from the San Fracisco Chronicle and New York Times that talk about them (but if this is a neologism debate, I suppose that's irrelevant). If you want (admittedly less reliable) sources that use the term "political sim", you can look to IGN (http://xbox.ign.com/articles/083/083729p1.html). Sorry, I have no knack for brevity. Mikeliveshere 21:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the reliable sources don't use the term then this is a neologism. Also delete for original research. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is there a burden to prove the article's name or the article's content is in reliable sources? Mikeliveshere 13:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merged article on all online gaming. List as a genre. Refuse individual sites right to advertise to prevent page becoming farcical.

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

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

The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 02:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blended learning[edit]

Looks like original research -- and right now, lots of content hereis clearly original research and spam. I don't see how this article can be salvageable given the nature of the subject. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - appears to be a legitimate term judging by the Google en Google News results but this article doesn't provide any references whatsoever, so it completely fails WP:V. It either needs some references or be deleted. Jayden54 22:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: It appears that there is something there, even if it is Fully Buzzword compliant. Argyriou (talk) 08:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question The text is primarily from this site, and is licensed Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 2.0 License. Is that license compatible with the GFDL? Does copying text bodily out of a CCASA-licensed document violate WP:COPY? Argyriou (talk) 08:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I've asked this question on Wikipedia talk:Copyright FAQ#Question about CC Attribution-ShareAlike for text as I cant see a clear statement about text (images and other media are not an issue because they have their own page that can be a holder for links to original source and the license). John Vandenberg 02:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There is a link to a Wikibook as the sole reference, but that Wikibook does have a lot of apparently real references, even if it also has a ref back to this article. (What does WP:RS say about circular references?) Argyriou (talk) 08:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I dont think that the references in a wikibook can be used as sources for a wikipedia article, as there is no way to quickly check the facts in the article as can be done with <ref> ... </ref>. I've copied a few other the more useful/pertinent sources from the wikibook to the article, but the article should be sprinkled with {{citation needed}} as part of the cleanup that is needed. John Vandenberg 02:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic is notable, having been the subject of books and 5000+ hits on google scholarly, many in the title of the article. John Vandenberg 02:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problem with an article like this is that there's a possiblity that the article represents one particular POV, while those gs-hits are about all sorts of different topics. It's possible that all the gs-hits are talking about something similar to what this article talks about, too, which is why I won't vote delete. Hopefully someone who knows something about the sbuject will give this article a thorough going-over, or at least comment here. Argyriou (talk) 07:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but add references. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but add references and a 'cleanup' tag. Yuser31415 19:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 00:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC) ===David Grant (radio presenter)===#REDIRECT david grant (broadcaster[reply]

Subject of article does meet notability guidelines of WP:BIO and fails WP:V. -Nv8200p talk 16:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources establishing notability are provided. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carpet-chewingly non-notable. WMMartin 16:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 00:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nerd pride day[edit]

(One of the most politely contested PRODs I've run across) This appears to be a made-up celebration that's been observed exactly once. I don't believe this has the sort of notability looked for in a Wikipedia article. Joyous!

keep All things are made up some time. Judging from this snf especially this it seems the event created some stir in Madrid, even if it was to be only one time. `'mikka 19:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given the number of nerds on the internet *cough*, it's not impressive at all that this phrase gets only 19 googlehits. Only there's the happening/nerd rights march/star wars queue or whatever in Spain but the phrase used to describe this is Día del orgullo friki which translates as "Geek Pride Day". A geek is not the same as a nerd. And a Spanish Friki may be similar to a US geek but not exactly (do US geeks lie prone on moving walkways?), especially as they've seem to derived their word from freak, which means something else in the US. I wonder how they translate Freaks and Geeks? Oh, and don't move this to Geek Pride Day unless there's far more references than a few news reports plus evidence this is not a regular event/ongoing movement. Bwithh 19:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I don't think there's a specific criterion for events of this sort, but making the Spanish national press is certainly _evidence_ of notability. Tevildo 19:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a news archive. If this does happen again, then it may be a notable annual even in Spain. So far, it was a one off stunt. And agree if it is kept, someone fluent should get the translation right - geek nerd freak or whatever.Obina 22:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article is premature. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Getting press coverage doesn't make it notable. -Freekee 04:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I agree that all things are made up one day. Moreover, if you take some time to read the official web page you will see that the event will surely be celebrated again in 2007. If an event is created, even if it only happens once, I think it's wikipedia's mission to collect all information about it, just in case someone should ever need this information again. I will also admit the change to Geek Pride Day, if that translation seems to be more accurate. Dear RHaworth, I think that this English Wikipedia has broader looks that English-speaking countries (don't we live at an English-speaking world?) And dear Bwith, try typing "Día del orgullo friki" in google and (surprise!) you'll find 109.000 entries! Truly irrelevant, isn't it? Anyway, I'll challange anyone who dares to delete this article to a Light-Sabre Duel!! LeChimp 14:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not (yet) notable in the English-speaking world. LeChimp, please read "Google this" - why should I have to type when you can create a link? - RHaworth 16:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. I am strongly opposed to the idea of deleting or heavily censoring this new entry. I testify that the nerd pride day is completely true and there are a lot of witnesses who would testify for the defence of keeping the item if necessary. Why don't we patiently wait for the highly controversial date in 2007 to check that the information given is as plain as the nose on your face? Don't forget: nerds have also rights! EvitaDinamita 20:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC) EvitaDinamita[reply]
I'm a proud and dedicated nerd/geek/whatever. I've been thinking in binary since I was a kid, designed and built my first computer circuits at age 13, and can name all the Constitution-class ships ever built. But this, I'm afraid, we must Delete: there's no separate nerd culture, and this is just a stunt "made up one day". WMMartin 16:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even as a proud nerd, I'm afraid this has to go. --Guinnog 08:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 00:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Turner (musician)[edit]

Subject does not meet notability requirements of WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 16:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All of the other members (this being a former) of Our Lady Peace have pages. don't see any reason why this guy shouldn't. He was in a band of some note.--Tainter 18:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mike Turner formed Our Lady Peace. He was a vital member of the band during the height of their popularity (in Canada, their home country, anyway). To this day, a lot of fans follow Mike's musical career and consider him an influencial, though former, member of one of Canada's biggest rock bands.--Nikki4982 22:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable memeber of notable band. -Freekee 04:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mike Turner was the founding member and original guitarist of Our Lady Peace, one of Canada's biggest rock bands of the 90's. Not only has he been a musician of some considerable popularity in the past, but he continues to make music today. --Axtech 04:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Turner is certainly worthy of an article, and is one of the co-founders of OLP. — ^`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE^` 04:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. merge is not possible to an unexisting article Cbrown1023 01:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accept 360°[edit]

Originally speedied [36], article was recreated. Not quite as spammy as the original, but still an unsourced (other than the company's own website) advertisment for the product, no evidence of notability given. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 16:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Still no assertions of notability. I might be more lenient if the creator had done anything besides create this article, create Requirements Management that links to it, and then spam links to these two articles in various other articles. - Aagtbdfoua 16:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, author did not create Requirements Management, but is adding links to this in other articles. It's not clear whether this is truly notable software or subtle spam, but I suspect the latter. I'll follow-up. - Aagtbdfoua 16:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge to Accept Software Here are some independent articles (not press releases) about the company (360 is it's flagship product).[37][38][39][40][41][42] 360 is a product of the company, I don't believe it warrants a page for the product and the company and since the company doesn't have one, it would be better to just have an Accept Software page. Quadzilla99 07:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 00:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rodox[edit]

