Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 13

< August 12	August 14 >

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 wasSpeedily deleted by user:MZMcBride (CSD-G7). Non-admin close by Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs.

Beautiful (On The Make album)[edit]

First editor wanted deletion under G7, but it doesn't meet the criteria. Also, the article is very short and I believe it should be merged with the band's article. Ma x im 23:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I put this under the wrong category: I felt that the article of the band that created this album, On The Make, fit G7 speedy deletion criteria, and quickly assumed this article would as well. It has sustained more significant edits than the band's article, though none of them were content edits - mostly formatting edits, and one instance in which the name was changed from the original "Beautiful (album)", as there are multiple albums with that name. I felt it qualified for G7 as, again, I was the only editor that provided any information about the album to the article. Now that I look back at these articles (both about the band and the album), I clearly see that no one else has taken serious time to edit their contents, and most importantly, my articles were unsourced, and the band and album do not meet notibility guidelines, I therefore felt I should put them up for deletion. Again, apologies if I classified them under the improper category. (Most of all, however, I apologize for putting up articles that went against Wikipedia guidelines in the first place.) Pycine 00:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relisting this under G7 again, as, if you check the history page, I am the only editor who has made significant content contributions to this article. The article for the band that created this album (which is an article I also created, and since put up for deletion) has been deleted via speedy deletion (under G7) recently, for all the same reasons that this article should be deleted. I apologize if this is incorrect, but as far as I can tell, it is consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. Pycine 02:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by User:Selket G12. Carlossuarez46 06:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceMaster[edit]

WP:NOT a directory of university degree programs - requires a line or two on a page about Erasmus programme but that's about it. Fredrick day 23:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete copyright infringement of http://www.spacemaster.se/. Almost exact copy (most down to the letter). --~~HAL2008~~HAL?talk 00:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete copyvio, db-tagged Rackabello 01:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It can't be transwiki'd to WikiNews, which does not accept transwikis, but an article could potentially be created there. Neil ム 10:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Airtran Takeover of Midwest Airlines[edit]

This is not WikiNews and there is little need for a separate article on a proposed (and seemingly failed) business transaction. A summary in both the Midwest Airlines and Airtran articles is sufficient. (Also, other editors have POV issues with the article). ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if this is a failed business deal, it hasn't made enough impact that an article is merited. Not to mention rampant POV throughout. Rackabello 01:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - This is more appropriate for WikiNews, although a transwiki is not possible. Corpx 04:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a pretty big deal here in Milwaukee, and is a pretty big deal for the company... Needs some work, but I say keep Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 10:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a textbook example of a hostile corporate takeover, and an exercise in corporate governance. This acquistion is also being used as a case study at multiple financial instutions. I do not agree that it has POV issues, but if that's the case, that's not an argument for deletion, just discussion and editing. In addition, this is (to date) not a failed business deal. However, if this acquistion were to fall through, it still has academic merit as listed above. Finally, if the information is valid enough to be in two separate sections (Airtan and Midwest pages) it only makes sense to combine them in one article. Veritasnow 08:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This is a textbook example..." - then perhaps it belongs at Wikibooks. :) --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Touche' -- Veritasnow

Delete or merge into Midwest Air Group or AirTran Holdings which already also cover parts of this. No need to split this out into its own article. Even larger mergers are covered in the history for one of the companies. The other option is to just move it to wikinews. If kept or merged, the article needs cleanup and better cites. We don't need to repeat information in three articles! Vegaswikian 02:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If this merger fails, I would prefer to keep this article off the main articles (although it somehow manages to be keep exceeding its nine lives). There is no question Midwest is going to be taken over by some bigger company. The question is who and the strategy for each plan is interesting. The takeover attempts for what it's worth is colorful since the airline is very distinctive thanks to its cookie and unusual wide seats. I would prefer that this debate be kept separate from articles for the airline or airlines into which it might be merged. Americasroof 03:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of "interesting" takeover attempts involving "distinctive" companies occurring daily. Should each get an article? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to TPG Acquisition of Midwest Airlines - If TPG finally closes the deal this article should be renamed and focus on the TPG acquisition. Airtran put Midwest into "play" and TPG took advantage. This article includes a level of detail you do not normally see on Wikipedia (Wikipedia by in large sucks on business articles). How an Airtran takeover offer was transforrmed into a TPG takeover is notable. Americasroof 14:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this article does provide a level of detail not normally found in WIkipedia, becuase wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news reporting service. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Merge some basic facts into each airline's page. A blow-by-blow report is not particularly useful now that the deal seems to be done and, for now, AirTran has lost its bid. ~~ Meeples (talk)(email) 07:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Newsworthy does not equal worthy of an article. This is better kept in the companies articles. - Nabla 18:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to WikiNews but certainly maintain reference to the ongoing event in the involved corporate articles and provide a link to WikiNews as one of (or the main) reference for the event (I'm not sure if WikiNews is considered a reliable source or not). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cant transwiki to wikinews due to license conflicts Corpx 02:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and Nabla. Harlowraman 03:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 04:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Cloud[edit]

Organization lacks notability per WP:CORP Calltech 23:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The corp has been mentioned in an article by SD Times, a software development industry newspaper. [1] It also has been mentioned in an IT software journal Software Magazine [2]. These two reliable sources (which aren't press releases) gives it notability. Also, other search engine results suggests that their software made a reasonable impact on industry (with words like award winning on Symbian press releases), that suggest that the company may have won an award.--Alasdair 00:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup Agreed, the corp has been mentioned, and with a little cleanup, it could look like a regular article. It looks like it needs WP:SPAM and WP:NPOV cleanup in it's couple of sentences, and some expanding.--~~HAL2008~~HAL?talk 00:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Electric Cloud is a fairly wellknown product among Software developers. I know of it, even though I've never used it. Carewolf 08:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change that to Cleanup. The article is not worth keeping in it current form, but deleting it would be wrong, as it seems previous deletions are being used actively to pursue redeletion even when completely new articles are written, see YATE. Carewolf 08:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to John Ousterhout. --Amir E. Aharoni 06:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge suggestion has merit since the article has little content. Calltech 10:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McRoberts Secondary School[edit]

The school is simply non-notable. Delete GreenJoe 23:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Greater Vancouver Regional District or School District 38 Richmond, that's likely the best option for that one. JForget 00:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep schools usually have their own pages. It's not too big of a deal, plus schools always have good sources. Merge as per above is the second best choice in my opinion. --~~HAL2008~~HAL?talk 00:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN Rackabello 02:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd give it the benefit of the doubt with its top ranking of 11 or 12 secondary schools in the district by the Fraser Institute. Canuckle 16:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Canuckle, HAL2008. It has the required minimum reliable sources. Bearian 17:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the issue was subject to debate in the past, I believe that the current general consensus is that secondary schools are notable. The many, many, many secondary school articles on Wikipedia would support that belief. Skeezix1000 18:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton^One 16:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Games on the Crystal Maze[edit]

An arbitrary, and incomplete list concerning a British (cult) game show that fails to assert notability. There are a lack of verifiable sources, also violates what Wikipedia is not. I absolutely loved the Crystal Maze, but I don't feel this is encyclopedic enough for its own article. Rackabello 22:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to get all WP:WAX but why is this quantitatively different from, for instance, List of retired pricing games from The Price Is Right? Otto4711 23:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Crystal Maze. There can be a section describing how the games evolve with each season.--Alasdair 01:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete really, WP is not a game show history guide. I fail to see the need to document every little game/feature that ever appeared on a show. This stuff really belongs on a fan site Corpx 04:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton^One 16:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ARGE Consulting[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to ARGE Consulting. Was speedied twice under WP:CSD#G11. Hu12 22:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If article is to be deleted, these related articles and redirects also need to be considered: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
- That's only one additional article Yılmaz Argüden, not eight. All those others are redirects. Certainly Yılmaz Argüden needs to be deleted too. =Axlq 14:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Include all redirects and other articles and then Delete all - not a notable firm and article created by spa. Bigdaddy1981 00:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After seeing this article "wikilink-spammed" to several other article's "see also" sections, I was going to propose this AfD myself. The article has already been deleted twice as advertising. It clearly exists solely to promote a company. Not only did a single-purpose account contributions create this article, but another single-purpose account contributions began spamming a wikilink to many other articles. Both accounts may be sockpuppets. =Axlq 14:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do not tolerate spam or ads. There seems to also exist a conflict of interest. Brusegadi 19:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article on subject falls short of WP:CORP guidelines. --Aarktica 16:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 04:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TierraWiki[edit]

Tagged (and in fact deleted) as having no assertion of note. Mapping 100,000km and 4 million GPS tracks is an assertion if ever there were, so I've brought it here for proper consideration. Splash - tk 22:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I would say keep if it had sources, but it does need to meet WP:VERI. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are found to establish notability Corpx 04:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above comments regarding verifiable secondary sources. KTC 06:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton^One 16:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intention Records[edit]

If they released albums that actually are collectors' items nowadays, then notable they may be. Thus to AfD with it. Splash - tk 22:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless notability can be established, I think it should be deleted. Brusegadi 19:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Multiple claims lacking sources (per WP:V) and notability of subject questioned per WP:CORP. --Aarktica 16:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 04:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gay:trade.tv[edit]

Does not state notability. Google search for "Gay:Trade.tv" [11] returns 38 hits. Google search for links to "trade.tv" [12] returns zero hits. Google search for ""trade.tv" gay" [13] returns 740 hits. While google searches don't necessarily reflect notability, there's nothing here to assert it. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability. Maybe under WP:CSD#A7. Carlosguitar 23:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree in principle (provisionally), A7 does not cover TV channels - there is not a 1-to-1 correspondence between TV channels and companies, and a TV channel is not a person, group of people, organisation, company, web content, etc etc. Remember that the criteria for speedy deletion are intended to be applied narrowly. SamBC(talk) 23:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's debatable whether G7 applies as SamBC notes, but by the time I untagged it (declining speedy) it was already here and the advantage of this process is that after it's gone (and I think that's a distinct possibility) G4 will apply in the future to speedy its reappearance if it makes one. Carlossuarez46 06:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Splash - tk 23:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sandlot 5[edit]

Possible hoax or crystal balling --Spring Rubber 22:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Strong Speedy Delete as hoax. I'd also like the creator to explain The Santa Clause 4, which has just been speedily deleted.H^t/c 22:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Principally A1 for lack of valid context but also possibly G1, G2, and/ or A7 Rackabello 23:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, default to Keep. Walton^One 16:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Bar Radio[edit]

This has been twice deleted through afd, I closed the second one just today, but the author asserts that there are new sources that will demonstrate notability. I restored the article so that s/he can insert those sources. If nothing materializes, this ought to be deleted and salted. Carlossuarez46 22:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No opinion on the article itself, but I'd strongly oppose salting. Often with well-established groups like this it's just a matter of time before someone credible decides to write an article about them, or some editor succeeds in digging up such an article. They're not exactly little-known or low-profile. — xDanielx^Talk 23:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & ~~SALT~~ - Per previous AFD. Page can be unprotected by request at DRV or WP:RFPP Corpx 04:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What I don't get is that they have perfectly usable citations for notability that they don't put in the article. It's almost like they are milking the AfD process for laughs on their show or something... Speciate 05:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can assure you the AfD process is not being milked for laughs, infact there has been no mention of this on air, the only reason this came to my attention and the attention of other fans is through the show's forums. We will be trying to get citation and cleanup of the article, but I do ask you to be patient, and not simply delete it again. Ice9 17:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question - How can we site audio files, some of which are unavailable on the net.

Comment - I have cited sources for questionable facts, if anything more needs cleaning up, let me know, otherwise please take this article off the AFD list. Thanks. Ice9 17:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this radio show appears to have coverage in reliable sources, including Wired Magazine and The Chicago Tribune, see Talk:Red Bar Radio#Notability. The Wired article can be found here. DHowell 00:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That wired link is not "significant coverage" Corpx 05:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because so long as the article is factually accurate it does assert notability with the celebrity guest list as well as the coverage mentoned by DHowell of above. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 04:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harmonica-guitarist[edit]

Completely original research. This is a neologism and the article is written by a single purpose account, HDWitch. The article had a bunch of advertising links which I removed but upon further investigation, it appears that the article was written by Suparn Sharma to promote himself and his business [14]. IrishGuy ^talk 21:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being original research and ~~lack of~~ complete lack of sources (of which the external links do not qualify as). -WarthogDemon 22:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unworthy in its current form. Wasted Time R 22:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like something that is "made up in school one day". Loads of results mentioning harmonica players and guitarists, but not a single one that mentions a person that can play both at the same time. Wait until some authoritative music magazine has written about it before having the article here.--Alasdair 01:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the Billy Joel song goes, everyone loves a harmonica-guitarist, but this one needs sourcing Mandsford 01:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is Suparn Sharma all right. It was already easy to understand who must have created the article. Moreover, my website mentions that I created this article. (So much for "investigations"!) And to include that one reference of my name in those examples, I made it a point to first find out other similar artistes, about their styles, and only then to include my own name. For that I spent more than a couple of days on the Internet. (And later kept on modifying the article drastically.) Very funny one admin here can't find there are musicians playing both the instruments together. But no wonder; IrishGuy deleted the link that could show him the videos on youtube.com. As far as promoting business is concerned, they don't read it in wikipedia on the net and call for concerts in Carnegie Hall, do they? In fact I may close my own website soon.

And yet I stand by each and every word I said till now. If you can then you should try to answer (or think about) those points. By just having an unheard name, an article doesn't become an advertisement. I was to add much more material in that article slowly, like, I was trying to find when a harmonica neck-holder was invented and by whom, so I could link this word to another page that I would eventually create. Actually I wanted to add history of this duo playing in the current article. But somehow, I want everything to be deleted now. Because I think the people here don't seem to be aged enough. You people seem to be under 30. According to me, this work needs more experience, especially on a public domain.

By the way, ever heard of a "harmonica-pianist"?! Forget it... just a joke!

Thx.

--HDWitch 03:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Please wait for, may be 100 years, for some "authoritative" magazine to publish about one (harmonica-pianist). But somehow, fortunately for this world, I won't let this happen!

- You stand by each and every word? Even here where you threatened me and Wikipedia at large with a lawsuit if this article were to ever be recreated? In any case, this would fall into the category of an author request for deletion so it should probably just be speedied at this point. IrishGuy ^talk 08:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are intelligent. But out of so many questions, lawsuit is the only point that you are able to think about and answer. Neither it is easy to pursue lawsuits this way... especially when they are for FUTURE, nor someone is recreating this article in the next 10 years! Are you getting nightmares? I take back my words. Please sleep well. --HDWitch 10:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your simple threats don't give me nightmares...but that doesn't mean it is OK for you to run around threatening people. IrishGuy ^talk 10:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me Mr. IrishGuy, please remove my comments from your talk page. Since the threat was not in present tense, you are giving the wrong impression by saying "don't make legal threats" (and repeating it again and again here). A threat has to exist in order for you to say that to someone. And please get through this threat business asap. Everything becomes boring after a while. Even a threat.

Thank you --HDWitch 10:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- You made it quite clear here that a threat was made when you clarified: Those threats are for future. Whether current or future tense, a legal threat was made. IrishGuy ^talk 10:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... I think now I understand what you are driving at. I think now I understand why you won't leave this threat business. The rules say that one who threatens, has to be banned or something. So you want to ban me, isn't it? May be you could tell me how to close one's account, so you won't need to do even that. See? By the way, please go ahead with whatever you want to do. You have my full support.

Thank you.--HDWitch 10:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- If I wanted to block you for your threat, you would be blocked. I haven't. You cannot delete your own account, you can simply stop logging in and editing. IrishGuy ^talk 10:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is going to be at least one very polite request that I am going to make to you, to which even you would agree. Please close my account.

Thank you. --HDWitch 10:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Come on folks, this is getting a little out of hand. My reading is that whatever "threats" were made were facetious and that it escalated. To fairly settle this, I propose that we give one of you the harmonica, the other the guitar. HDWitch, please don't close your account and come back with another name... HDWitch is a cool screen name, as is Irishguy. Mandsford 11:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thank you. But if you people here had said to me that inclusion of my name while not being a world famous guy was against the policy of this website, then I myself would have promptly removed my name. But what made me REAL mad was that this guy (rather YOU all, he represents all the admins) deleted the names of everyone in the article except Bob Dylan and Neil Young. Actually how nice of me to promote OTHER'S businesses along with my own, by searching them on the net. So, that made me think that you people have not heard about the other artistes, and you won't let them come on your website too, so that makes the knowledge of the encyclopaedia limited to your own knowledge, as well as your own perceptions. Especially when this was something of which there are no examples. If there were one hundred harmonica-guitarists in the world, then anyone's obvious choice would be to include the names of the top four-five in such an article. If you have powers, as admins and as free editors like any other, then you still don't have to use those powers indiscriminately. I hope, to this everybody agrees.

As far as the screen name is concerned, my full screen ID is supposed to be "HolyDoom Witch". May be I can come sometime later... if I get the time again. Thank you. --HDWitch 12:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Ha ha... I read the last section of WP:OR. Man you people are so funny (I'm sorry, but "stupid" is the right word), that you don't understand the meaning of "original research" policy. Where, it has been implied as a filter to keep subjects that first need practical application to prove if the theory has substance eg. of the science stuff, there, you people are wanting someone to theorize if a harmonica and guitar can be played together! That also to be published in a magazine like the physics stuff!!! Oh man I can't believe it! Man, music is a field of practical application. No theories. You have to just pick up the instrument and start playing. If you can play, everything is not true, but verified, so to hell with theories. You get full marks. If you can't, then you get zero, and THEN begin all the theories in the field of music performance. Here in music SEEING is believing. And there are so many harmonica guitarists available on the youtube if you want to see. Which means you people are not following the wiki guidelines intelligently. And this is exactly why I said that this work (of administering a public encyclopaedia) needs experience. Thank you. --HDWitch 19:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable even if it was properly sourced. Edward321 04:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero sources, no significant Ghits, looks like a lot of original research. Mel sa ran 12:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 00:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quatern Island[edit]

An extensive speedy-deletion reason was added to this article which I reproduce in full below. Hoaxes are never speediable because i) we're poor on the whole at identifying them at a glance and ii) sometimes the hoax itself is notable in someway. Herewith the tagger's original rationale:

This was a hoax article placed in 2004 by students studying Quaternary Science at the Univ. of Edinburgh from an anon. IP address at that school. There is no Quatern Is. There is no island at all in the (too-deep) waters 25 miles off of the Bangladesh-India coast or, in fact, anywhere near this location (10-100 miles) off the coast. The original hoax article laughingly placed the island in the "Pacific Ocean", "contested between India and Pakistan" (this is nowhere near the Pacific), "off SE India" (nowhere near Pakistan), as a haven for geese in the summer (Geese occur mostly or entirely only in winter in this area) with a bogus wildlife research center present. Subsequent anon. IP addresses added non-existant-Shell oil drilling and a hoax ecotourism plan. Other than WP mirror site hits (up to 200+ by now!), there is no occurence of a Quatern Is. in any internet site nor any published atlas, map, or book. It simply does not exist. I removed the link to this page from WP's List of Disputed Territories.....DLinth, professional geographer/cartographer for past 30 years. (Well-meaning WP editors have tried to make sense of this hoax article since 2004, making well-intentioned guesses at fixing the most obvious errors. In the fall of 2004, a Quaternary Science workshop was organized at the Univ. of Edinburgh, providing the motivation for this hoax "Quatern Is." ..http://rock.geosociety.org/qgg/Newsletter%20Spring%2004.pdf) , by User:DLinth

Splash - tk 21:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google Earth shows no islands 25 miles off the coast of Bangladesh. Nothing on Google other than WP clones. CIA factbook lists no such island as disputed territory between Bangladesh and India. — BillC ^talk 22:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BillC, and send this to WP:BAD under the "Longest Standing Hoax" section. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 00:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would have said keep since geographical features are notable, but the problem is no other Google Hits other WP and Answers.com (which is virtually a copy and paste from WP) has a page for that, so it looks like a hoax here.JForget 00:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this puerile hoax. Bigdaddy1981 00:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:DLinth and BillC and per my own failure to find anything like this on Multimap - obvious hoax Iain99 11:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears a hoax. --Oakshade 17:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge into System Shock 2.. CitiCat^♫ 19:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overworld zero[edit]

This appears to be a minigame in System Shock 2. However, judging by Google test, it's not an especially popular or notable minigame. It doesn't seem to be the subject of multiple non-trivial works and the System Shock 2 article doesn't even mention it, suggesting that it isn't too important to the main game, so it probably shouldn't be merged. Axem Titanium 21:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Axem Titanium 22:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sources Corpx 04:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - game-within-a-game with no notability of its own. About as much as you can say is "it's like Ultima", which of course is original research. Marasmusine 06:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom, found only trivial coverage, nothing significant in any independent sources; fails Wikipedia:Notability. Dreadstar † 09:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete or merge into System Shock 2 (surely not being in the article is not an argument against putting something in an article?), but cull the original research. — brighterorange (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The minigame was mentioned in the System Shock 2 article, just not by name. I've edited that reference to be more specific. It is a pretty trivial minigame, but it's also a clever one. The main thing we'd lose by deleting the article is the screenshot. Nelson 14:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Seems to warrant a mention in the primary article, but not enough for the mini-game itself. Note there's nothing stopping the screenshot from being merged as well. wdr1
Merge into System Shock 2 SashaNein 18:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant information into System Shock 2; shows nothing but mere inherited notability, which means a separate article is unnecessary. — Deckill er 02:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I say it deserves to be in the System Shock 2 article. Jpowell 10:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Deckiller. --Aarktica 16:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balano-preputial lamina[edit]

Although this term is used on some lobbyist websites and other unreliable sources, I have been unable to find reliable sources to verify the contents of this stub. I can't find any mention in anatomy texts. Using Google Scholar I found "Toward Regulation of Non-Therapeutic Genital Surgeries Upon Minors: A Preliminary Legal Strategy" and a journal letter. Neither, as far as I can tell, actually define the term, and at any rate both seem poor sources for an anatomy article (since both sources are written on behalf of lobby groups, I suspect that the term may be a neologism). Jakew 21:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism. After similar Googling, I agree. Balano-preputial (see also Google Books and Google Scholar) is an uncommon but real anatomical term referring to that area. But, as you say, apart from that one paper "balano-preputial lamina" appears entirely in a lobbying context, and there are really only about 16 unique Google hits. I'd imagine they coined it because it's mildly punchier to have a single, albeit triple-barreled, name for the thing rather than having to call it "the epithelial layer fusing the foreskin to the glans" every time. Gordonofcartoon 01:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a standard anatomical term, as the above ed. agrees. The use in peer reviewed articles justifies it. Science uses terminology like that. DGG (talk) 03:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Weak delete I read them too quickly, this particular combination of terms. is indeed not shown to be a standard use. DGG (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To clarify, the above editor stated that balano-preputial is a real term, but questioned the term balano-preputial lamina, which is the subject of the article. Jakew 10:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:FIVE - specialized encyclopedia part (assuming that this is really verifiable) Corpx
~~Comment~~ Soft Delete - While this part of the body is indeed real, this name is exceedingly unfamiliar. The "lamina" that is being named here appears to be the lamina propria of a specific portion of the prepuce. At the present time, however, I am unable to find confirmation of this article's contents. This is an article that desperately needs to cite a reliable source. Ante lan ^talk 15:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Document engineering[edit]

Having failed three different speedy attempts, it's time someone else looked at this. First attempt: "spammish, neologism, buzzwordy, not notable, no citations" is not a speedy (no assertion of blatantness), second attempt: that it infringes the copyright at http://docengineering.com/, which it doesn't; third attempt: it is blatant advertising, which it isn't, since it's actually a discipline of computer science [15]. Splash - tk 21:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, except for the textbook this must have been copied out of without credit Mandsford 01:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no indication that this newly invented term became widely used. Pavel Vozenilek 20:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Walton^One 16:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mole Listening Pearls[edit]

Since this could be the label for other notable bands, potentially an unknown number, I'd prefer this were examined in detail by AfD than get speedied or fly under the radar with a PROD. Splash - tk 21:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article seems fine to me. It isn't written as a promotion, and it does have the stub tag. Leave it for someone to expand. Absentis 21:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It seems like a legit label. I why not leave it? -Haon 23:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not asserted. Bigdaddy1981 00:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a notable record label, it just may not seem so because most the artists are popular in Germany; however, some artists, such as Wax Tailor, Naomi, Anima Sound System, and De Phazz are somewhat popular in the U.S. and tour in the U.S. Further, objective evidence of notability per WP:N is shown on the talk page and I will expand the article in the next few days. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 01:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If notability is asserted and shown, I'll change my delete vote. Bigdaddy1981 01:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Christopher Mann McKay. Has over 8,000 hits on MSN [16] and about 50,000 Ghits [17]. There has to be something notable there. Bearian 16:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neil ム 10:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 123 of virtual tours and renderings[edit]

This article is a how-to guide, which Wikipedia is not. Also appears to be based on the creating editor's experiences and is thus OR. Suggest migration of the content to creator Germancorredorp's user space and deletion of the article itself. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 21:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Incoherent as an encyclopedia article. Wasted Time R 22:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I declined speedy, how-to guides not being a speedy criteria, but it is still not encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 22:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not really a how-to guide at all. More along the lines of the explanatory articles that one would find in World Book. In this case, rather than explaining the process of making aluminum from bauxite, this is about the steps involved in virtual reality displays. The problem seems to be in the silly "123" title (411?) which turns into a 911 call for a nomination. Mandsford 01:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#GUIDE - The article itself says "A guide to help understanding the process " and it is completely WP:OR Corpx 04:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How-to article, original research. Realkyhick 06:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to do this correctly, but I am new. I have been trying to find how to change the title of the article but haven't been able to find how, any help will be appreciated. Also, I will add references that make this a credible article worthy of Wikipedia.Germancorredorp

Merge into Virtual tour. There is already information there that this article's material could be used to expand - and there's another article, Virtual tours, that has also been recommended for merging into it. A rework of all three would produce a single better article than the existing three separate ones. (I have added merge tags.) Askari Mark (Talk) 17:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete There is only one link to this, from virtual tour, and if it's worth keeping, it's worth working in there. But there's no reason to have a redirect. Mangoe 20:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Harlowraman 03:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.. CitiCat^♫ 19:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rise Clothing[edit]

Internet-based fashion label. Fails notability, unreferenced, some claims border on advertising. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 21:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spamvertisement. Bigdaddy1981 00:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has never been edited by any other than the original creator and I would tend to think the number of places it supplies for establishes notability. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources establishing notability are found Corpx 04:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no verification of notability. --Ybbor ^Talk 20:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's not an internet-based label; it was just worded in a way that made it sound like that. It's a bricks-and-mortar company with an internet component. Assuming all the information here isn't pure fabrication, it's notable. Let's wait a few weeks for the original author to respond. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 23:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx. (N.B. Article's author has been inactive for about nine weeks.) --Aarktica 16:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Indiana Music Scene[edit]

Non-notable, WP:OR, about indie bands in Southern Indiana. Fails WP:MUSIC. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 21:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. If anyone could find sources and write a quality article, then I'd reconsider.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Absentis 21:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into one-click hosting. Computerjoe 's talk 20:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Megaupload[edit]

Advertising for a file hosting service. Not quite blatant enough for a speedy deletion as spam and asserts notability through high traffic but Alexa is the only independent source so it still needs to be deleted until and unless independent, reliable sources can be found. Eluchil404 21:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was considering the notability of this, Rapidshare and others. If nobody can find reliable third-party sources, then weak delete. I think the one-click hosting article should be expanded with a list of well-known one-click hosters, and this could possibly redirect here.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jonjonbt 21:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect per Eliz81. Jonjonbt 23:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect 1-2 sentences of NPOV content into one-click hosting per HisSpaceResearch. Notable enough to merit at least the redirect. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 22:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per User:Eliz81. --mordicai. 22:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect slight chance it will be worthy of its own article in future, but for now i think a merge and redirect is the best way to go. ----Rapidconfusion 23:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Eliz81 (and the content merged should probably only be of the order of "Megaupload is based in Hong Kong and owned by X company"). I'd go as far as to assume that most of us here have heard of and used it, but there's no real claim to notability here. Moreover, the "criticism" section is unsourced and would need to be if it were going to be kept. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge, in that order of preference (but not both, for GFDL reasons). Thin recognition, but a few sources for what it says. -- nae'blis 00:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is the most popular one-click hosting website. As stated, it is in the top 20 of Alexa's ranking of the top 500 sites visited in the U.S. See here (currently #15). I agree that despite it's popularity, it is difficult to find independent reliable sources; there are some though. It is one of the major sites that has played a role in the increase of illegal music sharing, as is mentioned in this feature article in Spin (magazine). Also mentioned in The Independent [18], [19], etc. --musicpvm 06:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not entirely sold on those press mentions. The Spin article is about the general phenomenon of CDs getting leaked online, and mentions Megaupload in passing as one of at least half a dozen sites which can serve as "middle man" in the process. One of the Independent ones seems almost to be a press release, while the other one has the look of a response in an IT advice column, which I don't think qualifies either. Alexa-wise, placing in the top 20 is no mean feat, but I'm not sure it's enough to hang one's proverbial hat on by itself. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dammit! I am not sure about this, but reluctantly I should say delete or merge as per all of the above. Greg Jones II 20:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect with/to One-click hosting. utcursch | talk 15:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN. Maybe a sentence is or two is worthwhile in a broader article, but it seems very unencyclopedic. Defixio 01:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Decisions about merging or renaming can be discussed on the talk page. JoshuaZ 17:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Lamb (producer)[edit]

Tagged as a nnbio speedy, but actually Googling the 'Lyon-Lamb' thing produces something: [20], and so I'd like AfD to take a more leisurely look. Clearly, the article is a danger to the casual reader, who may accidentally gouge out their eyes on it, but no doubt the diligent AfDers are able to see beyond that. Splash - tk 21:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At risk of sight and limb, I took a look at it. John Lamb is notable for the reasons given, but the stub needs lots of expansion, wikification and sourcing work. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I only tagged it as a speedy as at the time it had no content other than the photo. I have no opinion on the article as it stands now... ChrisTheDude 07:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Needs tidying, but a definite keep. Looks like Lyon-Lamb won a (technical?) Academy Award in 1979 for Tom Waits for No One. Ultimately, may be better to rename as Lyon-Lamb, and discuss the company ahead of the man? However, that's an editorial/content decision. --DeLarge 11:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DeLarge. Oscars are nothing to sneeze at. --Aarktica 16:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, with no prejudice towards userfication. Kurykh 00:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political movements of Romanians from Serbia[edit]

Previously listed for speedy deletion for the following reasons, but the tag was removed:

See WP:SPEEDY criteria A1, WP:NOT#DIR, the fact that the "main" articles linked have been deleted as non-suitable material already, the fact that the page itself claims to not even be a main page, but rather has links to other main pages, and the fact that almost none of this is in English, nor will translating help any to fix the rest of the issues listed. -Bbik^★ 20:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Shouldn't be on English Wikipedia in this state. I'm not even sure if it would be notable then. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 20:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was in Romania for over three weeks recently, actually, but that's an irrelevance... this article has very little encyclopedic content, and would require a massive rewrite and more sources to be encyclopedic. No prejudice against re-creation if someone can write a valid encyclopedic article that doesn't come across as a content fork.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice for re-creation. Potentially encyclopedic topic but in present shape it is so poor as to be worthless. Any (if it exists) information of value can be included in Romanians of Serbia. Bigdaddy1981 00:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bigdaddy. Dahn 09:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I got asked a few questions following my delete vote by User:81.74.236.38, yet if you check his user page history, it says that he's a suspected sock puppet of Bonaparte.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 08:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. We can be "wikized". The name of the article could also be changed. They are political movements of romanians in Serbia, so why should it be deleted? --Olahus 19:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There has been no work done, improvements or otherwise, since I tagged the article for deletion. If you plan to fix the issues noted, showing initiative and interest by actually working on it would significantly improve the chances the article sticks around. Otherwise, I would suggest you copy it to your userspace, work on it there, and then recreate the article when it is in a respectable condition. I agree that the topic may well be notable and worth having an article for, but the current quality is far below any relevant guidelines or policies' requirements, which makes it both hard (or impossible) to read, and equally difficult for others to improve. -Bbik^★ 19:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Open to rewrite if addresses by AfD participants below are addressed. - Mailer Diablo 00:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laserium[edit]

Article about a company of questionable notability that runs laser-light shows. Very promotional in nature and parts of it blatantly read like an advertisement. There isn't a whole lot of substance other than this promotional material, so I'm not sure how successful a re-write would be. Would have speedied, but its been around since 2004. Rackabello 20:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is little evidence for notability, and is written like an ad. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 20:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and rewrite I could provide sources from the Washington Post, Denver Post, New York Times and at least one California paper. On a totally unwarranted and, I'm sure, unappreciated note, their Laser Floyd is quite popular here in Califoria.--Sethacus 20:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe krypton lasers are notable, but this is pretty much an advertisement for a light show company. --mordicai. 22:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's promotional, and there is nothing asserting notability. i ^said 22:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and rewrite. These shows are indeed fairly notable, per Sethacus' findings, but the article itself is promotional and doesn't belong here in its current state. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 04:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff lavin[edit]

Professional snowboarder article without much notability; was tagged for speedy and contested, the talk page suggests 400k+ ghits, with quotes around the name there are less - it's apparently a common name. But searching for the name in quotes and snowboard* only 318 ghits. Carlossuarez46 20:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Holds no records, so is not notable. Also looks like a promotional entry. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 20:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Googling this guy comes up with few entries, most of which aren't him. This article seems to be just an ad, and is supported by the fact that there are so many external links to his site, and snowboarding sites littering the article. Toon 20:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Someone obviously doesn't understand how to cite sources - you don't include external links to the homepage of a site; you say how that site mentions the subject in question.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Not notable, I feel that he does not meet the criteria of notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Snowboarding is a little awkward to assess but he appears not to have won any awards or a major championship or been selected to represent his country at, for example, the Olympics or to have taken part in a national championship. I found 46 ghits for "Jeff Lavin" +snowboard[21], most of which seem to be primary sources, where he has uploaded a video or written a profile of himself on, e.g. a forum or myspace, or is mentioned on a sponsor's site or in passing by another person. The Sugarloaf link opens to a golf course, the Sunday River link to a vacation site, the Aspen Open link to another vacation site. In fact, there are an awful lot of links to commercial sites, including his sponsors, and even a 'Contact Jeff Lavin.' link and I agree that this appears to be a promotional entry. That could be edited out but there appears to be no reliable third party sources to be able to do so. --Malcolmxl5 21:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BIO and looks totally promotional. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Based on the strength of the arguments, and that no one has any idea where to merge or even redirect these articles. Please try to be more specific and thoughtful when suggesting a merge. Mango juice^talk 03:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nial Declann[edit]

These are all fascinating characters, but the subjects do not meet WP:FICT. Additionally, the articles do not pass WP:WAF. EEMeltonIV 20:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating

Martio Batch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Grand Admiral Grant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Josef Grunger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Danetta Pitta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ishin-Il-Raz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Afsheen Makati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Peccati Syn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miltin Takel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Osvald Teshik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rufaan Tigellinus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Merge all into the works they appear. A lot of these in-universe subarticles and lists can be translated to scattered plot summary; heck, most of the novels and games lack plot summaries, where this information belongs. Thus, merging seems a tangible solution over deletion; some of this info can be used in plot summaries. — Deckill er 02:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Many of these are mentioned only in a Star Wars Insider article or some such identifying the various grand admirals; they don't appear in any book or game. The References section for most of them list a handful of references/RPG source books that don't have their own article to merge or redirect to. Only two or three identify actual stories that have/might one day have an article into which the material can be merged. As with bits like the TIE/D and TIE mauler, I'd be happy for those grand admirals who've shown up somewhere to redirect to the actual work -- but the lingering ones that appeared just in the Insider or Essential Characters book should probably be axed. --EEMeltonIV 20:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Not enough real world notability for these to stand on their own Corpx 04:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Any notion as to what they should be merged into? --EEMeltonIV 20:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both into the works in which they appear, and into a list of Star Wars Grand Admirals. I was going to suggest merging into List of minor Star Wars Imperial characters, but that list is already 53 kB long. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - re. possible merge into that List of minor... -- I suspect most "List of minor..."s probably likewise do not meet WP:FICT. --EEMeltonIV 20:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as per nom clearly does not pass WP:FICT Harlowraman 03:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge i think its only fair that they are merged and merged well, there's some go info there. Although they arent notable the info can be written in elsewhere --₵hildzÿ Δ Tãlk 19:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - "the info can be written in elsewhere" - Ideas where? --EEMeltonIV 20:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. They don't meet WP:FICT, and any useful information they might contain will eventually make its way into the master articles on the games/books/etc. through organic article growth. --Darkwind (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Also, please don't move articles while the AFD is open. Neil ム 10:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy among United States mobile phone companies[edit]

This is a POV fork from various articles about U.S. mobile phone service providers. Indeed, the summary from its first edit is "separated sections from main articles due to disputed neutrality". Like all "controversy" and "criticism" articles, it's little more than a dumping ground for complaints, many of which constitute unverifiable original research. What encyclopedic purpose does it serve, really? szyslak 19:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOR, and per nom. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 20:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nom asks: "What encyclopedic purpose does it serve, really?" None, as far as I can tell. In fact, it serves a very unencyclopedic purpose: as nom also pointed out, the article was created "due to disputed neutrality" (primarily on the Verizon and AT&T articles, I believe). I originally had hoped the "Controversy among..." article might be a place for an improvement of the content, but it hasn't become that, I'm afraid. As Malinaccier pointed out, it's just become a breeding ground for more original research and random complaints of these wireless carriers. In that case, perhaps delete and redirect to BBB. I kid. justen 20:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is not a "breeding ground for...random complaints." The criticisms are verified and not at all "random." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.188.18 (talk • contribs)
Question Is there any hope for an article discussing cellular phone companies history in the United States (or the world)? The current History of mobile phones focuses more on the phones, and less on the companies. FrozenPurpleCube 21:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable history in this, the Golden Age of Cellular. Mandsford 21:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has nothing to do with history. If these incidents are historically notable, we'll know in a few years or so. But as it stands now, Wikipedia is not the Better Business Bureau. szyslak 01:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to the extent the information can be sourced, it belongs in the original articles. This was a misguided attempt to solve problems with POV and V. DGG (talk) 03:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH - Bunch of events put under a big umbrella Corpx 04:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree that this article contains unverified research. It could use a little brushing up, but most of the assertions contain active citations. Perhaps the individual concerns should be merged into "controversy" sections for each cell phone company, but the information is valid, helpful to consumers, and a worthy entry on Wikipedia, to the extent that cell phone providers do not want to see it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.188.18 (talk • contribs)
Keep (for now) There is no doubt at least some relevant and notable information in this article that if deleted may be lost. I think it should be kept for now, POV and non-notable statements removed, and then if the remaining information warrents its own article then keep it, or if it doesn't than merge sections with their respective phone companies and delete this page at that time. I am aware that Wikipedia is not the BBB and there may be some original research here. While this may indeed be a misguided attempt to solve various problems, I believe it was created in good faith and has good points. Give it some time for other editors to search through the information, and then delete/merge it accordingly. We shouldn't rush this to deletion at this time. heresthecasey | talk 04:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this looks like a POV fork [22], which is explicitly disallowed by policy. You should include this in the main article, and source the claims appropriately. Mel sa ran 11:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as List of United States mobile phone company controversies I've moved the article to reflect that this really an annotated list, rather than a comprehensive treatise on the subject. In this context it is encyclopedic, because it brings together related topics. This is not WP:SYNTH, as some have commented, because that requites that the article actually synthesize a position, not simply bring facts into juxtaposition. As a list, it can be expanded to cover all related controversies, and link to articles that provide further information, which should address any perscieved POV issues. If any of the individual items on the list are not WP:V they can be addressed by normal editing, but many are already cited, and most probably can be. I also don't see how this is a WP:POVFORK unless someone seriously disputes these things, and they are covered differently in another article. Dhaluza 14:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom clearly fails WP:NOR Harlowraman 02:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was REDIRECT to Ratchet & Clank (series). -Splash - tk 21:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ratchet & Clank Video Games Franchise[edit]

It's simply the game cover and a screenshot for each game, little other content, utterly pointless Jac16888 19:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect To Ratchet & Clank (series). No reason to have two pages covering the same topic. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect Per above. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 19:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect as above. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect Those two articles are the same.--PrestonH 20:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rabehl[edit]

Non notable programing director at a notable film festival. The 77 google hits on the name seem to be trivial mention. Clearly an old vanity piece that slipped through the cracks. Sorted as part of WP:WPNN. Daniel J. Leivick 19:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom, may be an auto-bio. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 19:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GreenJoe 19:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... no real assertion of notability.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, with no prejudice towards future notability. Kurykh 00:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indidginus[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N. No sources, no recordings released on a major or top indie label, article written by the subject (he admitted this in another AfD). Realkyhick 19:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR, WP:COI, and also per nom. GreenJoe 19:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and per nom •Malinaccier• ^T/C 19:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Associated with some notable acts, but these do not make him notable alone.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what sources to use to prove that I am not lying. Google search provides a few links from third parties. In terms of releases, what is a major label where electronic music is concerned? Most labels who release psybient only have a couple of thousand CDs pressed at most in a run. And yes, the article was written by me. I have freely stated that. If working with The Orb & The Shamen doesn't qualify me to have a small music-related article on Wikipedia, then I'm not sure what does. Enjoy your week & do what you must. Michael. Mike Indidginus 12:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not really questioning your truthfulness, but the sources are needed to verify your notability, which is a fancy way of saying, "Is this subject important enough to merit an article?" Merely existing as a musician does not qualify you for an article. Additionally, writing an article about yourself makes the article look like self-promotion, which is another no-no at Wikipedia. Realkyhick 16:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn by nominator per stated improvements, thereby defaulting to keep. Kurykh 00:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-rata[edit]

This dictionary entry already exists at wikt:pro rata. Rod (A. Smith) 19:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dicdef. Jakew 19:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Unexpandable dicdef; WP is not a dictionary.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a perfectly good law stub, which I am working on now. Bearian 16:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done for now, I hope this makes the Heymann standard. Bearian 17:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bearian. The new article is clearly no longer just a dictionary entry and looks great. I would like to withdraw this deletion nomination now. Can someone please let me know if there is some official means of doing so beyond saying so here? Rod (A. Smith) 18:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neil ム 10:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toy museum[edit]

Does not appear to be notable. The Evil Spartan 18:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to be notable. If page could get a reference for "One of the largest collections" or whatever, it could become notable. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 18:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not even sure that would make it notable. Most small stores around the world have some claim to be fame about something. The Evil Spartan 18:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced, perhaps unsourceable advertisement. Jakew 19:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GreenJoe 19:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable according to this local television station; Notable according to this newspaper; Notable according to Brickworld, an annual gathering of LEGO enthusiasts; Notable according to BrickJournal, a LEGO enthusiast news center... -75.130.90.56 23:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Evil Spartan, for someone who wants to remind others about personal attacks, I'd like to know what "evidence" you have for putting a "single-purpose account" tag (aka sock-puppet) onto my Keep vote. -75.130.90.56 21:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)-[reply]

Keep. PLEASE read the article before making stupid comments! The museum just opened 10 days ago. How can it have the same reputation as a museum that has been around for many years or decades. By the way, it is a museum, not a store. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.48.114 (talk • contribs) — 66.166.48.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

PLEASE read our guidelines before making personal attacks. The Evil Spartan 19:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will so so right after everybody else read the article. By the way, I was not attacking people. I was only pointing out some nonsense.

Weak Keep - per links above Corpx 04:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Needs renaming, considering the existence of Category:Toy museums. Going by Ghits, it's not even the most notable "toy museum" in Ohio. Otherwise, probably (weak) keep per User:75.130.90.56's references, but rewrite article to incorporate them, as it currently reads like an advert. --DeLarge 12:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an article about toy museums, such as the Nuremberg Toy Museum might make at least some sense. But this is just spam for an extremely non-notable guy's personal collection of Legos, including his address(!) and his phone number(!!!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above.Harlowraman 02:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.. CitiCat^♫ 01:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seán O'Connor[edit]

Non-notable, possible autobiography. Was previously deleted •Malinaccier• ^T/C 18:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

delete - does not assert or reference substantial notability. Has the author of the article been told of this AFD? --Rocksanddirt 18:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Can't this be speedy deleted if it's re-created? GreenJoe 18:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pending an admin review of deleted version, Speedy Delete G4. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 19:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This Seán O'Connor is a different Seán O'Connor to that in the article of the previous AFD. This one is a member of the Limerick hurling team which will be in the All-Ireland Hurling Final next month. Per WP:N, "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports" are notable. Mentioned in this news story. There are a lot more mentions out there. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Being on a county team is the highest level a player can reach in Hurling and Gaelic football. Regarding the amateur sport part, neither of the games are professional, which leads to frequent disbelief when you have to explain to someone unfamiliar with the sports: "Yes, they are playing in front of 70,000 people and, no, they aren't being paid for it.". I'll see if I can find a few more references to add. But, just to reiterate - and I remember the previous AFD, although I didn't participate in it - this isn't the same person. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
' Speedy Keep Notable intercounty Hurler, who is in the All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship final and just played in the semi [23][24] (Gnevin 09:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 00:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of staff of Oflag IV-C[edit]

A large list of non-notable people, only one of whom has an article. Do we keep articles on List of staff at St. Mary's High School, or List of staff at the University of California? I understand the historic significance of the Castle, but I don't understand the encyclopedic significance of its individual staff members. Apparently there was a no consensus discussion about deleting this two years ago, but the link in the Talk page is red. Corvus cornix 18:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally non-notable. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 18:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Malinaccier. GreenJoe 18:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - If there were lots of notable people on the list, then maybe keep. Otherwise, not notable enough list. --Rocksanddirt 18:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notable people on this list, therefore no need for this list. Realkyhick 19:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else; Wikipedia is not a directory.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 22:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, though cleanup and sourcing would certainly be helpful. — TKD::Talk 01:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terence H. Winkless[edit]

Delete. Per above. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 19:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He's got a pretty substantial filmography at his IMDb entry, and some Google news hits for his projects. However the article as it stands needs a massive rewrite, at best. (also, it's interesting the achievements the article chooses to focus on. Why not his career as a TV director?) Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 19:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reading over the IMDB information, I have to agree that this person is notable, after all. The article, however, needs a massive rewrite in order to make that clear. Wryspy 21:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with notability -- keep the article -- but it needs a rewrite. (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.15.190 (talk • contribs)
very very very very weak keep - Based on the awards on his IMDB page Corpx 04:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Awful movies, truly bloody awful, but notable as is the writer. Bearian 18:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas City Film Critics Circle[edit]

An association of film critics in a local area. By their own web site, the group has 24 members. The only Google hits seem to be of its own website, Wikipedia and mirrors, and pages about movies listing the group's awards. If this discussion results in a decision to delete, I'll also nominate all 41 of the articles about their annual awards - but I'm not going to the trouble to list all of those until this issue is decided first. :-) Realkyhick 18:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I was able to find what appeared to be a press release, but that falls short of an independent source. If the claim to be "one of the oldest recognized voting groups" was verifiable, it might be evidence of notability. Jakew 19:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per what everyone else has said; I don't see any notability for it.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources giving coverage are found Corpx 04:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 00:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where's Willy? & Where's George?[edit]

Both Where's Willy? and Where's George? have been tagged with notability. I don't necessarily want to see them deleted, but I want the question settled. GreenJoe 18:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I looked through the article and seems well-written and is slightly notable, for now I am just voting weak keep. --♫Twinkler4♫ ^{(Talk to me!)} 19:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per above, and if the author gets refs for the page, would be perfectly fine (I think). •Malinaccier• ^T/C 19:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is notable and even their website lists articles written about them here. Acidskater 19:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NY Times and other clips on their site are legit sources. It is notable, as "recreation" or "hobby" (think coin collecting) as described by the Times and the site's creator; CBC article -- about Where's Willy -- says it's inspired others "WheresGeorge.com has also inspired internet tracking of other objects such as disposable cameras at PhotoTag.org and books at BookCrossing.com" [25] Canuckle 20:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Finally found sources for scientists describing in the journal Nature how they used the game's site to research transmission of communicable diseases like SARS or influenza CBC, Australian 24news.com.

and the link to the Nature article is already the last line of the George article. d'oh! Canuckle 20:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I started adding some references, including the pandemic study. The trend and site is notable, though more references to that effect are needed. ( I am the originator of the article) -Dr Haggis - Talk 22:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Willy, keep george well written doesn't establish notability. The where's willy article includes 2 external sources. One requires payment, and the other doesn't make where's willy the focus of the article. George on the other hand has an established reference sections which shows independent non-trivial coverage in which its the focus of many articles.--Crossmr 22:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where's Willy? has its own listing of being in the news here, but it is definitely not as long as Where's George? Acidskater 23:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Delete Willy just because the Toronto Sun story about it has now entered into their archive and so requires a payment to view? That means the newspaper article Tracking Willy could be de-linked per WP:EL but it doesn't mean that the reliable source no longer exists. Someone with Lexus Nexus could check that story and I expect could find others. At best, you should be advocating Merge, not Delete. Canuckle 23:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the toronto sun was wholly about willy (which can't be easily verified) its a single source of non-trivial coverage in which its the focus of the article. A single source doesn't meet notability. As far as Where's Willy news section every link outside of the directories is dead. If we can't easily establish the notability of a website, it doesn't belong here. --Crossmr 00:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well above I did point out a CBC story Where's Willy so that's 2 ... Canuckle 02:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's 1. The Toronto Sun story can't be easily verified by any editor. If we're relying on archived news story that require money to establish notability, I don't really think thats in the spirit of notability. Any editor should be able to show up, check the references for themselves and easily find evidence of notability. If they have to take someone else's word on whether or not article X is really about the subject, I don't think that really cuts it.--Crossmr 12:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if an article cites a book that is rare and not in every public library, it doesn't count as a source, as not every editor can look at it. Something need not be on the web to be a reliable source, the newspaper is one of the major dailies of Canada's largest city, the microfilms will be in public libraries thus available beyond the pay archive.198.163.55.72 15:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC) — 198.163.55.72 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It can be used as a citation, but it can be questioned if an editor doubts it and no one can manage to verify it. However this isn't a subject that should be that obscure. its a website. not a historical curiosity covered in old dusty books. If a website is truly notable there should be current and readily available evidence of that.--Crossmr 01:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep George since it has been the subject of significant coverage in third-party sources (like [26], and even adjacent coverage in in [27]. I'm not sure about the Willy site, but I'll say it should be at least merged/redirected since the sites are affiliated. FrozenPurpleCube 23:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WheresGeorge (I haven't checked out the WheresWilly article), for the reasons gone into above. More third party references could be added ad nauseum, though the redundancy would add little to the article. Note that the article and discussion goes into some depth, too, in discussion of the legal ramifications of "Georging" (and otherwise handling) bills. It's a phenomenon that seems around to stay. I'm not clear on GreenJoe's reasons for questioning the article. If, as GJ originally posted, his reason is notability, I do not see why the current article fails to meet guidelines under WP:Notability. Perhaps GreenJoe could explain in more detail why the article causes him concern; this would make it easier to address here. I might also mention that the issue of notability had been discussed on the WheresGeorge discussion page in the past. Xenophon777 00:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both per Canuckle. --Paul Erik 01:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Canuckle. --Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 05:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the notability of Willy specifically hasn't been demonstrated. A single verifiable article which puts willy as the focus doesn't let it pass notability.--Crossmr 03:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may have given the impression that I had not read your responses to Canuckle above. Sorry about that. We might need to agree to disagree on this. I am not as quick to dismiss the Toronto Sun article as you are. I think the headline "Tracking Willy: From strip clubs to drug deal, website gives currency history" makes it pretty clear that this is an article that features the website prominently, not non-trivial coverage. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead" notes, If the link was merely a "convenience link" to an online copy of material that originally appeared in print, and an appropriate substitute cannot be found, it is acceptable to drop the link but keep the citation. I think it is fine to rely on it as a citation establishing notability, especially when the headline makes it as clear as it does. So that, in combination with the CBC story, the somewhat-trivial-but-not-completely-non-trivial references in USA Today and the Montreal Mirror, and the obvious notability of Where's George—none of these alone would be convincing, but taken together they have convinced me that Where's Willy is a notable enough topic for Wikpedia. --Paul Erik 22:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Where's George is a very useful site.Bellczar 18:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Where's George: The article is notable. Ekrenor 15:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have a requirement that we source exclusively to free online databases of media content. We can source to non-web newspapers or magazines. We can source to books. We can source to paid newspaper archives. We can source to radio or television interviews. The only requirements are (a) that the source exists, and (b) that it can be verified. A source does not become invalid just because you can't personally access it — if somebody can, then that's enough. Accordingly, the Toronto Sun article remains a valid source. Keep both. Bearcat 22:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 00:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Golden Dogs[edit]