Fails WP:V. Not sure if they meet WP:MUSIC. If so, barely. -Nv8200p talk 16:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding any sources in my searches, or any reason to believe that they meet notability guidelines. J0lt C0la 02:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete makes no attempt to establish notability. Quadzilla99 04:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Passes WP:BAND if both those albums really were on WMG. However, sources would be needed, and they don't appear to exist base on J0lt C0la's comment. —ShadowHalo 05:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the singer (rodolfo) was very famous with a previous band (raimundos) but rodox doesnt even exist anymore!
Weak keep Searching for Rodox does return some results on the WMG Brazil site [43]. Various sites including CDUniverse [44] and Amazon [45] list one of their albums as being released by Warner. That seems to be the only release that's available on import (and listed on English language sites), but I did find one on a Portuguese language site that's on Warner [46]. If anyone can navigate the Brazilian WMG site that will be a much more reliable source obviously. One Night In Hackney 12:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 00:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ingy döt Net[edit]

Non-notable individual. This article was previously speedied as non-notable, but has reappeared. There are dozens of other programmers with many more CPAN modules, many of whom also speak at conferences regularly, but don't merit Wikipedia articles themselves; neither of the other two authors of YAML seem to need articles either. Also redirects at Ingy dot net, Ingy dot Net. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

del nn. `'mikka 18:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 19:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 00:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CastlevaniaRL[edit]

There are no assertions of notability, fails WP:SOFTWARE and WP:V. As much as I personally might enjoy pluming the occasional Rogue-like, there's no reason for this to have an article. Might deserve mention in the Rogue-like article. Lankybugger 16:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

del a nonnotable "homebrew game" `'mikka 18:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 21:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above. — brighterorange (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Lankybugger, might deserve a mention in rouge-like (but even then saying that it is notable because it is aimed at less hardcore audience isn't a reason for notability) but an article is too much.Da Big Bozz 21:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable home-brew game (probably in violation of the Castlevania copyright). --Alan Au 19:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 cut'n'paste copyvio. `'mikka 17:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan C. Bank[edit]

This is a vanity page, as the author Dakcat (talk · contribs) admits at Image:Rcb.jpg "(I had this photo taken of me. I own the copyright.)". Anyway, he's a "highly acclaimed" 25-year old film producer. Humps 17:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, copyvio with no assertion of permission. If (as seems likely) the user Dakcat (talk · contribs) wrote that imdb entry too, then delete as not notable/WP:COI/unverifiable due to lack of independent sources. If he did get an award from the Chicago Sun-Times, there's no mention of it on their website. I found only this mention which is quite trivial. Also his "Emmy nomination" is for something called the "2001 Mid-America Regional Emmy's"[47], not the "real" Emmy's. Demiurge 17:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 01:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Ground[edit]

Subject of article does not meet notability guidelines of WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 17:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both Mike Turner and Pete Lesperance were/are members of influential Canadian bands. That is twice the needed criteria for a band being considered notable on Wikipedia.--Nikki4982 22:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Turner and Pete Lesperance both have articles where this new venture could be mentioned, but Fair Ground so far is non-notable. -Nv8200p talk 02:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Turner or maybe Lesperance. Meets criterion #5 for WP:BANDs, but see CDBaby.com (copyvio?). The article doesn't really have anything encyclopedic to say about the band that's not said in the other articles already. -Freekee 04:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the contents of the wiki that are currently on Wikipedia could be put on Mike and/or Pete's wikis, there is more information available on this active band that could and should be added to this one, rather than being copied and pasted on two different pages, taking up twice the space on Wikipedia.--Nikki4982 04:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fair Ground is an active group formed by two very popular and influential Canadian musicians. Though they may be passively mentioned in each members' respective articles, there's no reason to limit it to that, as the numerous followers of both Pete Lesperance and Mike Turner would be glad to have more detailed information about Fair Ground itself.--Axtech 04:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is a word for word copyright from CDBaby.com as noted above. People who want to keep it should rewrite it fast or it will be eligible for speedy deletion, I would think!!! --Slp1 01:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Slp1. GreenJoe 01:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The text on this wiki was here long before the CDBaby page existed. If it is in fact not allowed here (regardless of existing here first), I will gladly attempt to re-write the bio. I'll warn everyone now that I'm no good with words and sounding official, though.--Nikki4982 05:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 00:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Highest and Lowest Rated Audio Commentaries[edit]

Aren't lists like this copyrighted? That is what lead to the deletion of The 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time. The JPS ^{talk to me} 17:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio. 17:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete This also isn't the kind of thing that Wikipedia should have it in. Out!!! --Brianyoumans 18:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete el prontoDroliver 18:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yes these are copyvio's just like The Comedian's Comedian and 100 Scariest Movie Moments. Quadzilla99 04:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscriminate and arbitrary.-- danntm ^T _C 04:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 00:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hasu[edit]

This article is a word definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Furthermore, the article is in the English namespace, but the word is Korean, and is not English slang, and is nearly never heard in accordance with the English language. Kevin ^(TALK) 18:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT wiktionary. However, Furthermore, the article is in the English namespace, but the word is Korean, and is not English slang, and is nearly never heard in accordance with the English language. is not a valid reason for deletion. If a Korean word were encyclopedically notable by virtue of having multiple sources written about it in Korean, etc., and an entry could be written about it that was not a dicdef, it would deserve a place in enwiki, regardless of the fact that no one had ever used the word or written about it in English. We have a whole Category:Korean terms. This is an encyclopedia IN English, not an encylopedia OF English. cab 02:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 00:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Willow Landing Elementary School[edit]

Non-notable school, and article lacks content. PKT 18:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 23:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically empty. Merge/redirect would be okay too. Shimeru 07:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WMMartin 17:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 02:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ISketch[edit]

There are no reliable sources for this game, so it fails WP:V. Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just non -notable. «TTV»(talk|contribs|email) 02:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you Google a bit you see that it has been the subject of e.g. a couple of high school magazine stories [48]; which are independent publications per WP:WEB. I'd say it's notably enough. Note that there is also an article on InkLink, which is an identical game. — squell 03:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable sources on which to build an article? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is addressing the "notability" argument (as distinct from verifiablity). WP:WEB specifically mentions magazine articles as a criterion for inclusion. As to WP:V, enough content in the article (e.g. game rules) is properly sourced by the games' website itself; the proper action would be to find sources for the rest or clean up, not delete the article. — squell 21:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources electronic or online sources include the following: CNN.com's All-Star Team of Online Games, PC World's Games Grown Ups Play. Also, Adobe Macromedia uses iSketch as a benchmark application as shown in its Director Application page. On the matter of WP:N, the aforementioned and the distinction of Finalist in The Macromedia UCON 2001 Awards (Interactive Entertainment Category) qualifies it as notable. (Netscope 16:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep Well known and notable website. --Barry^talk 15:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most large websites of this kind have an entry on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Christopher denman (talk • contribs) 17:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - the article does not satisfy WP:WEB despite the Google search result. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 01:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- At least the first WP:WEB criterion is satisfied by the following: CNN.com article, PCWorld article, PCWorld article, print version, TechTV article and TV segment, AskMen.com article, Ehrensenf TV segment. It might also be worthy to cite Alexa trend details and number of sites linking to iSketch. Netscope 05:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 01:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Baltz[edit]

non notable crash survivor; a tragedy, but I don't think this boy became notable just by living a short while after the crash. Prod removed (see talk page.) Brianyoumans 18:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently I disagree with Brian: surviving such a crash, even for a short time, makes for notability. Certainly I would expect anyone else who survived such a crash, especially if the only one, to become notable. Ringbark 18:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What's notable isn't our subjective opinion of what seems "important," but whether the subject of the article was considered notable by other sources. The source included in the article appears credible and verifiable. In addition, I'm concerned that deleting this article smacks of recentism--if this was a more current event, we could easily produce a lot of newspaper sources for something like this. It seems to be on the order of common-sense that there would have been additional newspaper articles on the subject dating to the time of the event; so given that there's already one solid source for it, I'd say leave it as-is and perhaps add additional sources when they can be found. Tarinth 19:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, interesting and notable. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tarinth who explains it well. It was undoubtedly notable in it's time forty six years ago. Time does not diminish notability and it is verified and hopefully further sources can be found.--Dakota 03:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge He is mentioned in the main article [1960_New_York_air_disaster]] about this crash and not much more encyclopedic material will ever be developed here which would justify a separate article. In cases like these we merge whats important into a parent article--and there is one. Be certain to add the article linked here (which is really part 2 of the original piece in the Park Slope Reader).--RCEberwein | Talk 05:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. in this case what that actually means is "redirect" and if anyone cares enough they can find the information to merge from the histpry and do it themselves. - brenneman 02:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The South Park Mall[edit]

Not notable, fails WP:FICT. Does a minor location in a television series need its own article? -- Selmo ^(talk) 18:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete waste of server spaceDroliver 19:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Everything said above are non-arguments for deletion. The information is probably worth preserving. Move the information to the article on South Park. Tarinth 19:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the paragraph back into List of places in South Park#South Park Mall from where it was split off [49]. If this is kept then it should be renamed to "South Park Mall" (not The South Park Mall). ·maclean 19:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to "List of places in South Park" per Tarinth's reasoning. --Will Mak 050389 20:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Tarinth's reasoning - I watch some of those pages, and was about to re-include that, but better handled here. SkierRMH 22:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question - I don't know what a Merge consensus really means in an AfD. I assume it is the functional equivalent of a Keep, with the expectation that someone will pitch-in and merge the content. Can someone comment? Tarinth

Merge as per above. Kingfox 22:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this is best handled in List of places in South Park, per WP:FICT.-- danntm ^T _C 04:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I strongly disagree that this information is worth preserving, and oppose a merge: we are not a repository for cruft. WMMartin 17:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft. PKT 17:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 01:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AeroFox[edit]

Delete Wikipedia is not the place to "promote my OPEN source software".[50] AlistairMcMillan 18:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend Deletion I don't seem to be able to verify notability so unless the software can be verified notable with citations. Navou ^talk 20:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet Another Internet Explorer Wrapper. Article doesn't say it's in any way notable, and cursory search doesn't reveal anything else either to say it'd be notable. Mostly getting completely unrelated google hits, no reviews or anything. Project page says the project was started in 2006-11-20, so it may be a tad bit early to start an article. Welcome back if it turns out to be a sneaky hit, though... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not Freshmeat, either. --Dennisthe2 23:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Query I'm confused as to what you mean by freshmeat. Could you clarify? Navou ^talk 23:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response - Freshmeat is a software directory for free software of varying and sundry sort. See also Sourceforge, which is similar, but geared more towards being a development collaboration environment. --Dennisthe2 23:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks, learn something new everyday. :) Navou ^talk 23:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE Jumbo Snails 02:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SOFTWARE, WP:COI. —ShadowHalo 23:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hang On Like that guy said,this is Open source software -James — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivekn999 (talk • contribs) 12:39, January 2, 2007
- There are hundreds (perhaps thousands) of open source projects on sourceforge.net. Being open source doesn't automatically make a piece of software notable. AlistairMcMillan 16:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - AFAIK SourceForge.net hosts only open source/free software projects and nothing else. Right now, it says there are 137,905 projects hosted on the site. (I have no idea how many have progressed past "good idea, a logo, and committed a .glade file in the CVS" stage.) By comparison, we have 198 articles in Category:SourceForge projects and 23 in Category:SourceForge games (undoubtedly quite a few already existing articles that ought to be there haven't been added to those categories yet though)... WP:SOFTWARE remains a good idea on how to determine the notability in my opinion. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Yuser31415 19:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Doc^g 21:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Kriss[edit]

del political vanity. `'mikka 18:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep useful political history and controversy : relevant to upcoming 2008 presidential campaign, see Mitt Romney — Preceding unsigned comment added by FLlegal (talk • contribs)
- Romney was his boss, so what? `'mikka 23:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may be vanity and need clean up (are we sure it is same man who is the singer?) but he seems notable enough.Obina 21:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am afraid after clean-up of mundane facts nothing notable will be left. `'mikka 23:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep being a member of the Massachusetts cabinet may not make him exciting but it does makes him notable. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep important guy in open source/open document/open format debates internationally

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 21:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marleen Geelen[edit]

Selfpromotion. Simeon87 18:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete non notable (sorry Marleen!)Droliver 19:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes fails notablity criteria.Obina 21:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete User has made same article on dutch wikipedia CE 20:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertising, and non-notable. This is the kind of stuff that gives Wikipedia a bad name. WMMartin 17:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 01:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Derderian[edit]

non notable 20-year-old composer-musician. Brianyoumans 18:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The comments below ended up on the Talk page for this AFD; I am going to copy them here, since I suspect at least the first one was intended to be here. --Brianyoumans 00:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know why this person, (Brianyoumans) is trying to get my page deleted. Apparently he has a penchant for getting, what he feels, are pages that are unworthy of wikipedia deleted and takes pride in it on his user page. There are several articles out there on musicians and their info and I feel that going to an article about an up-and-coming page musician deleted is a very petty thing to do.