No external reliable sources, just youtube and their website. No assertion of notability, and the article's a fair bit spammy. I had tagged this article (nn) back in Nov 2006 or so, and a numbered account removed the tag without improving the article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The discography and videography sections fail to demonstrate notability. Shalom ^Hello 21:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 17:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, per nom. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 18:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I'd rather not see them deleted as they seem just on the edge of notable enough for a band. Though they need some third party sources/reviews. If those can be forthcoming, I recommend keep, if not....~~I think delete is the way to go.~~ --Rocksanddirt 19:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC) After a brief bit of research, I found two things the play to enough notability. One is third party noticed plans for an international tour (they are in Canada and touring the eastern US in the fall of 07), and a review of a live show and latest record, though the source needs evaluation by someone in one of the pop music projects to evaluate. So, I change to Keep --Rocksanddirt 19:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rocksanddirt. GreenJoe 20:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSIC. As Rocksanddirt said, they have an internation tour (criteria 4). They have two albums on True North Records, a fairly major Canadian label (criteria 5). They "have earned themselves a reputation for being one of Toronto's most exciting live acts" (criteria 7). Their song "Birdsong" was featured in a Zellers commercial (criteria 10). They also played North by Northeast, which showcases up-and-coming Canadian artists. --Gpollock 21:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meets WP:MUSIC criterion #11 as well, as I can personally vouch for having heard them on CBC Radio 3. Keep. Bearcat 01:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gpollock and Bearcat (as I have also heard them on CBC Radio 3). --Paul Erik 01:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, they seem to pass WP:MUSIC. --musicpvm 02:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above sans Malinaccier and nom. With two records by a Universal Records subsidiary, and an International tour, easily passes WP:MUSIC. Bearian 18:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Closing as would be keep but for the lack of proper listing makes me unwilling to make it a complete keep. However, I would ask the people who favor keeping this below to please add sourcing. JoshuaZ 22:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turner Construction[edit]

Reads like an advert or corporate brochure in places, with no sources other than 1 external link to it's own website. Either needs deletion or a huge overhaul. Liverpool Scouse 17:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably an advertisement. Non-notable. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 18:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without comment. GreenJoe 18:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - need sources, but the company is likely plenty notable enough since I've heard of them outside the context of wp. --Rocksanddirt 19:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are certainly claims to notability there, and I wouldn't just say that it should be deleted "without comment"...-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's not so much the notability, I'm sure it is a large company, and notable, it's more the tone of the article which in parts amounts to blatant POV and advertising. Liverpool Scouse 22:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as "the largest general builder in the United States", assuming it can be documented, they deserve an article. (& the list of major projects would certainly seem justification enough.) The present article is in considerable part unencyclopedic advertising, and the solution is to edit it. Should never have been brought here. DGG (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Though I am not in the construction field, but engage general contractors often, Turner is recognized as one of the best. This is simple lack of adding sources and is not a situation of lack of notability. The quality of writing/editing is not a reason for deleting; it is an inviatation to edit. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. come on, now... 74 Google News hits in the last month alone (and 11,000 in the archives), 300k+ webhits, 100+ years old, billions of dollars in revenue. Instead of {{Afd}}, use {{unreferenced}} and {{advert}}. --DeLarge 12:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't even see an AfD template on the article. Has this even been nominated properly? Do the article contributors know it's up for deletion? Might as well speedy close right now, as it'd be overturned immediately at WP:DRV under these circumstances. --DeLarge 12:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 00:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mirror Image Internet[edit]

Advert for non-notable company. Has been twice deleted as spam. -- RHaworth 17:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom, and written like an ad. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 18:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, spam. Thee strikes, you're out. Realkyhick 18:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without comment. GreenJoe 18:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT unless in the very unlikely event of third-party WP:RS being found.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete! Speedy deletion all the way, if it has been deleted two times before and was created again, definitely delete and possibly protect.--♫Twinkler4♫ ^{(Talk to me!)} 19:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by TexasAndroid in accordance with WP:CSD#G7.[28] Nominator closing, as there is no reason for this discussion to continue. Acalamari 20:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diana DeGarmo's Second Studio Album[edit]

I have found nothing at all to confirm that this album exists, and nothing even to say that it is being recorded. The article is totally unsourced, and appears to be nothing more than crystal-ballism. Acalamari 17:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL - until it's released, it's probably not that notable. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystal bollocks until more information is available.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As one of the least successful Idol second-placers, her (few) fans are working PR overtime. Doesn't mean WP needs to buy it. Wasted Time R 22:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violation of WP:CRYSTAL.--JForget 00:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia articles can't predict the future. Miranda 16:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This Should Not Be DeletedIt should not be deleted because it does have sources
Delete. This is also mentioned in the Diana DeGarmo article proper. Might want to take a look at that section as well. humblefool ® 01:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.. CitiCat^♫ 01:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bumper repair[edit]

(They are "fenders" in the US aren't they?) Non-neutral, campaign piece. Original research. -- RHaworth 17:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Who new bumper repair was such a detailed subject? :-) Borderline spam, looks like a news release or white paper, at least something copied form another source. Not notable and full of original "research". Realkyhick 18:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and this reads like some political stance or something, instead of something encyclopedic. Useight 20:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. OR, essay, synthesis of sources into something that was not indicated in those sources.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete' Although bumpers are an important part of the automobile and are heavily regulated by the governments of the world, I agree with Realky that this article appears to be copied straight off of a source that hasn't been identified. Anyway, it says very little about the repair of bumpers. I liked the method Danny DeVito used in the film Matilda. Question to RHaworth: Over here fenders are the side of the car that partially protect the tires, and they are frequently dented in a "fender bender" (which can include other non-injury wrecks). So what do you call that part of the automobile, and do you have a rhyming phrase that's the equivalent of fender-bender? (BTW, Bumper Stumpers was the name of a game show about license plates, rather than the name for a dented bumper). Mandsford 22:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wing". Can't think of any rhyming phrase. "Prang" is generic for any car damage - is that trans-Atlantic or British? -- RHaworth 13:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and edit into a better article--possibly find a better title--if one actually reads it, it discusses repair of automobile body panel by actually repairing the damaged part itself, rather than by replacing it. This is a widely used alternative method, and there should be sources. DGG (talk) 04:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are found as to why "bumper repair" is a notable thing Corpx 04:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
from--Tutonias 04:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)to: RHaworth& Mandsford respectfully I ask you please give the editor the benefit of doubt. This is not plagiarism until you can prove otherwise.thanks anyway.--Tutonias 04:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)To: DGG I appreciate your help and suggestions and therefore I provided further reference readings and some pictures.I think the article can be improved but prefer to wait for the discussion to be over to devote more time to it if the article is kept.Thanks to all of you--Tutonias 04:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. First, AfD is not a vote. Therefore, Half of the comments below can be "publish" (there is no such option, but I'll take it as keep), but they come from SPAs and give no reference to any Wikipedia policy whatsoever, thereby meriting dismissal of such arguments. Reliability and notability on Wikipedia is established through the use of verifiable, independent, secondary sources as set out by our policies, and not through one's own testimony. Kurykh 00:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Alan Snyder[edit]

Probably an autobio. Notability check please. -- RHaworth 17:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure. This is a real person that is noted in the fields stated on the page. I'm not sure how widely respected he is. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 17:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are either news releases about his latest job moves, or else do not directly mention him at all. Very little to verify. Article written in an overly promotional tone. Notability is very suspect at best. Realkyhick 18:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without comment. GreenJoe 18:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this autoB article. LittleOldMe 10:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO horribly. Absentis 19:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Publish Jason Alan Snyder is an accredited innovator notably for directly influencing communication, social networking, information design, technology and the iteration of convergent content and strategy on and offline that has impacted billions. Publish. ~~bigspaceship~~ 15:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC) - actually added by 24.39.137.59[reply]
Publish I think Jason Snyder is notable and I object to deletion of the article. Babylonian 20:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Publish Jason Alan Snyder is indeed notable and I, too, object to deletion of the article. 16:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.52.72.110 (talk)
Publish Jason has published books on design and technology. If you contacted him and asked him a question, you would realize he is a contributor to the further development of technology as it relates to helping human beings, in particular bio-informatics. Most of his contributions in this field have been academic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.132.246 (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Publish I read about Jason Alan Snyder in the book "FLASH Studio Secrets" published by Wiley back in 2001. He and his work is profiled in that book. I still have it. there's even a picture of him in the book. A few years after that I saw him speak at Virtual Worlds conference. He is the real thing.12.180.200.115 02:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Publish I have personally worked with Jason and have witnessed the growing sphere of his influence in technology and futurism grow over the years. He has written about, lectured on and developed technology solutions which have made their way into the modern lexicon. I feel this is a useful entry in weaving together those notable people and concepts which contribute to the fields of virtual worlds, futurism, technology and marketing.Freejade 16:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete I am a student at Temple University in the School of Communication and I have attended two lectures by Mr. Snyder. The work he has done with "augmented reality" and mobile technology in the context of "physical world connections" is absolutely notable. He is an accredited and genuine technology innovator. Keep the listing. Owl90 17:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Publish I've read up on Jason's work as well and have stayed abreast of developments throughout, and can attest to his reputation within the fields of futurism and marketing.
Publish I have just added a New York Times article I found with the headline "PEOPLE...OF NOTE." I have to imagine even the most ardent of Wikipedia editors considers the New York Times a reliable source. The article profiles Jason (among others), as a person of "Note." Hopefully, this will satisfy the need for notability from a "reliable source." 24.187.152.136 03:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 00:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Statton[edit]

Non-notable, no mention on the web that I can find. No citation for information given, and no reference found on the website of the Choir of London (mentioned in the article). Chrisd87 17:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like a bio to me. Also, per nom. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 17:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without comment. GreenJoe 18:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think "her commitments to the advancement of household general tidiness theory" says it all. DCEdwards1966 19:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No real assertion of notability, should have been an A7.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Fairly shouts vanity bio. --mordicai. 22:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Smells like a hoax here as 0 Google hits that mentions of an Australian or British site with that name.--JForget 00:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, I think a CSD fits this crap rather than an AFD. @pple 04:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete given that this is most likely a hoax, we may as well expedite this one. Yamaguchi先生 04:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice on later re-creation if reliable sources appear. — TKD::Talk 01:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Joshpe[edit]

There is very little evidence of notability, and appears to be self-promotion. ETA: No page in the main namespace links to Brett Joshpe. john k 17:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. May be an auto-bio, but it does mention a book, which would make him potentially notable. It just needs to be wikified right? •Malinaccier• ^T/C 17:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The book has not yet been published, and, so far as I can tell, its publication cannot be confirmed - we are taking it on faith that this is true. If the book is published, we can bring back the article. john k 18:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deroy Murdock here. I posted the page on Brett Joshpe, a colleague of mine in New York City. As I indicated in the edit section of the Joshpe article, he is co-authoring a political book forthcoming from Simon & Schuster. He also is selling Max Yasgur's farm, site of the 1969 Woodstock Music & Arts Festival, whose 38th anniversary is this week. As requested, I linked to a CNN article and another from the Washington Times as references. I have improved this article as I was asked. I believe Brett Joshpe is notable, and I object to this article's proposed deletion. -- Thank you, Deroy MurdockMurdock2000 17:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC) [I'll assume this counts as a Keep from the article's principal creator. john k 18:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)][reply]
Being the real estate agent on a famous property is not, I think, sufficient to qualify as notable, although reasonable people might differ on that. john k 18:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Wouldn't this be a conflict of interest problem here? Realkyhick 18:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The book is yet to be published, no verification aside from the Fox News story, just doesn't pass the notability test yet. Maybe later. Realkyhick 18:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without comment. GreenJoe 18:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now; if the book comes out and is received in a strong enough manner to get it coverage from a wide range of reliable sources, notability might be passed, but right now I don't feel he meets WP:BIO. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leonid Savin[edit]

Not notabe and looks like self-promotion of unknown journalist. All his accomplishments are that he is a member of the Eurasian party. Do all journalists merit an article in Wikipedia? --Hillock65 17:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GreenJoe 18:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, probably auto-bio. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 19:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per everyone else, no real assertions of notability.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not reference to any sources. There are a handful of ghits for that name[29] but there appear to be no reliable third party sources. The two external links appear to be to an extreme Ukrainian political party and the second to a page about a summer camp held by this party on which a picture of Savin appears among many others (it is near the bottom of the page!). Notability requires multiple, reliable, independent sources but I find none. --Malcolmxl5 22:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep maybe not the MOST notable guy, but if other sources could be dug up...--mordicai. 22:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are found Corpx 04:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 string theory. — TKD::Talk 03:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why 10 dimensions?[edit]

Reads like an essay so is not encyclopedic. It seems to aim at promoting the Hyperspace book, and the subject matter is better explored on the String theory page. h2g2bob (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR. GreenJoe 18:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced originally researched content fork.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into string theory or something else that I don't understand, with a cite to the Hyperspace book. This does seem to come close to explaining multidimensional space, so it's not all bad. Mandsford 22:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mandsford. --Bduke 03:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- Bduke 03:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything worth keeping with string theory. A separate Extra dimensions in string theory, split off from the main string theory article, might also be a good idea. --Starwed 06:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, then merge and redirect as necessary in the usual way. Yes, this article probably has some original research, and yes its encyclopedic tone is lacking, and yes the title is no good. But—and for what it's worth, this is my evaluation as a physicist—it has useful content that may contribute to other articles. This is a wiki, people! Use it that way! -- SCZenz 12:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree exactly with SCZenz. The article has plenty of problems, but it also has valuable content that should not be deleted until someone has gotten around to working it into other articles.PhysPhD 19:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into string theory. This is not to say that this should not be done in a deliberate fashion per SCZenz, but I cannot endorse this article's long-term retention in Wikipedia. --EMS | Talk 20:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge non-OR parts into string theory or Hyperspace (book). Does not merit a separate article. Gandalf61 10:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete Anything useful can be merged into the String Theory (flag to some of the established contributors to the ST article to have a look and take what is useful), otherwise delete. We really can't have open-ended articles like this floating about - it isn't in an encyclopaedic style to have an article entitled "Why xyz?" - otherwise we will just have Why does the earth not fall into the Sun? or Why do cows moo? - we are an encyclo. not a Q&A site - that is what the helpdesks are for. That is me AGF - if I weren't to then I would say it was some viral marketing campaign for a catchphrase of a book and it should be deleted ASAP. SFC9394 19:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Louis-area English[edit]

Looks like all original research. I don't know that this is very accurate, and I see another editor has expressed the same concern on the talk page. This must either be properly sourced, or it needs to go away. Friday (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect. Unreferenced and it looks like it has been for a while. The article claims it is a variant of the midwestern dialect, and if that is the case it might warrant a mention - I can find it on a few lists such as [30] or some studies which indicate that St. Louis might be something of a linguistic aberration [31] but I can't get a hold of anything substantive that warrants a seperate article. What is here appears to be largely original research. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems more like the southern drawl found all over Missouri. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 17:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, no verification, not notable. Realkyhick 18:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GreenJoe 18:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR, would not hold anything against a sourced recreation however.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Call the Post-Dispatch No doubt, somebody else has made these observations about the linguistic peculiarities of St. Louis. H.L. Mencken used to write about stuff like this, and if you can find a source, it's actually worth keeping. At the moment, however, they're right-- it's "original research", which is Wikipedian for your own personal observations. The problem with "O.R.", which all editors have been guilty of at some point, is that we have to take your word for it if there's not a source. Mandsford 22:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Realkyhick's argument.--JForget 00:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a native of St. Louis, and the linguistic observations in the article are essentially accurate, although most of the peculiarities seem to be dying out, and individually many of them are not confined to St. Louis. My mother, from South St. Louis, indeed says "zink" and "warsh", and the "Farty-far" pronunciation is discussed in the second source cited by Arkyan above: "The most remarkable of these is a merger of /ahr/ and /ohr/ in card and cord, usually at the level of the mid vowel. This merger appears to be waning among younger speakers, and the vowel system seems to be shifting even more in the direction of the Inland North." Nevertheless, I'm not sure that there's enough for an article even if it were all sourced, so I'll say weak delete. Deor 00:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm from STL and love it here, yet this is 100% OR and has no place on Wikipedia. Gamer83 20:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 User:Splash. Non-admin closure. Iain99 22:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Bean 3[edit]

{{Prod}} was removed. Probable WP:HOAX. No such movie exists yet as far as I can tell. No reliable sources or verifibility. WP:CRYSTAL violation as well. — Moe ε 16:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and there are no sources to reliably provide any information about this movie; no prejudice against recreation if and when the movie is made and reliable sources become available. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Speedy Delete ~~although there seems to be a Mister Bean 3, there's very little info on which to build an article.~~ per comment from Marwood.--Sethacus 16:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is the 3rd volume of the Mr Bean TV series, not a third Mr Bean movie. Marwood 20:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A1 --Closedmouth 16:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as above. Marwood 16:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speediest delete possible. Hoax, no verification, no nothing. Realkyhick 18:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:HOAX and no verifiability/reliable sources.--PrestonH 20:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. and just for the record, Rowan Atkinson has confirmed there will be no more bean, ever--Jac16888 20:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator of this article, User:Physik has been indefintely blocked for creating hoaxes, making personal attacks and vandalism. This editor had a history of creating hoax articles like Halo 3: Battle on Venus, etc. — Moe ε 21:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The panelist[edit]