~Maestro1286

There are millions of people who believe themselves to be "up-and-coming" musicians. We can't have articles on all of them. We document them when they actually have achieved notability. Fan-1967 00:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no references cited, and no verifiable assertion of notability is presented. 206.213.209.31 14:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The non-notability of this makes me want to gouge my eyes out with a blunt trowel. The only reference is the guy's MySpace account, for G*d's sake ! Show us serious references, not a review from a friend or local journalist. WMMartin 17:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails both WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC - no assertion of notability, no references, no 3rd party corroborations. SkierRMH 01:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Doc^g 21:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faktion[edit]

I'm bringing this to AfD because this article has been speedied and recreated several times. This band claims a charted hit, but has no third-party coverage. No opinion. Sandstein 18:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After a quick google search, i found articles at Last.fm and Yahoo! Music which i added to the external links. They seem like a notable band. dposse 18:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete unless wikipedia wants to become the repository for every band ever created who were known for nothing.Droliver 19:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, have an album from Roadrunner Records, a major record label. ~~Also, they have pages on Last.fm, Allmusic, and Yahoo! Music.~~ Chart positions linked below from Bwithh's comment makes it pass WP:MUSIC. Notable enough for me. --WillMak050389 20:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Inclusion in AllMusic and Last.fm databases are not reliable indicators of a band's notability (low barriers to entry into their databases). Not sure about reliability of Yahoo! Music. Bwithh 21:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry about that, I did not know the notability on AllMusic and Last.fm, I have edited my vote. --Will Mak 050389 21:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:MUSIC based on confirmed album chart position via Billboard.com[51] Bwithh 21:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MUSIC, not per allmusic (almost the lowest bar possible) but becuase of Billboard listing. SkierRMH 22:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have seen commercials on TV for this band (coupled with a couple other Road Runner bands), promoting their album within the first few weeks of release. They're a credible enough band. There are worse on here than them.TZRedGiant 02:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 20:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Avila[edit]

Non-notable photographer. Minimal relevant Ghits (minus multiple same-name hits related to basketball and an IMDB-listed crew member of the same name, among others) indicates some mentions of a commercial wedding/portrait photographer who did some teaching. The article was at one time inflated with hyperbole and unreferenced claims regarding "legendary" status as a Hollywood photographer and one-time associate of George Hurrell; these seemed to have been related to an attempt to glamorize a now-deleted article for his student and executor, contemporary photographer Seth Sabal (deletion debate here); they emanated from the same single-purpose (or near so) editors. The man existed, was a photographer, and engendered some respect among his peers, but no indication of exhibitions, multiple publications, reviews, etc., per WP:BIO. Robertissimo 19:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. janejellyroll 23:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WMMartin 17:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the man said. -- Hoary 08:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article provides inadequate information to establish notability. TheMindsEye 20:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 02:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alien force[edit]

I have not been able to find any supporting reverences. WP:V may be applicable here. Navou ^talk 19:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable freeware game. BryanG^(talk) 19:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Tevildo 19:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Forbsey 21:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 21:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. — brighterorange (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even clear whether it ever existed. Da Big Bozz 21:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Doc^g 02:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kouba[edit]

Nominated for deletion (prod, converted to AfD) by AboutWeezer, with comment: "Notability". This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 19:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

del a less than prominent racist. `'mikka 23:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-sourced and the story seems to have gotten major media coverage. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Duke of Duchess Street - the article is well written and well sourced. Notability is asserted and established by the media coverage.--Kubigula (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. CJCurrie 03:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think I could add much to what has been said already. While Mr. Kouba isn't visible on the far right scene today, he was one of the founders of a significant, if short-lived, White Nationalist organization. AnnieHall 05:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G4 by Joyous!. Tevildo 19:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neen[edit]

This article is not an exact copy though. This one was previously tagged with PROD as "Spam / original research / neologism", endorsed, then the article creator removed the PROD without comment. This article still doesn't seem to have any good references on popularity and the article is, frankly, a mess of copy-pasted random quotes. It'd need a lot of work to get to proper quality, and doesn't really add anything that would now convince of the notability of the movement... wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also of note: Some comments were also added to the previous debate after it was closed. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neen artists have done nothing remarkable (except spamming Wikipedia, that is). ALL of their articles are (were) of such quality. Also, I found several (>10) editors with low edit counts and main focus on neen, contemporary and surrealist art; promoting artists, websites. I think it's more than coincidence. Details later, when I have some time to look into the matter. Frigo 21:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of buzz about something that is everything and yet impossible to understand what actually is. `'mikka 23:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 765 ghits for "Neen art", including WP and mirrors. Smells of astroturfing for notability. Tubezone 23:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is all this HATE against Miltos Manetas and Neen? These people are valuable artists, they make exhibitions all over the World and they create remarkable concepts.

I want to keep the Articles about them at the Wikipedia. I am not experienced, I just started my account today because I noticed that the Neen Article disappeared and I was using it for my University Thesis (I study Art in Italy) . Would you please explain me how to contest you decision to delete the articles?

All my best

Priscilla — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priscillatea (talk • contribs) — Priscillatea (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment If Neen Art is as popular as you suggest, then finding other sources for your thesis shouldn't be a problem, right? If you want to contest an article's deletion after it's been deleted, go toWP:DRV, deletion review. I don't hate Neen so much as I think the subject just doesn't pass notability guidelines for inclusion. Tubezone 14:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 02:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Chickenology Encyclopedia[edit]

del dubious notability by equally nonnotable person. `'mikka 20:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. janejellyroll 23:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's fascinating, but it's a joke site. --Dennisthe2 23:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear to be particulary notable, per WP:NOTE. Yuser31415 01:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 01:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 20:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ervin Nemeth[edit]

del vanity of a good man. `'mikka 20:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Fails WP:BIO. janejellyroll 23:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All is vanity and public stroking of the ego ( and other private parts ). Non-notable. WMMartin 17:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Doc^g 02:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Nash (Countdown)[edit]

fails WP:BIO — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 20:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor (based on the U.S. practice of calling all full-time academics professors), they can and should be included. This argument fails straight away, since I can't name one single US college professor. I find fails WP:BIO to be a rather silly POV statement - who says it fails it?

There are 1.6 million articles on wikipedia and I tend to think one factual article with sources to back it up is not worth deleting. Let's not forget the player didn't just appear on the game show, he won 15 shows in a row and was champion and champion of champions of the show. I just don't see in what way this is not a genuine article. Mglovesfun 23:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second citation: Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States.

This article seems to fit directly into this category. So it passes WP:BIO with flying colours. Mglovesfun 23:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can see why this was nominated. I've read the article and I still don't have a clue who he is or what sport he plays. I have never in my life heard of a sport called "countdown". What country is he from? Where does he live? The article is completely, totally senseless. It's well-written but it's as if I would have to have some massive amount of pre-knowledge of the subject in order to figure out who he is.

Okay, now I see in the category listing that he was a contestant in a British game show. Could it have hurt to say that in the article? 99% of the readers of Wikipedia won't know what Countdown is or where it's from. It isn't shown outside the UK as far as I know, and I'm guessing 2/3 of the UK population don't pay attention to TV game shows (well, if they're anything like Canadians, it would be more than that). This article needs to be rewritten so that it at least says who he is, where he is from, and how being a Countdown champion is notable. --Charlene 23:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Adequately (indeed, enormously more than adequately) covered in List of Countdown champions and List of Countdown octochamps. Not notable otherwise. Tevildo 00:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but rewrite for NPOV and tone. --Duke of Duchess Street 03:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Countdown is a long runnning game show (20+ years) and is watched by approximately 1.7 million viewers [52]. However winners don't have the same sort of fame as say winners on Who Wants to be a Millionaire, as the prizes aren't impressive [53]. I'd say the number of viewers who could actually remember the name of most winners would be a tiny minority. One Night In Hackney 03:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We're an encyclopedia, not a repository for all information. Fails the "is he more notable than my socks?" test. WMMartin 17:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis that this middle-age-interest article is just as notable as much of Wikipedia's teenage-interest content, so it improves the balance of the project. Greg Grahame 02:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Doc^g 02:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Holden[edit]

fails WP:BIO — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 20:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable outside the Countdown/Scrabble fandom. Tevildo 00:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Given the Scrabble connection he may be notable. Please keep in mind WP:BIAS. Akihabara 02:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-encyclopedic, non-notable. WMMartin 17:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis that this middle-age-interest article is just as notable as much of Wikipedia's teenage-interest content, so it improves the balance of the project. Greg Grahame 02:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Meets WP:BIO as he's competed at the highest level in a competitive activity. One Night In Hackney 11:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has competed internationally at a recognised game. Agree with Greg Grahame above. Tilefish 14:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Doc^g 02:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Fell[edit]

fails WP:BIO — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 20:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable outside the Countdown/Scrabble fandom. Tevildo 00:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stated before, I don't see the value of deleting a factual article with sources. Two be Countdown champion you need to win 11 televised shows, that's over 8 hours of screen time. Nobody is saying that every Countdown contestant should have his or her own page, but it doesn't seem unreasonable that the Champions of the game show (55 in 22 years)) should have their own articles. Mglovesfun 02:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mglovesfun - a champion of a very popular show sounds notable enough to me, and the article is of at least reasonable quality. --Phl3djo 20:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-encyclopedic, non-notable. This is the third of these I've seen today. Please would authors distinguish between cruft and encyclopedic content. WMMartin 17:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis that this middle-age-interest article is just as notable as much of Wikipedia's teenage-interest content, so it improves the balance of the project. Greg Grahame 02:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per the championship. Just H 02:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Doc^g 02:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Wills[edit]

fails WP:BIO — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 20:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable outside the Countdown/Scrabble fandom. Tevildo 00:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stated before, I don't see the value of deleting a factual article with sources. Two be Countdown champion you need to win 11 televised shows, that's over 8 hours of screen time. Nobody is saying that every Countdown contestant should have his or her own page, but it doesn't seem unreasonable that the Champions of the game show (55 in 22 years)) should have their own articles. Mglovesfun 02:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-encyclopedic, non-notable. The point is not that the article is not factual, Mglovesfun, it's that it's not notable. We're building an encyclopedia here, not Whitaker's Almanack. WMMartin 17:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis that this middle-age-interest article is just as notable as much of Wikipedia's teenage-interest content, so it improves the balance of the project. Greg Grahame 02:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Doc^g 02:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Wilson (Countdown)[edit]

fails WP:BIO — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 20:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable outside the Countdown/Scrabble fandom. Tevildo 00:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stated before, I don't see the value of deleting a factual article with sources. Two be Countdown champion you need to win 11 televised shows, that's over 8 hours of screen time. Nobody is saying that every Countdown contestant should have his or her own page, but it doesn't seem unreasonable that the Champions of the game show (55 in 22 years)) should have their own articles. Mglovesfun 02:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-encyclopedic, non-notable. The informational equivalent of navel-lint. WMMartin 17:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis that this middle-age-interest article is just as notable as much of Wikipedia's teenage-interest content, so it improves the balance of the project. Greg Grahame 02:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Doc^g 02:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Income tax in Peru[edit]

Very little content that can be merged into Peru, I don't think there is enough content to warrant a separate article for this. Will Mak 050389 21:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WillMak. Quadzilla99 21:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Each country as its peculiarities in taxation, just look into category:Taxation by country. It is a well-defined separate topic with a huge potential to grow. Not to say that our format of country articles is overview and does not have a sections for various justice, law, etc., and merging into them various bits and pieces just because they are stubs will produce chaotic texts. `'mikka 22:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, add appropriate stub tag. --Duke of Duchess Street 03:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keepI don't understand what this should be deleted. More content can be added. Should be stubbed. --BenWhitey 03:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I intend to add more content. Peru also, is making important legal changes in income taxation. There are few articles in English language about taxation in Latinamerican countries. [[User:Kike Peru Tax] 05:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Better as a separate article as I doubt that there should be more than a phrase about income tax in the national article, if that, but it is a notable topic. Greg Grahame 02:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Doc^g 00:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eastgate Mall[edit]

Article was {{prod}}'d, deleted, and is now undeleted by DavidLevinson (talk • contribs), who tells us "notability not a criteria for deletion, article is verifiable. Notability only criteria for article improvement". Per WP:5P, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Per WP:NOT#DIR, Wikipedia is not a directory - existence is not sufficient for inclusion. Per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia relies on published information. Per WP:DP, notability is demonstrates by the existence of non-trivial independent reporting. Clearly notability is a requirement for inclusion per WP:5P, WP:NOT, and WP:NPOV. Google news contains no non-trivial reporting on Eastgate Mall, nor, apparently, does Google news archive. Factiva not checked. This is a procedural listing, no opinion here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First shopping mall in a major city - Chatanooga. Interesting article as it stands - I enjoyed reading it, and I'm in Australia. As for the criteria, none of these are particularly applicable - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which includes a numerous amount of articles on shopping malls (including many this size), I can't see this content (which includes interesting information about its history) fitting in any directory (but can in an encyclopedia), and if the problem was referencing, why was this never tagged as unreferenced (thus giving people time to actually check offline (non-Google) sources, such as books about the city's history) before being nominated for deletion? Rebecca 21:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this appears to be a directory entry. Wikipedia is not a directory. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What directory would have information like this in it? Most of it is about the history of the place. If you want it deleted, at least come up with a sensible reason. Rebecca 22:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - A town directory or a directory of shopping malls. The reason is sensible. Has this been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources? Mere existence is not sufficient, after all. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - A town directory or a directory of shopping malls might mention this place, but this article would in no way fit in either of them, so that's still bunk. It has a decent claim to notability to begin with (first in a major city), and if this actually was about referencing, why was it nominated for deletion less than 24 hours after being tagged as unreferenced? There has been absolutely no time for anyone to check references apart from those on Google, such as books about the history of Chatanooga (where this would likely make an appearance). Rebecca 22:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{sofixit}}. The article existed for fourteen months without references, adding a tag wasn't going to produce them. Five days is ample time, if the references exist. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was not given an unreferenced tag during that time, so it would have been very easy for it to slip by unnoticed. Five days is ample time if the sources are on Google, or somewhere else online. It is not if they're offline, since this would either mean finding in Tennessee willing to do so, or finding someone with access to an excellent library collection in the States (something of the equivalent of the National Library here in Australia). I do not have this access. So please don't pretend that sources don't exist - I've already pointed out that it's fairly likely that books on Chatanooga history would have information on the city's first mall - rather, it's just that you're not giving anyone time to actually get hold of those resources. Rebecca 23:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Using what sources? Guy (Help!) 17:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a shopping mall. And...? --Calton | Talk 00:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rebecca's reasoning is sound. "And...?" isn't. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 00:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Presumably most malls are planned in a such way that they're not sited right next to other malls... so most malls would be the "first" mall for some locale. Not seeing encyclopedic notability being asserted here Bwithh 03:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not the first mall in "some locale" - it's the first mall in a major city. So no, most malls would not be the first mall in a major city, but this one is. Rebecca 03:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - And that is different from being the first municipal dump in some way? Guy (Help!) 17:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Municipal dumps are not notable, and none have articles on Wikipedia, whereas many malls have articles. This is the first in a major city, which is a quite reasonable claim to notability. Rebecca 04:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources on Factiva, either, apparently. If no sources exist, there is no way to expand this article; since "the mall is presently (as of 2006) almost completely vacant," I presume no new non-trivial sources are likely to be generated. This leaves the possibility of offline sources, as mentioned; therefore, delete without prejudice against recreation when and if such sources are found. Shimeru 19:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What is with this bias against offline sources? For something like this, Google and Factiva are lousy means of finding useful material. I've pointed out that there is a good prospect that offline sources could be found by anyone with the right resources - what is the benefit in killing the article before giving anyone a chance to fix it, rather than leaving the unreferenced tag on for a couple of months and giving someone who can the right opportunity to do so? Rebecca 04:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No bias at all. Offline sources are great. Produce them, and then there's a basis for the article. Keeping an unsourced article around for months on the chance that "someone" might have an offline source and be inclined to edit the article? Um... no, thanks. That hypothetical editor could just as easily use that hypothetical source to write a new article, however many months in the future he or she should get around to doing so. And if he feels the old article would be useful, there's always DRV -- I imagine it'd be easy to get undeleted, since the concern is sources and he'd be producing them. Shimeru 00:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Unlike Century Plaza (which I've !voted delete on, by the way), if this really is the "first mall in a major city", I think that's enough to make it notable. However, I agree that some local sources explicitly saying this would be nice. Quack 688 10:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; here are some sources: [54]
"When the Eastgate Mall was built in the 1950s on farmland eight miles east of downtown Chattanooga, it helped drain commerce from downtown"