A non-notable website; most of the 56 Google hits are for NN blogs, podcast directories and Flickr streams. I've AFD'd it because it was previously tagged for speedy deletion as spam by another editor. The tag was removed without comment by an (almost) single-purpose account (here). The creator is also a single-purpose account and based on username, may have a WP:COI --kateshortforbob 15:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Non-notable blog. Realkyhick 18:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete again, meets A7 easily.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents where aircraft were used as weapons[edit]

Created by Orville Eastland in Feb 2006 with the promise of "Further information to come". 18 months later we are still waiting. This is an unsourced orphan using original research. We should lay it to rest. SilkTork 15:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally unsourced, and nobody has updated it in quite a while. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 15:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsources as stated previously, and the inclusion criteria are vague. It's fairly easy to make the statement that an aircraft is used as a weapon regularly, ie. a weapon of war. A gun fires bullets, an aircraft fires rockets - something of a strained analogy but there you have it. I understand this article to mean cases where the aircraft itself was used to inflict physical damage directly, but even then .. unsourced and unverified. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listcruft that died on the vine. No further information to come. Realkyhick 18:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and it's missing alot from various wars, such as Joe Kennedy's flying bomb, the use of Glouster Comets to tip the wings of V1s, etc. 132.205.44.5 21:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although this should be deleted because it hasn't prgressed very far in more than a year, the idea itself is actually quite sound. I hope that someone will adopt this orphan and bring it back. As with the Wikipedia article The trombone as a percussion instrument it could be an informative piece about an unorthodox use of a device. Mandsford 22:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Malinaccier.JForget 00:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Replace with a category if incidents are notable on their own Corpx 04:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as copyright violation from http://www.osa.nyu.edu/pb/, as found by Haon. There were also unaddressed notability concerns. — TKD::Talk 01:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NYU Program Board[edit]

Does not assert notability beyond its own existence (which nearly every major college & university has). See no reason this particular campus group merits an encyclopedia article beyond mention in NYU's main article. ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No more notable than any other such board at any other college. Realkyhick 18:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without comment. GreenJoe 18:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm pretty sure this is a copy-edit. Check out the left column [32]. -Haon 23:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with NYU and some trimming.--JForget 00:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

===Scream Four===Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vermontcentric

Film scheduled for a minimum of two years in the future, with no sourcing or details. WP:CRYSTAL. Otto4711 15:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 15:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Create article when more information becomes available. Useight 15:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Check out the extensive deletion log for Scream 4. If this article is deleted, I recommend salt as well (and for Scream 4 if it isn't already). Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 15:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Axe it as total speculation. It might also be wise to salt and ensure this article doesn't come back .. unlike certain tired old "horror" movie concepts :/ ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chain saw with salt. This may approach a record for most deletions of a title. I hope this will be the last. Realkyhick 18:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The cheesy humor is killing me. Slaughtering me with laughter... -Haon 00:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both. Kurykh 00:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hillier[edit]

AfDs for this article:

No indication of notability or verifiability, and apparent conflict of interest with the creator of this article (User:Mattishq) also working on other obviously related articles (Mark Hillier, adding a self-referential section to Ishq). It all rings of VSCA to me. Also nominating:

for basically the same reasons - lack of verifiability. Arguably they may pass WP:MUSIC, but there is not a single source cited or found for either. It should also be noted that other editors, User:Mike Indidginus and User:MichaelDidg have created or worked on several articles closely related to this "Ishq" group (Indidginus, Open System (music)). Again, this smacks of self-promotion, and between them these articles are bordering on being a walled garden. ~Matticus ^T_C 14:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional. And I now note, having created the AfD using Twinkle, that this is not the first time the article has been AfDed, apparently by User:Matt Hillier which is a single-purpose account. I'm not sure what to make of this, really... ~Matticus ^T_C 15:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. No reliable sources. I don't see how either could pass WP:MUSIC. Additionally, take a look at the Mark Hillier article. Halfway through, it refers to Mark as "Matt". Oops?--Sethacus 16:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Matt entering the info about himself a problem? It's all factual info, & I'm sure there are ambient enthusiasts out there who would be interested in the page... The same thing can be said for my own page (Indidginus). What is the problem with the artist themself putting up the info? I could understand it if I told everyone to listen to my music or rubbished other peoples, but that isn't the case. What is the difference between this page (or my page) & say the page on Simon Posford or Ott? The information is factual on both pages & written in a similar fashion... Anyway, thanks for your input & hope to hear back from you. -- Mike Indidginus 17:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping an article. Just because your information is factual does not make you notable. Realkyhick 18:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. First of all, Wikipedia is not MySpace. Writing about yourself (outside your user page) is strongly discouraged. The nub of the problem, though, is verifiability. Unless the information can be verified by referring to independent reliable sources (e.g. music reviews, magazine/website articles, etc., NOT self-published sources like blogs) then who is to say it's true? Just saying "it's correct because I am this person" (or "I know this person") is not good enough. I could tell you my shoe size is 12 and my favourite food is curry, but can I prove it? WP:V is one of those immutable policies without which Wikipedia simply cannot function. ~Matticus ^T_C 20:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per WP:COI and WP:NOR, and per nom. GreenJoe 18:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No reliable sources, fails WP:MUSIC big time. I'll likely nominate Indidginus for AfD, too. Realkyhick 19:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both; I don't feel the artist meets WP:MUSIC at this time. If someone comes up with some good reliable sources to indicate otherwise, I'd be happy to change my mind. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for your thoughts. Please do as you see fit. Thanks again for the input. Michael.

Mike Indidginus 11:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vermontcentric[edit]

Unreferenced, apparently pointless article. "Something-centric" means a narrow focus on "something". There is no reason to pick out Vermont for its own article. NawlinWiki 14:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In the interests of openness and disclosure, I had originally prodded this article for the reason given in the nomination. Marwood 16:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Why not Michigancentric, or Californiacentric? The article in the See also section covers everything. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 18:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, notability, and WP:NEO. "The Great State of Vermont will not apologize for its cheese!" Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 19:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DCEdwards1966 19:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't want to come across as nitpickcentric, but the nonsensecentricity of this article makes me want to perform an asscentric kick on its author. --Targeman 20:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletecentric per everyone above. Almost as useless as C-town Mandsford 22:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, exapand, spread globally Vermont will not be mocked. CApitol3 19:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If unchecked, the exapansion could cover the free world behind a Maple Syrup Curtain.
Weak delete, if anything, we could post the details to Vermont if this term is commonly accepted. VoltronForce 00:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge? with the article Creeping Global Vermontism ? CApitol3 22:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sandlot 4[edit]

Probable WP:HOAX. No such movie exists yet as far as I can tell. No reliable sources or verifibility. WP:CRYSTAL violation as well. — Moe ε 14:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost no true GHits, and per nom. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 15:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. -Haon 00:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really bad article several blatant violations.--JForget 00:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unattributed. Carlosguitar 00:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Bond gun barrel sequence[edit]

Minor topic though certainly memorable. This is unsourced and appears to be original research. There's a temptation to let it slip because the article is quite appealing, but it appears to be essentially fan trivia. Borderline possibly, but certainly worth a discussion. The relevant section within the main article appears to say enough: [33]. SilkTork 14:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I suggest a merge into James Bond article. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 15:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs references for sure, but so iconic it surely is notable. I'm inclined to disagree that an article on the subject is "fan trivia", and consider an article sustainable. --Canley 15:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and do not merge Very iconic, and too much info for the Bond article, which is why it's separate. And the complainant needs to be more specific about what "references" are needed. Much of the information comes from the films themselves, which are verifiable. Baseball Bugs 16:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence calls the sequence "iconic" - that comes from the editors of the article. That, and the rest of the article, need independent references to support such assertions. That something exists is not enough - it has to be independently verifiable. That an editor has an opinion which is shared by a group of other editors is not enough - the opinion needs to be proved and backed up by sources. That's one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia. My suggestion is that this article is an unsourced original essay in the sense that people have seen the movies and formed their own view on the importance, notability and iconography of the sequence without reference to anything other than the films themselves - this is against the founding principles of Wikipedia. It's worth reading Wiki's own article on itself Wikipedia to remind ourselves now and again that Wiki is criticised for "its susceptibility to .... unverified information, uneven quality, systemic bias and inconsistencies, and for favoring consensus over credentials in its editorial process." And, for the record, I am not complaining, I am raising the issue of the verifiability of this article in a neutral manner. SilkTork 19:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look up the description of Icon. Every one of the "official" James Bond films has begun with this sequence. Call it iconic, call it a "signature", call it "standard", whatever. Baseball Bugs 23:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it isn't iconic. I agree it is. My point is that if any of us as editors wishes to say that something is iconic we need evidence beyond our own opinions to back up what we say. You asked me to be specific about what references were needed, I gave an example from the first sentence. I wasn't implying the films aren't iconic, but that the statement was unreferenced. SilkTork 07:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure a reference could be found, but if it obviously fits the definition of the word "iconic", I question the need for it. It could easily be redefined as the James Bond "signature", which is easily verifiable because it appears at the beginning of every official Bond film. Or it could simply say "this appears at the beginning of every official Bond film". The term "iconic", being there or not, is not a deal-breaker for me. Baseball Bugs 07:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A look through Google results in words ranging from "trademark" to "obligatory". It's a bit of both. I think it would be fair to say "trademark", since it is associated with every Bond picture. Other things are "trademark" also. There are various patterns in the Bond series. Maybe that broader subject would satisfy some of the complaints. Baseball Bugs 08:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Standard" and "traditional" also pop up. Those are both acceptable, I should think. I'm not finding "iconic", though. Maybe that is, in fact, too strong a word. Baseball Bugs 08:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a reference from the Daily Telegraph (UK) which refers to "the moment at the beginning where the gun barrel comes up, Bond turns and shoots, blood fills the screen and that music starts up. That, for me, will always be the iconic film sequence." Bond for beginners. --Canley 09:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively. It's completely unsourced as it stands, relies almost entirely upon primary sources. It seems a little silly to devote an entire article to the evolution of the Bond "gun barrel" sequence in such exhaustive detail. Surely all of the substantive, encyclopedic information presented here can be merged into a short section of teh Bond article. ɑʀкʏɑɴ

Speedy Keep & Do Not Merge Highly noteworthy, just needs sources. All this work shouldnt be taken as a 'minor topic' - Played a major part in the evolution of title sequences in modern cinema! Frequency24 17.58, 13 August 2007 GMT

I suspect you are thinking of the opening credits themselves, which do attract academic attention, and which are dealt with in an appropriate and economic manner in the main article's (James_bond_films#Opening_credits) section. That section is written with less of the detailed/obsessive Fancruft that can lead the "James Bond gun barrel sequence" article into plot repetition. I am not, despite these comment insertions, rabidly pushing for this article to be deleted. I am raising the issue that we can be interested in and attracted to a subject which may not actually be appropriate for Wiki, and may be doing it harm. SilkTork 19:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doing harm to wikipedia? I assure you, there is nothing that can approach the harm (i.e the undermining of credibility) that comes to wikipedia from the "anyone can edit" policy. Baseball Bugs 19:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the "anyone can edit" policy that harms Wiki - it is what people edit when they do edit. SilkTork 19:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. The "content" allowed by this wide-open policy causes exponentially more harm to wikipedia than any "harm" this article could possibly cause. Baseball Bugs 19:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and source quite big in pop culture. Perhaps merge with an overview of James Bond opening sequences, music videos of those opening songs, etc. 132.205.44.5 21:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge. Article's information should be incorporated to the James Bond (films) article. David Pro 21:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,source, and improve This is a useful and informative article. This presentation is much better than distributing the content among all the several films, that would loose the narrative thread. Granted it needs work, and it needs to exist so that it can be improved. --Tbmorgan74 21:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excellent article about a piece of the James Bond franchise, with the common thread in a series that has seen a variety of Bonds, James Bonds. Sometimes, opening sequences (such as in The Simpsons, or the occasional alternate beginning of a Universal, 20th Century Fox or Paramount film, are significant in their own right. Mandsford 22:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is notable beyond the series itself and has, indeed, become a pop culture icon, much like the opening crawl of Star Wars or the couch gags of The Simpsons. It could use some sourcing, but the subject is independently notable enough to merit its own article. --Hnsampat 01:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these opening sequences are not notable unless it is confirmed by reliable sources, and by that I do not mean fan sites Corpx 04:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, iconic and notable subject. Article does need some cleanup and sources, but this is a very famous and notable film sequence. Dreadstar † 09:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but definitely improve the sourcing. It's notable and fairly well-written; let's just work on the referencing, which is indeed very weak. Biruitorul 13:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A significant amount of the material is simply describing what's in the film, and thus is verifiable unless there is disagreement over interpretation of what is on the screen. Films are considered to be their own source. Baseball Bugs 14:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and prune. No way it could be more than a few sentences worth of notability. Bulldog123 19:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. An iconic film topic, spunoff from the original Bond article because it was getting too long, and already considerably sourced via the films themselves being primary sources but more sources never hurt. I can't believe anyone doesn't consider these sequences to be notable, but there are folks who have never seen a James Bond movie ... 23skidoo 23:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes it needs to be referenced, and it is notable. Per Hnsampat's comments above, its no different than the opening sequences of The Simpsons or Star Wars, why pick on this one. This is notable because it is one of the only things that sticks in all (EON) films. SpecialWindler talk 06:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - Rename James Bond opening sequence, rewrite as such and source appropriately. I'd be willing to take part in that. SilkTork 06:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea. Keep it simple. Baseball Bugs 07:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a good suggestion, but I disagree that we should rename. The phrase "James Bond opening sequence" could refer to the gun barrel, the opening "teaser" (where the action begins or it shows Bond on a different mission altogether), or the song played during the opening credits. The current title, though, is completely unambiguous, so I say we keep it as it is.--Hnsampat 19:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can anyone present at least one reliable source that provides "significant coverage" to this opening sequence? Everyone's saying that sourcing exists, but one has yet to be provided Corpx 07:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Daily Herald had an article on the gun barrel sequence in 1979. --Canley 10:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, an interesting one is this museum exhibition featuring a 'walk through' gun-barrel, an event covered by BBC news which mentions the GB walkthrough: [34]. Dreadstar † 17:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, although currently unverfied, I distinctly remember over the years the GB-sequence being mentioned or parodied in television programs of all types, inlcuding news and movie review broadcasts - I imagine there are non-online sources for this if anyone can look them up. I think 'iconic' is a good word for not only Bond himself, but for that opening sequence. A few more refs: [35] [36] [37]. Dreadstar † 17:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Off-line references could include (I haven't had time to check these) the directors' commentaries on the DVDs. I'm pretty sure one of the 007 DVDs has a documentary on Binder and how he shot (pun intended) the gun-barrel sequence. I also seem to recall issues of Cinefex from Goldeneye onwards have significant detail on how the CGI gun barrel effect was achieved. --Canley 22:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever a TV ad would play for a James Bond film, there would be certain things that they would always zero in on, and hence are "iconic" to the series: "Bond, James Bond" ... the theme tune ... quick clips of action scenes ... Bond's little sarcastic or punny jokes ... Bond Babes and Villains ... and the gunbarrel sequence. Maybe the fact that they use it in every film suggests that they, themselves, consider it iconic... or at least "obligatory". The fans expect it. It just wouldn't be a real Bond film without it. Baseball Bugs 17:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is OR and at best total fancruft. The opening of a series of movies is hardly notable; where does not come from? We have to be careful when we are passionate about something that we do not loose the reason or applicability of policy; they still apply and are not just tossed aside because we like it. An aside: can you imagine how completely decadent a society is when this much effort can be expended over a bloody movie intro? We have far too much time on our collective hands. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't help your cause to call people who disagree with you "decadent." Your argument seems to be boiling down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Hnsampat 16:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, that's over the top. The obvious question to ask him, and the one I always ask anyone who takes the dog-in-the-manger approach to things, is this: "If this subject is so decadent, what are you doing here?" Baseball Bugs 17:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - StormRider says: "We have to be careful when we are passionate about something that we do not loose [sic] the reason or applicability of policy; they still apply and are not just tossed aside because we like it." I agree that we shouldn't let our biases interfere with our work here. However, we cannot toss aside reason or Wikipedia policy just because we don't like something, either. Remember, "passion" can be in the form of love or hate (in this case, hatred of the "decadence" of society). I think plenty of valid, well-reasoned, policy-based arguments in favor of keeping this article have been put forth in this discussion. Also, I disagree with StormRider's implicit assumption that movie openings are inherently non-notable. They can be notable and the James Bond opening is one such case. --Hnsampat 19:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While unsourced, this article can be made to adhere to the WP:WAF guidelines, as the gunbarrel sequence is an incredibly iconic piece of cinema. Alongside the theme music and catchphrase, it wouldn't be Bond. Alientraveller 12:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and NOT Merge: Yes, needs more source. The GB sequence is definitely significant above and beyond its appearance in the JB films. It's possibly one of the most recognized visual sequence in all of cinematic history. Okay, that may be a personal opinion, but what is not a personal opinion is that this sequence has been spoofed in many times past and recent, in different countries, and in different medium. This along makes it indeed very significant. In fact, due to its iconic status, I'd suggest that this sequence is more significant than the entire JB franchise to the world outside of JB fandom. o 01:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No merge necessary as highlighted above many times over. Yamaguchi先生 04:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs sources, but it is definitely notable - • The Giant Puffin • 12:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add sources, such as the Daily Telegraph article mentioned above. Obviously noteworthy and iconic, widely discussed in reliable sources. The article just needs to refer to them. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hills Have Eyes 3[edit]

Probable WP:HOAX. No such movie exists yet as far as I can tell. No reliable sources or verifibility. WP:CRYSTAL violation as well. — Moe ε 14:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom •Malinaccier• ^T/C 15:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without comment. GreenJoe 19:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. feydey 20:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally agree with nominator. Carlosguitar 23:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Year One (film)[edit]

There is not enough reliable source material for this article to meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Without such source material, the topic fails Wikipedia:Notability. In addition, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 14:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. IMDb has this as still "in development".--Sethacus 16:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without comment. GreenJoe 19:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL.--JForget 00:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Animal Song[edit]

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Songs. Short entry with no context. Non-notable. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without comment. GreenJoe 19:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 19:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination! --♫Twinkler4♫ ^{(Talk to me!)} 19:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Imagination (film)[edit]

There is not enough reliable source material for this article to meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Without such source material, the topic fails Wikipedia:Notability. In addition, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 14:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do see a fair amount of discussion about this, including some references from MTV and other places that indicate it's the real deal - but it's still well early in development, so I think WP:CRYSTAL applies here. Delete for now. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL.--JForget 01:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 2009 is a long way off. Wasted Time R 03:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camp success[edit]

Extremely ambiguous title (there are MANY "Camp Success"s around the country), and there are no sources for this specific camp. Contested prod. Panoptical 13:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no information on this page anyway. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 14:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom •Malinaccier• ^T/C 15:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability Corpx 04:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete both -- Y not? 07:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Gindre[edit]

Non-notable footballer. Has never played in a pofessional league. Mattythewhite 14:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:[reply]

Delete It appears that neither of them has played a game in a fully-professional league, thus delete per WP:BIO. Number 5 7 14:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Per above. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 18:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nick Gindre, never played professional football in Argentina, Non notable by current WP Notability on Conference players.King of the North East 20:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Marvin Morgan, has been called up to England National Game XI ("England C") squad
— MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 19:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- England National Game XI doesn't really imply notability. Mattythewhite 19:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most players in that page have their own article. Okay, so I know that's not a viable policy, but I am presenting the facts. To be honest, I've no vested interest in this, other than it happens to be an article I'm watching. Far too many people delete articles though which aren't taking up much room and do contain information and are referenced — i.e. like this one.
    — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 22:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    - I'm certainly no deletionist, but articles like this one do not meet the guideline at WP:BIO and should therefore be deleted. Mattythewhite 23:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The clue is in the name - guideline. You can't meet a guideline, only try to follow it. Don't forget WP:IAR — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 21:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
        Well, fair enough, but there is a general agreement within WP:FOOTY that players who have not played in a professional league are not notable for inclusion on Wikipedia, which we decide to go by. Mattythewhite 21:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Do not meet WP:BIO at this time as they have not played in a fully professional league. --Malcolmxl5 01:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 01:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of radio stations in Turkey[edit]

I'm not seeing how these radio stations are particularly notable. Navou ^banter 13:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure if any of the individual radio stations are notable, but the list as a whole certainly is. Considering there is only one article on a Turkish radio station other than this (see Category:Radio stations in Turkey), this article could be a helpful resource for someone looking to learn about broadcasting in Turkey, as well as a useful to-do list for editors interested in creating these articles. Calliopejen1 14:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also see the precedent for this sort of article at Category:Lists of radio stations. Calliopejen1 14:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For those interested, I've opened up a discussion on whether or not it is prudent to make an official policy or guideline to be used in regards to the creation and retention of lists: Wikipedia: Village pump (policy)#Proposal to make a policy or guideline for lists. Thank you in advance for any thoughts you may have on the topic, and my apologies for the somewhat off-topic comment. -- Sidatio 16:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Calliopejen1. GreenJoe 19:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficiently different from the Category, and organized in the most appropriate form, by MHz frequencies. Interesting that they stop on the even numbers, hence 105.0, 105.2 rather than 104.9 or 105.1; when they say "Oxigen 96!" they don't mean 95.9 Mandsford 22:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is notable, also some of them are notable as well, though this was not necessary, imo.Deniz^T_C 22:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The World Radio TV Handbook and Radio Station World are sufficient reliable sources to make all lists of full-power broadcast stations verifiable and notable. DHowell 05:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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} 19:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of homophonous phrases[edit]

A badly-written, almost entirely OR article, that seems to serve no useful purpose.Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information OZ OO (What?) 13:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this list violates WP:NOT#INFO. Panoptical 13:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list is original research, some of which sounds like nonsense: "Foul fowl foul fowl foul foul foul fowl." Does not seem encyclopedic. Useight 15:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For those interested, I've opened up a discussion on whether or not it is prudent to make an official policy or guideline to be used in regards to the creation and retention of lists: Wikipedia: Village pump (policy)#Proposal to make a policy or guideline for lists Thank you in advance for any thoughts you may have on the topic, and my apologies for the somewhat off-topic comment. Sidatio 16:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All OR, and per nom. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 18:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Useight. GreenJoe 20:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Tongue twisters or Wordplay or something similar; simple solution for something that doesn't merit it's own article, yet makes a comment on the importance of syntax. That that is is that that is not is not is that it yeah but this is not. Mandsford 22:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP is not a directory of homophonous phrases Corpx 04:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., and all comments in agreement.--JayJasper 13:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is not short on disk space. --Mwongozi 17:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the important and linguistically researched (and, thus, referenced) examples into homophonous, delete the rest. Also, "had had" deserves its own page (if it can be references), just like the ones "buffalo..." and "Lion-eating poet..." have --Cubbi 22:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. I don't know how it can ever be anything but OR. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- given the "buffalo..." and "Lion-eating poet..." pages, this isn't just a normal OR list, but a valid linguistic oddity. Maybe merge into wordplay. Agree that Had had had... deserves its own page. If you can't stand as a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning. 12:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is useful material that can be built up into a proper article of its own. --Mac 13:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've put the article here, which is the best place I've been able to find for it so far. CitiCat^♫ 01:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should not just copy/paste it, because edit history has to be preserved (through a transwiki) for GDFL purposes Corpx 02:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm attempting to contact the sysop there, don't know if the project is still maintained. CitiCat^♫ 13:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom seems to be OR Harlowraman 02:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aware magazine[edit]

Google only pulls up the magazine's web site, an online store, and the Wikipedia page. Several other "AWARE" magazines do show as well, but this fails WP:CORP because it has no independent sources. Panoptical 13:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Delete Keep. Just get sources for the article. Written more like an advertisement. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 15:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No apparent notability; just an advert. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 22:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UonLIVE[edit]

Prod on 8th for "No refs, most hits appear to be forums". Yet article exists on at least one other language version of Wiki: [38]. However, Alexa gives a low report: [39]. It is possibly a sound candidate for deletion, however I felt it should be opened up for wider discussion just in case UonLIVE is significant, but we are not getting the sources because of language problems. My listing is neutral. SilkTork 13:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are found to establish notability Corpx 04:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Onus is on author to ensure that article is reliably sourced in the language used by the encyclopaedia. There is at least one other discussion that is trying to use the foreign language argument, but it doesn't seem to fly.--Aarktica 17:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Nomination withdrawn without delete vote. (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 10:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Boyd Barrett[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Firstly, I don't believe the subject meets notability criteria just by being a party member and standing (unsuccessfully) for election. I also don't believe that the page contains enough information to assert notability, even if notability existed. If the party member had won his electoral seat, then he should be included, but in this case, it should not. Irishjp 12:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If this was just a case of an article about an unsuccessful candidate in an election, I would think that deletion would be appropriate. But as pointed out in last month's AFD, the subject of the article does appear in, and is reported on, in the Irish media for other reasons on a regular basis. The article needs to be expanded, but the subject does meet notability criteria. Cumulative notabilty, perhaps, but notability. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - simply due to a keep afd one month ago. Fix the article if you don't like it, additional attempts at deletion encourage an evaluation of bad faith on nominators part. --Rocksanddirt 22:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sinéad Cusack , not enough notability and content for an individual article.--JForget 00:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per WP:HEY - numerous reliable third party sources now added. Skomorokh ^incite 02:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly sufficient sources now. Had he won, he would automatically have been considered notable, but losing doesn't make him automatically non-notable. if major national media regard him as a spokesman for tis point of view, he's notable. DGG (talk) 04:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - now that article has been updated with enough information to assert notability. In response to Rocksanddirt,I had no involvement in the previous AfD and am fully entitled to nominate again if I think nothing has been done to significantly add any notability to an article in some time. Irishjp 09:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Edward's College, East Gosford[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/St. Edward's College, Gosford

The page was nominated for deletion in June and was kept. Since then, the article has still made no attempt at notability. I am nominating because I believe it is no more notable than the other 3 schools in East Gosford. The East Gosford, New South Wales page makes mention of the schools well. 2good2btrue 11:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)— 2good2btrue (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Bduke 12:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 12:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The other three schools should have articles as well, as most high schools do. In any case, it's too early to renominate. This is a bad case of "I don't like the outcome-itis". RegRCN 12:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article does not currently pass WP:V and WP:N - but it was established in the previous AFD that the school does have independent sources on it and could be notable enough for its own article. I agree with the above that it was to early to re-nominate this for deletion. However, I would agree to merge and re-direct to East Gosford, New South Wales for now until a good article can be written on the school. Camaron1 | Chris 13:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, it was not established in the last nomination that St Eddies was notable. One user put the links to the first five pages on google - each was more ridiculous then the next and if I try to make an article out of it, the article would be in worse shape then it is now. Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Patrick's Primary School East Gosford for another school that was deleted, that RegRCN says should have an article. 2good2btrue 22:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I worded that carefully as could be, as it is clear no consensus was ever really reached on the issue. Looking at the state of the current article - I doubt any attempt to fix it would make it worse. I agree with consistency between school articles - though ultimately every schools notability should be considered individually. Camaron1 | Chris 10:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs work but it just survived AfD with a "keep" result and nothing in the nomination indicates why it is less notable now than it was less than 2 months ago. -- DS1953 ^talk 19:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article currently is unsourced. However there is material available. Google News Archives shows that it won its state basketball title in four years in 2006 so it is certainly notable for something. [40] Capitalistroadster 02:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I must take offense at the second AfD for this article and firmly disagree with the supposition that comparative notability (or lack thereof) as a reason to delete an existing article. I will be more than happy to help create article for the other three schools in East Gosford. That said, the school does have claims of notability available and details and sources should be added to expand the article. Alansohn 03:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The should be some attempt at consistency, and we should consider the other articles. A single AfD keep does not prevent a reconsideration in two months. There were no good reasons for keep being given then, and there were now. We probably should have some rules about how frequently an article can be nominated, but i dont consider this abusive or absurd. If it's kept again, however, i think that should settle the matter for at least another year. Of the material in the article, i notice that almost all of it is unsourced opinion. DGG (talk) 04:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We delete articles on subjects that are not notable; we don't delete notable pages on the grounds of lack of sources - those we tag for improvement. There are plenty of sources to meet WP:N as as been shown here and in the previous AfD and I'm about to add some. Though there is no timescale for a second AfD, under 2 months to revisit a 'keep' decision is way too short - it is not acceptable to keep bringing articles back until you get the result you want. FWIW IMHO at least 6 months should have elapsed. TerriersFan 00:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have now rewritten the article. There is still more to be said but that's for another day .. TerriersFan 01:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge WP:SOFIXIT Afd should not be used to prod someone else to improve the article. And although the article needs work, deleting it does not necessarily make WP better. If the previous AfD was a no consensus default to keep, the renom might be reasonable. But since there was a consensus to keep, the renom is questionable at best. This ref from the previous Afd suggests St. Dominic's College, Penrith, and Edmund Rice College, Wollongong might be merged with St Edward's College, Gosford. Dhaluza 00:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it isn't long since last time it was kept. If you don't like it - improve it or ignore it. Improving it might be done by getting rid of everything that isn't from a clearly cited reference, or doesn't seem encyclopedic. If the article gets small enough then it would be readily improved by merging it to East Gosford, New South Wales. But relisting it at AfD when not long ago it was decided to keep it isn't what AfD is for.Ga rr ie 01:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found some reliable sources on a quick google search. Twenty Years 14:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 20:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C-Town (nickname)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article only provides a definition of the term and a history of its usage, and (1) provides no evidence for its notability and (2) can almost certainly not be expanded to provide any information beyond the current definition. Article is also unsourced, and probably unsourcable for the main part. Previously prodded; prod removed by an anonymous editor with no comment as to reason. JulesH 11:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is impossible to verify this article from reliable sources. A quick google search shows up no reliable hits for this article as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 12:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Zouavman Le Zouave 12:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Jauerback 13:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced and unverifiable. Bigdaddy1981 17:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete If it's at all possible, however, merge to Cleveland, Ohio. There's a section in the infobox for nicknames. Otherwise, yeah delete. -WarthogDemon 22:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please, don't merge this into Cleveland. What an unimaginative nickname for the home of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, the Mistake by the Lake. Cleveland Rocks-- and this article doesn't. From "C-Town (nickname)": "Its morphology is derived by taking the first letter from Cleveland, C, and adding to it the word 'town'." Fascinating. Mandsford 22:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - no reason to merge a non-notable nickname to a city's article. I'm sure there are plenty of non-notable nicknames people have for places - they surely all shouldn't be included. Bigdaddy1981 21:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, with no prejudice towards future notability. Kurykh 00:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran Gibbs[edit]

This article was originally prodded by User:Qwghlm with the following rationale: "Under-18 footballer, not a professional or first team player, fails WP:BIO". However, I disagree with his decision and so I have brought it here. I vote to keep this article because while he has not played in any competitive first-team matches, he did play (started, in fact) in the Emirates Cup final alongside 10 first-team players (which implies the match was being taken seriously by the club) and in front of 60,000 fans and televised to hundreds of thousands more all over the world. Not to mention he scored a goal in the first leg of the FA Youth Cup in front of 35,000+ fans, and a goal in the away leg as well... but that's of relatively little consequence. -- ugen64 11:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 11:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I'm sure he's a good player, but unless significant independent reliable source coverage is found, he doesn't meet the requirements at WP:BIO. Happy to change my mind if anyone comes up with anything. JulesH 12:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- [41] - "bright contribution"... [42] - one of the game's "outstanding performers"... just a few random Google searches :) ugen64 12:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Half a sentence in each article isn't significant coverage. While it's hard to quantify what's significant and what isn't, a brief comment on his performance in a single game clearly isn't significant. JulesH 13:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not played a game in a fully-professional league. Number 5 7 13:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - maybe one day, but he's not notable now. Jauerback 13:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, fair enough, but look at Arsenal's lineup that day. Jens Lehmann, Emmanuel Eboue, Kolo Toure, Justin Hoyte, William Gallas, Bacary Sagna, Kieran Gibbs, Cesc Fabregas, Mathieu Flamini, Alexander Hleb, Robin van Persie. So apparently, playing a single match in the League One is worth more than playing a single match, a cup final no less, alongside 6 World Cup players (the ones bolded), leaving out 2 more selected on the bench? Maybe it is just a flagrant disregard of policy that leads me to believe this player is more notable than Max Porter :-) ugen64 05:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- PS - we have an article on the Emirates Cup, which leads me to believe it's considered a notable competition... so does winning a notable competition make you a notable person? After all one of the criteria is "significant recognized awards or honors" and it seems to me a cup with an article can be considered "significant and recognized". ugen64 05:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per standard clause of never having played in a professional league. Sorry, the Emirates Cup is a series of pre-season friendlies in my eyes.- fchd 19:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, and in Arsene Wenger's eyes the entire Carling Cup is a reserve competition, but it's still considered notable ;-) ugen64 07:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he has not yet played in a fully professional league per WP:BIO. Clubs often use pre-season friendlies as a way of providing experience for youth players while at the same time assessing them for the season ahead. The article can be brought back when he does play for the first team in the league, which, if he really is good, can't be far off. --Malcolmxl5 19:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I know this, I watched all of Arsenal's friendlies this preseason. But during the Emirates Cup and Amsterdam Tournament, Gibbs was the only youngster who got a touch (there were obviously other young players, like Armand Traore, but they are already first-team squad members). ugen64 06:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the Emirates Cup is a friendly tournament and used youth players as a matter of course. No prejudice if and when this player becomes a first-team player. Qwghlm 13:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haka Hackers[edit]

no evidence of notability, no independent sources, only three ghits [43] Xorkl000 10:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also said ghits have absolutely nothing to do with the content of the article. --Xorkl000 11:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Those Google results aren't even for the same "Haka Hackers". Not notable. The KZA 11:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is not worthy of notice. The lack of reliable sources for this article is also a major concern here. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 12:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources, and a very weak notability. Even I have more GHits! Zouavman Le Zouave 12:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. I would have just prodded this, myself. --Fabrictramp 18:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can vouch for the reliability of this page. - Bill Cullen 15th August 2007.