"The story of Chattanooga's Eastgate Mall sounds familiar: A 1960s-era mall that was once the place to shop, abandoned when a larger regional mall was built"

"Eastgate became Chattanooga's first mall when it opened in 1962."
--NE2 23:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's far from obvious that these are in any sense non-trivial reports. More usefully, this mall may be mentioned in the Natural Resources Defense Council publication Solving Sprawl. Paint me cold and uncaring, but even if it is deleted, the article can be recreated if that book turns out to be the key to finding non-trivial reports. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article makes explicit claims of notability. Continued references to WP:NOT and claims that this is a "directory entry" are patently false, and are used persistently as excuses for deletion when individuals are unwilling to come up with an actual "reason". Alansohn 08:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We're not a directory, and fails the "is it more notable than my socks?" test. WMMartin 17:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being the first outdoor and small regional shopping mall does not make a strong case for notability. Vegaswikian 01:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sources, without prejudice against recreation if and when sources are found. >Radiant< 10:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why kill a perfectly good article when there is no one actually disputing anything in it? I've pointed out that it is very likely that sources exist should someone with access to the right resources take the time, and I see little point in making someone rewrite it from scratch down the line. Rebecca 11:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It should be fairly obvious from this AFD that there are actually people disputing it. >Radiant< 12:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Some of those sources that showed up in the Google link NE2 provided are actually pretty good, you really should have a look. There are articles specifically dealing with its decline and urban renewal on CNN, Boston Globe, The Advocate, and On Earth (which is the quarterly journal of the NRDC mentioned above) to name a few.

Btw, Angus, the NRDC also talks about it on a slideshow page called How Smart Growth Solves Sprawl. The introduction to that slideshow says it's based on that exact book you mentioned. I'm convinced more than ever that this is a keeper. Quack 688 13:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that an article based on the NRDC stuff would likely pass WP:V and WP:N, but this article isn't that. Truthbringer's refs don't do much either, because they're based on showing that the dead mall was notable, whereas the case seems to be that it wasn't, but the new non-mall incarnation is notable. An article on it could be much more than a directory entry. I haven't actually given an opinion here, one way or the other, but I think my opinion leans towards "weak keep if stubbed, and start over". Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article needs sourcing, but that can be done at a more leisurely pace than the compressed five days of a deletion discussion. The topic seems eminently appropriate to me for the encyclopedia, if for no other reason than the statement that the mall was the first mall in Chattanooga. Stubs encourage expansion; deleted articles do not. LowKarmaError 22:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 01:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arclight Records[edit]

non-notable label — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 21:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC) I'm sorry, I'm not finding WP guidelines for music labels. If you want to delete this, please explain why it doesn't meet notability. Guyanakoolaid 10:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Show us a reason to believe this is notable, if you can. Existence is not notability. WMMartin 17:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP, this is an extremely small corporation (has published only 18 labels in 3+ years), maybe 200/300 ghits as a corporation, and those appear to be mainly citations as the label of the published work, and not about the corporation itself (thereby failing CORP#1). It is not listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications (CORP#2). Its share price is not used to calculate stock market indices (CORP#3). SkierRMH 01:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Banyan Tree 23:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UrbanBangladesh[edit]

Reads like an advertisement, strongly favourable point of view, failure to establish notability through outside sources Random Passer-by 21:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, blatant advertising. So tagged. Demiurge 21:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 01:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson Skies planes[edit]

This article is just one big copyvio from the manuals of the relevant games, and I don't think it's notable enough to deserve the stub that would be left if the copyrighted material (i.e. nearly everything) was removed yandman 21:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 21:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if it isn't a copyvio it isn't encyclopedic enough to be included - this type of article belongs on a gaming wiki. Copyright violations can be speedy deleted. Koweja 01:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Koweja. Wickethewok 19:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure how this is really notable, especially considering that the planes are fictional and probably not worthy of their own articles. The copyvio doesn't help matters either. --Alan Au 19:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 01:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Century Plaza[edit]

Article was speedily deleted per WP:CSD G11 and is now undeleted by DavidLevinson (talk • contribs), with the summary "not spam". CSD G11 covers "pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic", and not spam per se. No non-trivial reporting found on Google news or Google news archive. Factiva not checked. Prior deletion and undeletion not relevant, but subject may not meet encyclopedic standards of notability per WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT#DIR. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is not spam, as the language is not promotional and there is absolutely no evidence of any commercial intent in its posting. It is also a potentially interesting stub on a shopping centre which appears as if it could make for a useful topic. It does need to be referenced, but since none of this content is actually contested in the least, this is grounds for tagging as unreferenced, not deletion. Rebecca 21:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Promotional language" isn't a requirement for spam, and "maybe someday could be an article, hopefully" is a thin reed to hang a "keep" vote on. --Calton | Talk 00:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete maybe not spam, but it is a directory entry. Wikipedia is not a directory. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Directory entry. No notability asserted. --Charlene 23:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a shopping mall. And...? --Calton | Talk 00:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivia. The exact size and shops found there is not encyclopedic information, and that's pretty much all that's there. >Radiant< 00:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't assert encyclopedic notability . Bwithh 03:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this shopping mall is notable enough for its own article. Quack 688 10:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per original nom. WMMartin 17:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Doc^g 01:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Sinclair (footballer)[edit]