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

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

The result was redirect to female urination device. — TKD::Talk 22:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plastuitje[edit]

Unencyclopedic, notability concerns. Only has 800 google hits. The sunder king 10:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources, no refs, no notability. Zouavman Le Zouave 12:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This webpage has an entry for this device. In my opinion, I feel that this webpage is a reliable source for this item. Maybe, the spelling of this item needs to be changed to plastuit. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 12:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At best this is something for Wiktionary. It may exist, but it's not notable. SilkTork 14:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Female urination device. The usual word in Dutch is plastuit (article in Dutch [44]), "plastuitje" is the diminutive form. --Targeman 20:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources. The link provided by Siva1979 above is only a mention in a message board with no references. The link to the Dutch Wikipedia (i.e. Wikipedia itself), is not a reliable source. If sources are found, this short article would be best redirected to Female urination device. ●DanMS • Talk 03:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Targeman. --Alynna 17:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sufficient reliable sources are included in the article. However, a point to people working on this article: forum posts are not reliable sources and should be replaced with reliable sources or the information removed if it cannot be reliably sourced. JoshuaZ 23:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swiftfox[edit]

No assertion of notability separate from that of Firefox. Unlike (for example) Flock there has been no coverage by independent sources. Wikipedia isn't here to be a list of every custom build of Firefox. Cynical 10:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Zouavman Le Zouave 12:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are good references within the article. I would come to Wiki to look up neutral information on just such a topic if I came upon it while reading. At worse, merge with Mozilla Firefox. And if it survives rename Mozilla Swiftfox. SilkTork 14:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We can't call the article 'Mozilla Swiftfox' as it is not a Mozilla product. The reason it's called SwiftFox in the first place (instead of just Firefox) is precisely because of the trademark issues surrounding Mozilla and its products. Cynical 17:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep based on linux.com and apcstart.com articles in the page Corpx 04:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has numerous links outside of wikipedia. Softpedia , linux.com, and APC magazine to name a few. It was also one of the first builds to be optimized to a specific processor. While I think it needs to be updated, it should stay. Kilz 21:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep though the article really needs to be cleaned up and a more information added. 86.3.84.147 13:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a notable enough variation on Firefox; I've seen it mentioned in multiple places and I have even used it once or twice... --Itub 08:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark McWane[edit]

a man who writes his own tunes for video games he likes - em.. yes that's it. Lots of grand claims, nothing at all that suggests anything approaching notability. Fredrick day 09:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn, also almost certainly a vanity article --Lu c id 11:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speed Delete: An obvious vanity article (created by MarkMcWane no less) on a non-notable subject. The KZA 11:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did try and speedy it - but it was removed and I was told to take it to afd if I wanted to follow it up *shrug*. --Fredrick day 11:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to have enough notability, auto-biography. Zouavman Le Zouave 12:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Vanispam. THF 12:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - LOL. Jauerback 13:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable, self-promotion, I would have speedied. NawlinWiki 14:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Easy decision. SilkTork 15:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I should have reviewed the autobiography portion more closely, and I am agreement. My friend, Mark Knight, is a professional game music composer who has a similar entry, and it seemed reasonable for me. There is a difference between a pro like him having an article, I guess, versus an amateur like me. However, my music has been downloaded literally by tens of thousands of people from over 65 countries and used in the new ports to the games. It has also been referenced by numerous gamer sites and the like. However, if it needs to be deleted, that is fine with me. MarkMcWane 18:004, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No cover[edit]

No cover - no notability. -- RHaworth 09:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Their one pencil-thin claim to notability has no source. The KZA 10:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, their one claim to notability is incredibly weak, and not even for the band --Lu c id 11:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looked through the website, couldn't find proof of their notability claim. Zouavman Le Zouave 12:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BAND. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.. CitiCat^♫ 00:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Air News[edit]

This article was marked as being a possible copy/paste, and being unencyclopaedic in tone. Another editor marked it for speedy with the reason "appears to be unencyclopaedic in content" which I was concerned about, as the quality of the content is not a speedy criteria. I am therefore starting this discussion to allow for wider debate. In my opinion, it's not notable enough to warrant inclusion, as the magazine of a regional aviation group - possibly a mention in the article about the group itself would suffice. Chrisd87 09:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - From their site, it is published by "Central Scotland Aviation Group" and I really don't think this is notable. Will change my mind if anyone can provide sources that show notability Corpx 04:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (provisionally) - There's less notable articles on Wikipedia! This one is obviously young (less than two days, IIRC), and should at least be given a chance at improvement. Has anyone verified that it IS a copy/paste? All I have seen is "appears to be", and that shouldn't be enough justification. YES, it absolutely needs to be trimmed down. It needs some changes in tone and whatnot. Still, it is no worse than many other Wiki articles. Give it time. If it goes untouched for weeks, then perhaps, but so long as it is changing and improving daily, it ought be retained. VigilancePrime 04:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest you have a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--Addhoc 07:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm familiar with the policy, and I don't mean to imply that the sole reason it should be kept is because there is worse. My point is that the article is being developed, and Wikipedia needs to allow articles to develop. Other articles develop and that's great. Yes, by itself a "here's an article that is the same" is not enough, but there is still the precedant of giving a lesser-known topic an opportunity to build an article. An argument for deletion is justified, but a Speedy Deletion? Come on, now. That's pushing the limits of WP:NPOV almost! The article, since being tagged, has developed a "see also" and a "references" section, and the primary complaint (and the only one used as justification for the speedy delete), that of being a copy/paste job, is being corrected. For that matter, there is still no evidenced basis for an allegation of "cut/paste" other than a cursory read. I agree that it reads like a cut/paste, but someone needs to demonstrate that, I believe, before it can (should) be used as the sole criteria for deletion. VigilancePrime 21:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another note, taking a random lead line from the article found no matching pages to back up the copy/paste allegation. View/recreate the search here. VigilancePrime 22:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks media coverage Addhoc 07:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - This article does not qualify for Speedy Deletion. From the Speedy Deletion page:

Blatant copyright infringement which meets all of these parameters:

The material was copied from another website that does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia (for images, examples of websites that do not have a license compatible with Wikipedia include stock photo libraries, such as Getty Images or Corbis, or other commercial content providers);

There is no non-infringing content in the page history worth saving (if worthwhile non-infringing content exists, then delete the article and attempt to restore it up to the version before the copyright violation was added - this parameter does not apply to images);

The material was introduced at once by a single person (be aware of the possibility that Wikipedia's copy of the material was created organically on wiki, and the other website's copy was obtained from Wikipedia - see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks - this parameter does not apply to images).

Uploader does not assert permission or fair use, or the assertion is questionable (for images: no assertion aside from tags);

Uploader does not assert the content or image is public domain or was released under a free license (note: many commercial image sources sell copies of free images).

Accordingly, as shown above (and again here), this is not copied from another webpage. Speedy Deletion requires all of the above to be met, and failing that first criteria negates this entire vote. None of the other Speedy Delete types apply. VigilancePrime 22:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Nominator For the record, I was not alleging a copy/paste, I merely stated in my nomination that someone else had tagged it as such (and I've notified that editor about this discussion). I agree with it not being a speedy deletion candidate, and my original nomination was intended to allow for a more open and full discussion following another editor's suggestion that it be speedied for "unencyclopaedic content" (which is obviously not a speedy criterion). My view is to delete as non-notable, but as with Corpx above, I will happily change my mind if notability can be shown. Chrisd87 13:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Venkatesa Battar[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. No independent sources are known for this person, and an expert review request to WikiProject Hinduism did not turn up any sources either. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 08:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom •Malinaccier• ^T/C 19:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GreenJoe 19:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Monson[edit]

No convincing secondary sources have been found for this author's biography. The one relevant source claimed (I couldn't verify) is a Denver Post article reporting her suicide. This would, in any case, not suffice by WP:BLP1E. An expert review request to WikiProject Biography did not turn up any additional sources either. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 08:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of coverage in reliable sources. No satisfaction of WP:BIO. Valrith 21:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Corpx 04:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I de-prodded this article once, even though I don't particularly care if it gets deleted or not. Before the deletion, however, I'll explain my reasoning for the record. The Denver Post article is a full obit, with the suicide only briefly mentioned (probably copyvio postings of the article can be found by searching in conjunction with the reporter, Claire Martin). WorldCat[45] shows that Rangoon is still in 54 library systems and Stormfire in 31, and many more have surely discarded their copies over the past two decades. It also shows that four of her six novels were translated into German. There also seems to have been a modest Internet revival for Stormfire in particular, among fans of old-school bodice-rippers who find today's fare too tame. Unfortunately, I didn't find additional usable sources. Her romance career was relatively short and unprolific, and she wrote just before the online era, in a genre rarely covered by "serious" media. If there are more sources, they are likely in contemporary dead-tree magazines servicing the romance genre, and I don't know what those are. --Groggy Dice T | C 13:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect all. Merging can be done later by interested editors. Mango juice^talk 03:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

17 (song)[edit]

Regular album track with no notability. Songs fails WP:MUSIC. The KZA 08:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they fail WP:MUSIC on similar terms. They are regular album tracks, have not charted, have not been recognised as notable to the band's career or won any awards or prizes. I would recommend they would be suitable for a different wiki, perhaps one about the Smashing Pumpkins themselves. There are other songs in the category Smashing Pumpkins songs that I have not listed as they could *just* pass WP:MUSIC and be considered relevant to the band's career:

Merge all. Kappa 09:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to their respecitve albums. Lugnuts 11:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to the respective albums. -- saberwyn 12:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Abstaining. -- saberwyn 05:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the album articles. Zouavman Le Zouave 12:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Smashing Pumpkins appropriate albums.--JForget 00:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's nothing wrong with song articles; WP:Music is too singles-obsessed. The subject article and one of the others I sampled had useful, non-trivial contents. Wasted Time R 03:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree, redirecting to albums would needlessly reduce the amount of information available about these songs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.239.34.132 (talk • contribs).
Keep I think these are all relevant and interesting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.236.0.73 (talk • contribs).
Merge + Redirect to relevant album pages. WP:INTERESTING is not a valid justification. If you think WP:Music is wrong, then this is not the place to discuss this. Oli Filth 18:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge agree with merge, definately not keep, some of the information is utterly pointless really.. --Childzy ₪ Talk 20:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any valuable information into the article for the album itself. WP:MUSIC is pretty clear, and neither the subject article nor any that I sampled had sources cited. --Darkwind (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g4, repost. NawlinWiki 14:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery County Swim League[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable youth swim league. There are no independent sources to back up the claim of being nationally recognized, and a quick Google search provided nothing to help. Moreover, I'm a Montgomery County resident, and there's minimal coverage here on a local level. fuzzy510 07:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a repost and so tagged. Jauerback 13:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep The feature in BioBusiness seems to push him over the WP:BIO/WP:N edge. JoshuaZ 23:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lounsbury[edit]

There is not enough reliable source material that is independent of Michael Lounsbury for this article to meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Without such source material, the topic fails Wikipedia:Notability. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 15:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are unbelievable. This is a well noted academic and the stub entry includes only (and quite a bit of) objective evidence of notability: many publications, notable awards, media coverage, and editorship of highly ranked journals. It far exceeds any threshold of notability indicated by the wiki policy. So what are your grounds for assessment? I object strenuously. Annelson 18:00 13 August 2007 (UTC) — Annelson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Easy, speedy keep. Appears to be a bad nom although I will assume good faith, article clearly has verified and reliable sources listed within it. Also, WP:N is a guideline, and is not in and of itself enough to delete something. MrPrada 01:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; and easy decision to keep!. No plausible rationale for the nom. WP:N is indeed a guideline and the article is clearly neutral and has objective, verifiable sources that clearly indicate notability. msacks11 08:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC) — Msacks11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No doubt a keeper! I agree with aforementioned objections. I am relatively new to this community, but this academic bio accords with most of which I have seen. In addition, I do not understand Jreferee's rationale. The article contains INDEPENDENTLY RELIABLE, OBJECTIVE and VERIFIABLE information that indicates notability. A puzzling nom. Phirsch 6:19 15 August 2007 (UTC) — Phirsch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Weak keep. There are strong signs here that he is likely to be notable: the named professorship at Cornell, for instance. And unlike many articles on academics which are either too shy (just saying so-and-so teaches subject at university) or too prolix (copying the whole vita) this one strikes a good balance. But it really needs reliable secondary sources of notability. —David Eppstein 16:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep It merely needs secondary sources to establish the awards. And that was the only objection of the nom. question--did the nom even try to look for it? We're supposed to be improving articles, and only bringing here the ones that cannot be improved. DGG (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see enough source material for a full article here. Awards or no, we can't write an article from blurbs (especially mainly from sources affiliated with the subject), and I can't find anything more substantial. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 22:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tactics Arena[edit]

Only claim to notability: "Considered famous". Was marked for prod[46], prod was removed[47] a couple of hours later by an IP that appears to be almost the sole contributor. With no significant claims to notability I suggest that this fails WP:WEB. The article has already been speedy deleted once as R1 (not relevant to this discussion), and *twice* as A7 (I make no claim that this is a repost, so not calling for G4). Note also that while he/she did not create this article, User:Su yeul seems to be creating a barrage of Tactics Arena-related pages, most of which are now currently tagged for speedy deletion as either copyvios or nonsense/no-context (consisting almost entirely of a copy of the ranking from the Tactics Arena site). Confusing Manifestation 07:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the most recent editor who placed the {{prod}} template, my concern was that there are a great many games on addictinggames.com, (and other similar sites) and aside from gaming forums/sites, I could find no source in my Google search that this game has anything outstanding about it, or mentioned in terms of such games as World of Warcraft. I'd like to note also that a previous {{prod}} was placed on August 10th, and removed by the same IP in question, as well as a previous AfD that was placed, and removed by the same IP [48] Also of note, this page was deleted recently, listed as A1, but it also was a copy/paste from the same external link found in this article in question. Without access to deleted page history, I can't remember who initially was the author of the deleted article, but I do remember noticing it and while placing a CSD, someone else got there first. ^Ariel♥Gold 00:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reviews/coverage are found from RS Corpx 04:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx. --Aarktica 17:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 06:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ARFCOM[edit]

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

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

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

While the article does contain an assertion of notability a la media coverage, I sure can't find a thing on Google News that isn't just spamming of newspaper sites by forum members. Not speedyable, due to the assertion, but I nonetheless recommend that this be deleted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, there is indeed significant coverage on credible media sources. For example, archived from the NY Times website, here [49] is an article about the Send A Brick campaign. Here [50] is an article from the Washington Post. Opensourcelinuxm 06:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neither of these articles even mention the word "ARFCOM", so I'm not really sure how they're relevant. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Agree with Seraphimblade. Send-a-Brick might be notable in its own right but this subject fails WP:V and WP:RS. Dbromage [Talk] 06:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, since you both are clearly very well-versed in the rules of Wikipedia and I'm not, can you tell me why other, less significant websites like Rotten.com and SomethingAwful.com have Wiki pages? They haven't done half of what the ARFCOM membership has done in terms of real-world achievements but they have big, long-standing Wiki pages. Why? What needs to be done to the ARFCOM page to make it acceptable? Opensourcelinuxm 06:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If ARFCOM has done something notable, then cite reliable third party sources backing up that claim. Dbromage [Talk] 06:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you Dbromage but you clearly misunderstood my comment. I wasn't trying to whine about the fact that other websites have articles; I was sincerely, seriously, and frankly inquiring: What do their wiki pages have that ARFCOM's wiki doesn't that enables them to stay while causing ARFCOM to become a candidate for deletion? Can you please answer the question? Opensourcelinuxm 06:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To provide a more detailed answer, what we require for an article is a significant amount of nontrivial coverage of the article subject by reliable sources (newspapers, magazines, scholarly papers, generally sources which are widely regarded as reliable and undergo editorial control, fact checking, or peer review). In this case, the sources you cite might assert some notability for the Send-a-Brick campaign, but they don't even mention ARFCOM, so they cannot be used as a source regarding ARFCOM—they don't directly state that they're speaking about it, and inferring that they're indirectly speaking about it would be original research, which we do not allow. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Something Awful has 22 citations from reliable sources. Rotten Tomatoes has a very high Alexa ranking and is cited weekly in the Toronto Star. Please read WP:V and WP:RS. Dbromage [Talk] 06:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Understood. I don't think you'll be finding any media references to ARFCOM; throughout the duration of the Send-A-Brick campaign the user base was careful to keep the campaign's place of origin a secret for several reasons. If that is what is necessary in order to keep the article from deletion, it seems as if it'll have to be deleted. :( Opensourcelinuxm 06:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In that case the claim fails verifiability. None of the citations describe any link between AR15.com and Send-A-Brick. Dbromage [Talk] 06:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it Right. Thank you both for your consideration; I'm going to agree that it should be deleted.Opensourcelinuxm 07:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC) — Opensourcelinuxm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Nice site for black rifles, but I could find nothing about ar15.com or arfcom at Google News or at Proquest. They kept perhaps TOO LOW a profile in the Send a Brick campaign, quite unlike the NRA when they go to the defense of gun ownership. Moral of the story: stealthy publicity campaigns do not generate publicity, and independent second party news coverage is what is needed to justify an article here. Try again later. Edison 13:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above but I do want to say bravo to Opensourcelinuxm for respecting & participating in the process. Stick around- Wikipedia needs that kind of attitude. --mordicai. 22:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 06:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tobin Method[edit]

Lacks notability in music education, reads like self-promotion, unreferenced, poorly written Rickyar 05:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:N, WP:V or WP:RS. Reads very much like advertising. Dbromage [Talk] 05:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 06:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Samson[edit]

subject does not meet terms of WP:Notability and should be deleted as per several similar cases in this discussion BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability clearly stated. RegRCN 12:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Could you please explain how being a cricket statistician is notable, especially when he apparently has no publications? --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have little doubts that a sport statistician, unless really something exceptionnal, is not notable at all.JForget 00:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 04:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same reason as JForget's jddphd (talk · contribs) 04:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ancient Forest of Elves[edit]

Completely non-notable song which fails WP:MUSIC. Nothing more here than a statement that the song exists. fuzzy510 05:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to show notability. Realkyhick 05:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:MUSIC. Jauerback 13:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't line up with main article's template, something wrong. Wasted Time R 03:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If someone does want to work on trying to clean this up, I'll be happy to undelete it into userspace. — TKD::Talk 06:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral diaspora and strongholds of the NSDAP[edit]