Delete Non-notable semi-professional footballer. Forbsey 21:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. --Wildnox (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 22:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Queen's Park is an oddity, but they still play in the Third Division of the Scottish league. We'd never delete a player for another team in that division (I trust!) or in the English Third Division, so even if not fully professional, QPFC players should still count as notable. -- Bpmullins | Talk 22:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Bpmullins - Daemonic Kangaroo 06:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have deleted articles for players in the Scottish First Division in the past, as it is not a fully-professional league. They are no full-time professional teams in the Scottish third division. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Catchpole (talk • contribs) 10:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, the Scottish Third Division is nowhere near notable. Punkmorten 10:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Bpmullins. Englishrose 10:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Bpmullins. Mattythewhite 22:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Doc^g 01:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Oates[edit]

Delete Non-notable semi-professional footballer. Forbsey 21:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. --Wildnox (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 22:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments under Richard Sinclair. -- Bpmullins | Talk 22:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your argument with Richard Sinclair appears to be that the article should be kept based on the fact that he plays for Queen's Park. However this player plays for East Stirling - a club which pays players £10 per week! Keeping this article goes against the criteria set by WP:BIO which states that "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league". What's the point in having such criteria if people are not prepared to adhear to it? Forbsey 13:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per Bpmullins - Daemonic Kangaroo 06:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Forbsey. Athletes should play in a fully professional league or have achieved some particular distinction at a lower or amateur level.--Kubigula (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — CharlotteWebb 11:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Nugent[edit]

Delete Non-notable semi-professional footballer. Forbsey 21:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn Association with Doncaster Rovers meets WP:BIO criteria. Forbsey 13:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. --Wildnox (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above and below. --Wildnox (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 22:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments under Richard Sinclair. -- Bpmullins | Talk 22:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played for Doncaster Rovers F.C. in Football League One and Stirling Albion F.C. in Scottish Football League Second Division, both of which are higher levels. Where he plays now is irrelevant to his notability. One Night In Hackney 04:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Stirling Albion was in the Third Division at that time [55] (check "See Anton Nugent 's games from another season" and pick season 2002/03). Punkmorten 11:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - as per One Night In Hackney Daemonic Kangaroo 06:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, played for Doncaster Rovers. That claim needs to be verified though. Punkmorten 10:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, because it meats wikipedia criteria. However I believe the criteria must be more strict and articles such this must not be included KRBN 13:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 01:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tilt_(Graffitilt)[edit]

PROD tag removed with no explanation; possibly conflict of interest; no sources to show that Tilt is indeed world "renound" Marcus22 21:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No verifiable sources for notability. Tevildo 22:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Graffiti artists, while they have their own fame, also have infamy: while they certainly have notability in their own circle, most people tend to see graffiti as an eyesore. There's also the fact that many so-called artists see this as a form of marking their territory, which (to me, at any rate) is comparable to a dog urinating on a tree. --Dennisthe2 23:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I agree that this should be deleted, Wikipedia is not censored, and especially not merely because a subject is aesthetically offensive to some. We have a massive article on Saddam Hussein and another on Adolf Hitler, and both were far more offensive than mere graffiti. The question in AfD is whether something is notable (and that has nothing to do with taste) and whether the information in the article is verifiable and comes from reliable sources, not whether you or I like it or not. --Charlene 00:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well put, Charlene, well put. --Dennisthe2 02:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.. yes, but I like the bit about the dog urinating on a tree too! So it still looks like a Delete to me Marcus22 18:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No verifiable information from Reliable sources. Edited for typo. --Charlene 00:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge as a brief mention to Kidrobot I guess he's a significant designer for them[56].. His bio is not sufficient for his own article though Bwithh 03:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 01:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northgate Mall (Tullahoma)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory. This, on the other hand, appears to eb a directory entry. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom/WP:NOT, and as it has been unsourced for six months, also per WP:V. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Angus. >Radiant< 00:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Directory entry, and malls aren't very notable anyways. --Brianyoumans 02:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete By and large, malls are not notable: some exceptions include The Bluewater Centre and the Trafford Centre, but these are the exception to the rule. Judging by its present state, the article does look like a directory entry, so it should be deleted. --SunStar Net^talk 02:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Come on now, this former strip mall has just eleven active stores + a military recruitment centre according to their website[57]. Surely not worthy even of the attention of mall mavens, unless something extra extra special happened here Bwithh 03:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Shimeru 07:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. WMMartin 17:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Doc^g 01:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South DeKalb Mall[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory. This, on the other hand, appears to be a directory entry. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not in any way a directory entry - it contains absolutely nothing about trading hours, addresses, or for that matter, really anything else that one would expect to find in a directory entry. What it does include is some really information about the mall's history and unusual demographics, including that at one point one of its flagship chain stores was the most profitable of theirs in the entire US. If an article is requested for deletion, surely the nominator should be able to come up with a sensible reason for wanting it deleted. Rebecca 22:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejucide to re-creation By directory, what I believe Guy means is that the article doesn't really present any useful information other than the fact that this mall exists, i.e., it is another mall like tens of thousands of others in the world. Nothing in the article asserts notability, unless there's some media sources that can be produced that discuss the dubious racial claims made in the article. Tarinth 22:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't just point out that the mall exists - it gives some quite interesting information about it. A much more sensible course would be to put an unreferenced tag on it and give people the chance to actually find some book sources, rather than just assuming that the only source of proving notability is Google. Rebecca 23:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "maybe someday this could be an article, hopefully" is a thin reed to hang a "keep" vote on. --Calton | Talk 00:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming good faith on Rebecca's part, it seems she's familiar with things about this shopping mall that might make it notable. I'm now qualifying my delete to "without prejudice to re-creation." If/when this article gets deleted, if you can make a new one that has some sources to support the notability you've found, then I don't think there's any problem with this article. Tarinth 14:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I don't have any information about the mall beyond what is here. I made the comment above simply on the content of the article. Rebecca 09:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tarinth. Sdedeo (tips) 23:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hair-splitting aside, it's a directory listing. --Calton | Talk 00:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rebecca. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 00:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Current article doesn't assert encyclopedic notability, let alone assert sources. White flight would have affected large sections of the city, not just this mall in particular Bwithh 03:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability, and no sources to verify claims such as "This racial distinction unfortunately resulted in the mall never being expanded or updated like other area malls." Shimeru 07:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Bwithh: no sources → no article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article makes explicit claims of notability for its role in demographic and sociological changes in the community, as reflected in the mall. Unfortunately, this is another in a long line of AfDs created by an admin who has persistently abused his powers and privileges in his longstanding battle to keep Wikipedia free of mall articles. In no way, shape or form does this article meet WP:NOT as a directory entry. The nominator, who should know far better, insists that this is a "directroy entry" when WP:NOT#DIR explicitly include "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional), Genealogical entries or phonebook entries and Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business." As usual, WP:NOT is is used to mean "anything I have arbitrarily decided does not belong in Wikipedia" by people who refuse to reference any existing Wikipedia policy or guideline that would require deletion of the article. Alansohn 08:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Further, I wish to point out that "existence is not notability", and the article is inadequately referenced. In particular, the "claims of notability for its role in demographic and sociological changes in the community" are nowhere referenced. I would encourage Alansohn to "assume good faith". WMMartin 17:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD G4. J Di ^talk 23:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thinker[edit]

A copy of the page fabio moro, which we already discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabio moro. Aleph-4 22:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, delete. ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ (userpage | talk) 22:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could this not be speedied as recreation of deleted content? Or does the new name make that impossible? --Charlene 23:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 01:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TechArena[edit]

Prod removed without comment. Prod reasoning: Been speedy deleted under G11 a week ago, although it was tagged as A7. The article still does not give reliable sources as for why this website is notable. Forum with 20,000 members, but no claim of notability so far. -- ReyBrujo 22:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I read it and it is not clear what it is. Does it meet WP:WEB? Vegaswikian 01:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11 by Pilotguy. Tevildo 03:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gsdd[edit]

The Article does not assert the notability of the subject. --Ybbor ^T 22:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Wildnox (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7. No assertion of notability. Appropriate tag added. Tevildo 00:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per author request. --Core desat 22:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mangos (band)[edit]

Non-notable band with no known releases and not signed to any sort of label. Most likely the page was created by a band member. Wildnox (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. "They are scheduled to play in the Aberdeen Grammar School Christmas Show in December. They are now possibly the biggest band to come out of Aberdeen for a long time." That really says it all. janejellyroll 23:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Going to be hard to hold to WP:MUSIC with self publication and, as per user:Janejellyroll's note, performances at public education institutions. --Dennisthe2 02:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. —ShadowHalo 05:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, hello, I made the page...just a dare thing that went too far. Sorry for the hassle - could someone delete it? (I don't know how...) Don't Click Here^{chat / what i've done / email} 20:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G7, per above author's request, so tagged. JRHorse 20:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tubezone 18:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reconquering World Tour[edit]

Prod removed by an anon who replaced it with the ludicrous and patently false claim: "Wikipedia has contact Mr. Jackson's team, and the plans for a new tour in 2007 have been confirmed for all of the locations below, but the dates and track listing are incorrect." Supposedly an upcoming Michael Jackson world tour, with rumored tour dates, and rumored set lists, but not a single source to verify a word of it. Totally Unverifiable, likely total hoax. -- Fan-1967 22:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Almost clearly a hoax, the only mention of this on the web is a few forums discussing this article. This should be deleted before rumors start to brew in the outside world and Wikipedia's reputation takes damage when everyone finds out where this started. J0lt C0la 02:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Unless the claim was made by User:Jimbo Wales or one of his known minions, the claim should be deleted. (Jimbo stuck his nose in a debate over a questionable article about Halle Berry, so, yes, he does read this stuff) Unless verified, this article should nuked posthaste as a rank violation of WP:BLP. Tubezone 15:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to be bold and deleted the questionable comment, and I stuck a db-vandal tag on this, with no sources, it's such a blatant violation of WP:BLP that it needs to go bye-bye now. Tubezone 15:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 20:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pawnee Avenue[edit]

non-notable short residential street of absolutely no consequence. Nlsanand 22:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Torontocruft. Does not assert notability. Does not even mention it's in Toronto except in the Stub listing. Probably 500 other streets named Pawnee in North America, half of which are more notable than this. --Charlene 23:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article stated the street is located in Willowdale, North York, Toronto. I think the location is pretty clear. --Smcafirst or Nick • Sign • Chit-Chat • I give at 14:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Drastically fails WP:N.--Ybbor ^T 02:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per above. One can see the street on a map here [58] - quick check of Mapart Toronto 2005 directory has both sides of the street coloured for residential only. Fails WP:N Orderinchaos78 03:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Finch Avenue, as a former alignment. --NE2 23:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating Old Finch Avenue and Pemberton Avenue. Same grounds. Merge and redirect to Finch Avenue may be appropriate for alignment issues. Nlsanand 01:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Old Finch Avenue experienced a massive overhaul. I think it can stand alone as an article.

- Old Finch looks like it should be a redirect, while Pemberton Avenue should be either deleted or merged with Finch (TTC). --NE2 02:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Old Finch Avenue's article is too long, how can we redirect it?

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 01:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Shed[edit]

This is quite the hodge-podge article. No less than five different subjects in the same article, only one of which (the song by Rainbow) appears to be notable, but not so notable as to require its own article. So, what to do with the space? 1) Disambiguate, adding a note for Prophet Five from Alias. 2) Merge the song information to the Rainbow article and delete the rest. 3) Redirect somewhere, with my preference being to Prophet Five. 4) Some other solution. Otto4711 23:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It appears to be the nebulous form of a disambiguation article, but it's a disambig for things that don't seem to actually appear here on Wikipedia, making a disambig unneeded at this time. --Dennisthe2 02:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've heard of Shed FM but a cursory google didn't find reliable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 23:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I didn't actually express an opinion in making the nomination, did I? Redirect to Prophet Five. Otto4711 00:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The radio station only covers a small section of northwestern Melbourne, which is almost entirely non-Aboriginal. Other refs appear non-notable. Agree with Dennisthe2's comments. I would go with: 2) merge song info to Rainbow article and delete the rest, and 3) redirect to Prophet Five. Orderinchaos78 04:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aboriginal radio?? Northwest Melbourne?? The Shed Magazine is made by unemployed people from Northwest Melbourne and has a worldwide distribution. Where you think it has anything to do with aboriginals is as clueless as your reasons for wanting to delete it.

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum Freud[edit]

Neologism/Original research cooked up one Thomas Frey, part of building a walled garden of articles by Dr2tom (talk · contribs)} and Beeblebrox666 (talk · contribs) supporting Frey's ventures. These include (not nominations yet, just for informational purposes) The DaVinci Institute (and its redirect Davinci institute), Anthropometric Disaster Area, and, of course Thomas Frey. Only the very thinnest of references, all seemingly self-generated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calton (talk • contribs)

Adding Anthropometric Disaster Area to this AfD, as another related unnotable neologism. Even "Anthropometric Disaster" gets a whopping 9 ghits, all of which are in essays by Thomas Frey Tubezone 16:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Calton | Talk 23:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, unreferenced essay similar to the deleted "List of obsolete technologies", and a vanishingly unnotable neologism. Google search reveals that author is astroturfing this article on all sorts of unrelated fora and blogs, practically all relevant ghits for "Maximum Freud" are to spammed copies of this essay. Nuke the related articles as well. Tubezone 16:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merge discussions should take place on the talk pages of the respective articles, rather than AfD. Not sure quite what this editor is up to, has a pattern of edits and behavior on random topics which make no sense Rugbyball 18:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rugbyball has been adding the same confusing message in several AfDs. Femto 19:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Strong scent of OR. WMMartin 17:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I smell either WP:NEO or WP:OR, or perhaps both. --Wizardman 00:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 01:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goosebumps (2007)[edit]

AfD nominated by Dleav with reason: "I nominated this page for deletion because there isn't concrete proof via links or news references that this will exist. There is also, no idea whether they will be making a new series or if they are simply replaying the original." This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 00:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any evidence of a new Goosebumps series being in development. TJ Spyke 03:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced crystal balling. —ShadowHalo 07:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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