If anything, I'd say that this should be a part of Nazi Party. Orphaned for about a year, completely unsourced, and perhaps not even cohesive enough to be able to be merged into another article. fuzzy510 05:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either merge anything useful into Nazi Party, or just delete. For some reason a lot of the geographical names in this article are redlinks, and the use of the word "diaspora" in the article seems to be an inaccurate use of the word. --Metropolitan90 05:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They're redlinks because the author kept referring to "County of Kreis Blahblahblah"; "Kreis" already means "district" and we don't have redirects set up for this way of referring to them; some of these already have articles, like Olpe (district) for Kreis Olpe. cab 05:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A big glob of text with lots of redlinks, no sources at all, and danged if I can figure out what the heck they're talking about. Realkyhick 05:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Realkyhick. I can't work it out either. Dbromage [Talk] 05:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup and merge, to Nazi Party#Rise to power: 1925-1933, I guess (that article is waaaay too long already, though, and needs to be split somehow). The present title is rather useless, but the information should be kept somewhere. From the edit history: "Source: a book by Jürgen Falter mainly"; since I'm not a German-speaker, can't help figuring out which one, but this journal article supports some of the content, at least: O'Loughlin, John; Colin Flint; Luc Anselin (September 1994). "The Geography of the Nazi Vote: Context, Confession, and Class in the Reichstag Election of 1930". Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 84 (3): 351–380. cab 05:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as incoherent and unsources probable OR. Whoever wants to cleanup this can copy it to userspace now and reinsert late at the appropriate place, with sources. Sandstein 11:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup and Merge per cab. It's gonna need a lot of cleanup, though. Right now, its got so much red and blue that it looks like Election Night. Mandsford 22:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless as is, improper form (graphs, maps and tables is what one would expect), abandoned. Do not merge, NSDAP maintainers for sure have enough work already. Pavel Vozenilek 20:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as far as I can comprehend this, it looks like a lot of unsourced OR and personal analysis. The articles NSDAP and Elections in Germany cover this sufficiently. Mel sa ran 14:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gimp_room[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Gimp room

The article's topic is unencyclopedic. The word "Gimp" functions as a perjorative, and can be used to modify any noun: a gimp room is just the same as a gimp shoe, or a gimp chair. The word gimp means inferior. This particular phrase does not require an article. Ram rottenly 05:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per non notable use of slang and concern in the talk page. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has zero sources and Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. --Pixelface 08:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- As of now, nothing to get it pas WP:NEO Corpx 04:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pee Your Pants For The Brewers[edit]

Non-encyclopedic. Essentially an advert for an otherwise non-notable real blog based on an anticipated/hoped for event. Touches on several aspects of WP:NOT. (Earlier G1 Speedy nom tag was removed.) Askari Mark (Talk) 03:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, does seem to have some convincing sources but still, Wikipedia is not a news service. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 03:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, basically a WP:NOT#NEWS collection of news stories about a promise of a future event; WP:SOAP-style advocacy or advertising to 'climb on board the Brewers-playoff-hopes-train. Dreadstar † 05:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Now I have another reason to root, root, root for the Cubbies. If they don't win it's a stain. Essentially a dump of semi-related links about the Brewers' playoff drive, with maybe a few of them actually relating to this non-notable blog/publicity stunt/whatever. Let's save the peeing for Barry Bonds into a sample cup. Realkyhick 05:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:CRYSTAL, we can't never know if the team is going to make the playoffs ever again. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wish it could've been a speedy, but my request a month ago was turned down. As an editor north of Milwaukee, I never heard of it and all the references are very loosely tied together. Also, I'm embarassed to have even read this article as a Wisconsinite :-\. BTW, thanks for the laugh from your comment, Realkyhick! Nate 08:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There appears to be some reliable sources (Miami Herald, Boston Globe, SI.com) but they all contain trivial coverage (a website exists, have you heard of it?, etc). In the article right now, it looks like everything under "References:" is a copy-paste from the website's press page. It seems to me that the only thing that would ever change in the article is the number of pledges. Because the coverage is only trivial, I don't think it meets the notability requirements for websites. Wikipedia is not a news service or a soapbox. Perhaps it could be mentioned in the Milwaukee Brewers article when they do make the playoffs, but I don't think it deserves it's own article. --Pixelface 09:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - remove this content per the nom. Actually even borders on incoherency at some points. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Event has not happened, Aritcle will require significant rewrite, Most of the references were probably posted on "slow news days" As has been said before WP:NOT#NEWS.
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - No historic notability Corpx 04:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is, at best, a trivial current event, but unless it takes on even a minutia of historical importance, it doesn't meet the Wikipedia standards. --Yendi 16:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Refers to an actual event. I wikified the article to hopefully make it look nicer (although it's tough to do with all the "I'M GOING TO BE DELETED" templates preceding it :). It's definitely a stub-class article and could be improved. Stubiness is not grounds for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by X96lee15 (talk • contribs)
- Comment: Being an "actual event" doesn't make it notable. Realkyhick 03:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think fan sites are really notable. Spanneraol 14:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 00:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The American Muslim[edit]

no evidence of any notability, nor are there any sources. It should have been speedied had it not been for the fact that it is over a year old. Sefringle^Talk 03:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The least you could've done is discussed this on talk before nominating this for deletion. There are sources now that demonstrate the notability of this organization.Bless sins 05:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable organization per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Google search for: The American Muslim TAM provides several WP:RS's for this org; results that appear to show that the organization has a notable effect on the views of Islamic culture and society, and is therefore worthy of being noted in Wikipedia. Dreadstar † 05:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough, another source [51]. Can get full article from Factiva if needed. Recurring dreams 11:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A recently revived magazine that, as its title implies, is directed toward American Muslims. Like "American Heritage" and "American Baby", a nationally distributed publication is notable. Mandsford 22:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above although several sources would be needed, I know a couple have popped out here, but looks notable.--JForget 00:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 12:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Yoder[edit]

Originally I marked this for Speedy Deletion. However, editors have made a point to say that, while Paul Yoder may just be another teacher winning another local award, the article still asserts some relevance. He did win a BISD "Teacher of the Year Award", though I doubt mention in the local paper costitutes his qualification for an article. Ageofe 03:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:V. Unreferenced for 3 months. Dbromage [Talk] 03:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable--the award is within an individual school district only. such a local designation does not make someone notable. Even a teaching award in a college--or several of them--does tnot make someone notable. They have to be recognized as notable outside the school or the college. DGG (talk) 03:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure he's a great guy, but it's just not notable enough to have an article on him. There aren't any independent sources on him listed and the award appears to be only for the district. Darth Griz98 03:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A local district's teacher of the year award does not make one notable by Wikipedia standards. Plus there's no verification. Looks very close to something someone made up in school one day. Realkyhick 05:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Teacher of the Year in a school district of nine schools doesn't make him notable, and it's not even verified. fuzzy510 07:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Teacher is not notable enough for own article, also has no verification per WP:V. Camaron1 | Chris 12:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 15:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 20:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Linden[edit]

This article seems to be part of Charles Linden's promotional marking for his method to treat anxiety disorders. There is also a significant lack of reliable sources wanted by WP:BLP. Most sources that exist on the internet are published by the subject of the article. Absentis 02:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would've said just tag for now and give it a couple months to see if adequate references can be added, but content as written definitely is too commercial and unencyclopedic. Tendancer 02:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only part of any encyclopedic value is the criticism section. Everything else reads like an ad, and fails to site a single credible source. — Zioroboco 03:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Biased, and unencyclopedic. --H irohisat ^Talk 03:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject may be notable, true - but the bias and advertising inherent to article place it beyond help. A fresh, unbiased start is warranted. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 03:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Articles that read like a résumé give me anxiety disorders. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Number 5 7 11:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he advertises himself. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure I see the problem with this article. Thanks to the sourced criticism that the nominator added before nominating it to deletion it reads as a rather well-written article about a vaguely notable unqualified mental health self-help writer with fringe theories. It certainly doesn't seem biased, or appear to be an advert. Yes, the parts written by User:Charleslinden1 may be somewhat biased, but he hasn't edited the article for several months now, and it seems relatively free of self-promotion now. As to whether this means it should be kept or not, I'm not sure, but I am pretty sure that some of the deletion concerns above should be taken with a pinch of salt. JulesH 12:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the fact he fails WP:BIO horribly, this article also has a bad case of WP:COI, since the creator is Charleslinden1. Jauerback 14:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim (talk • contribs)

2007 Taliban-seized South Korean hostage crisis[edit]

Speedy delete this is non-notable hostage crisis. Sungyilee 01:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep and speedy close. Per WP:JNN, "simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable". This is a current event and well referenced with sources from CNN to Al Jazeera. Possible bad faith nom from SPA. Dbromage [Talk] 01:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Dbromage. Notable subject, covered by very many reliable sources. Smacks of bad faith. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 02:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete -- Y not? 03:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compaq Armada[edit]

Also: Compaq Armada 1500. Essentially an advertising piece that doesn't establish notability for its own article. I see no content that is encyclopaedic - it is something best served by the company themselves. violet/riga (t) 01:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as basically just a list of computer models, not really valuable info. I would like to point out to the nom WP:JNN and WP:UNENCYC. Watch out :) J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 01:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list lacks adequate context, just a whole bunch of model numbers. It appears more like a directory listing, which Wikipedia is not.--Alasdair 02:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable list. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 02:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Compaq, mention there. FrozenPurpleCube 03:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Complete directory. --H irohisat ^Talk 03:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per directory arguement. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are notable products, easily meeting the notability requirements at WP:CORP. If the article needs fixing, fix it. JulesH 11:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way are they notable? violet/riga (t) 11:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that they've received significant coverage in independent reliable sources (e.g. [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] etc.) JulesH 15:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Naturally there are going to be reviews of the products, but I don't see how they are notable enough to have more than the name being mentioned in the Compaq article. violet/riga (t) 16:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Because if we merged all of Compaq Portable, Compaq Deskpro, Compaq LTE, Compaq Presario, Compaq Proliant, Compaq Armada, Compaq Evo, iPAQ and Tc1000 back into the Compaq article, it would become huge. The Armada is among the more notable of these product lines, I think, so I can't see that the same argument wouldn't apply to all of them. WP:CORP specifically suggests breaking products out into a separate article if this is an issue. JulesH 07:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Except...we don't have to merge all of those articles into one place or all of the article. Compaq Portable is decently encyclopedic. I see no reason to merge it. Deskpro's content is rather short, 2-3 sentences would cover everything important in it. Most of Presario is a bunch of red links with some of the exceptions being Compaq Presario 9500 and Compaq Presario SR1920AN and Compaq Presario C300...as articles go, they'd not highly encyclopedic. Proliant? Two sentences. Evo? Not that much longer. Most of iPaq is listing model and after model. Not sure that's a good idea for an article as such. TC1000 could be something, but it's not much. Besides, you're forgetting another possibility. A merge into List of Compaq products though if it ends up looking like List of Hewlett-Packard products that may not be an improvement. FrozenPurpleCube 18:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        BTW, I should note that if you can get this looking like iMac then that would demonstrate that there's an article here. FrozenPurpleCube 18:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can't either, though I do respect the possibility, I'm not sure the current article is the way to go. I favor a redirect unless somebody wants to make the article more well, substantial. FrozenPurpleCube 21:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertisement and directory only, this is more like a store flyer.--JForget 00:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I highly doubt HP (compaq) wants to advertise through wikipedia. Line of computers/laptops from major manufacturers should be notable due to the sheer number of reviews they get. Corpx 04:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is, how much is there to really say? Especially given the number of models involved and the customization options (less on a laptop than a desktop, but still not zero). In any case, the current state of the page is poor enough that it would need some active improvement. FrozenPurpleCube 15:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we can piece enough together from these Corpx 16:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you answered my question. "How much is there to really say?" does mean that. Is there anything about the "Compaq Armada" brand as a whole? What is there to really say other than spec lists? Is that something that should be included? Are the opinions of lasting value? I'm hopeful for the potential here, but sadly, computers aren't like automobiles. People write books about Mustangs from decade to decade. Computer models? Vast majority are out and then forgotten. Still, maybe an overview of the nameplate might be possible, I just don't see it currently existing in this article. Even Dell Latitude is better. FrozenPurpleCube 17:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just the same stuff you'd put down in an article about a car, say Ford Escape Corpx 00:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, these articles aren't even that much, but rather just specs and models. Ford Mustang or Volkswagen Beetle are much better. In this case, I say redirect until somebody builds an article. FrozenPurpleCube 00:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, leaning towards delete, waiting for more info before making a decision. spazure (contribs) 06:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Delete as per nom. Harlowraman 02:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 01:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edita Piekha[edit]

Notability seems unclear. Little verifiable information. SamBC(talk) 01:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Appears to assert notability (the IMDB bio also says she's an activist for orphanages in Russia) but in its present form the article fails WP:V and WP:RS. Cleanup required != delete. Dbromage [Talk] 01:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Cleanup. The article just needs to be organized with some mention of the appearances she has done. Ageofe 03:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. She is certainly notable and popularly known in Russia. Check the Russian [70] wikipedia page.--Yury Petrachenko 04:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is not enough WP:RS material to develop the article. The lack of references in the Russian [71] wikipedia page confirms this. The topic does not meet WP:N. However, see Serdobolsky, Oleg. (December 30, 2003) Itar-Tass Minor planet named after popular singer Edita Piekha. (writing, "Popular Russian singer Edita Piekha has been given a really star New Year present on New Year's eve. A minor planet identified as No. 15231 by astronomers of the Crimean Observatory who discovered the planet has been named Edita after the elegant singer of popular modern and Soviet-era compositions.") -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Googling in Russian for "эдита пьеха" brings about 675,000 results (872,000 without quotes) [72]. Not so much luck in English (Is it Piekha, Pyekha, Pieha, Pyeha?). --Yury Petrachenko 05:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There are claims for notability, but the sources to verify it are very weak. Fails WP:V and WP:RS. The Russian Wikipedia is not usable as evidence of notability, per Wikipedia guidelines. Personal assertions that she is notable are not usable, also per notability guidelines. There are entries for something at IMDB, but it is imporssible to tell the significance of the roles claimed. There are claims of concerts and recordings, but no references to prove them. For a supposedly famous 70 year old singer, the article is very weak. WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC are not satisfied by multiple independent and reliable sources. Edison 13:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She was one of the most popular singers of Soviet era and still has great popularity now in Russia. Piekha was recently awarded with a Nephrite Disc for their recordings, which means she sold more that several tens millions records in overall. RedAndr 19:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hey I don't know her, I haven't heard about here until this, but looking at the article is a notable figure in her country that's for sure.--JForget 00:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep a famous Soviet singer, I am surprized there were no article before Alex Bakharev 03:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I belive her name should be spelled Piecha, as she was orignally Polish, but anyway she is a very well known person all over former Soviet Union and many other places. In February 2007 she was on the cover page of the "Wysokie Obcasy" womens magazine in Poland which is a supplement to Gazeta Wyborcza http://kobieta.gazeta.pl/wysokie-obcasy/1,53662,3918108.html?as=6&ias=6 one of the most prestigious Polish newspapers --Himalajski 02:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ha-ha-ha. It's like prodding the article about Dusty Springfield. Speedy keep. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, see President Putin awards Order of Merit to legendary vocalist; Google hits: Edita Piecha 116, Edita Piekha 587, Edita Pieja 27, Edita Pieha 524, Edita Pekha 92, Edita Peha 626, Edita P'eha 619, Edita P'ekha 201, Edyta Piecha 904, Edith Piecha 1430, Edith Pieha 84. — Ash063 08:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 GRBerry 03:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He Lives[edit]

No indication of notability, smack of being promotional. SamBC(talk) 00:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete ~~per nom.~~ Changing reasoning per WP:PERNOM. Speedy delete per A7:Unremarkable Organization. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 01:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh 00:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aluminium de Grece[edit]

Seems unclear on notability, had been speedy tagged and tag removed, although the tag origins seem mysterious... SamBC(talk) 00:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has been mentioned in an article by the Greek embassy [73], this gives it some notability.--Alasdair 02:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Appears to meet WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS.[74] Nearly 10,000 Ghits. Dbromage [Talk] 04:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject of the article seems notable enought. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to be notable. [75] [76] [77] Carlosguitar 09:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The argument that it "seems notable" is not a valid Keep argument, since it is just a personal assertion. The references cited here (but not added to the article) just note that it was a small company sold by a large company called Alcan. It looks like a press release by Alcan, so does not satisfy the applicable guideline, WP:ORG. The references listed here are repetitions of the same story. The other sources cited here show that is is a company, and that it had an annual meeting, which is a rather trivial coverage and also does not satisfy WP:ORG.
- The greek embassy source is from the Greece News Agency, which is a prominent news source. Also, if such trading activities are mentioned by the embassy, it suggests that it's a significant national corporation.--Alasdair 14:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The embassy repeating a press story from Athens News Agency does not satisfy WP:ORG and does not in any way show that the company is a "significant national corporation." Trivial, run of the mill repetition of a news service repetition of a press release. Edison 16:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree, to me there are sources enough to meet WP:ORG. [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] Carlosguitar 22:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very notable Greek company and lots of G hits.--JForget 00:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Jackson[edit]

A non-notable person described by an unreferenced article (other than a myspace link) that makes assertions of notability by referencing other notable people. A dated prod has been removed by the author with no improvement to the article. Mendors 00:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unsourced, probably original research. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The myspace link doesn't work, and wouldn't be acceptable anyway, and the article is written in a far from neutral tone. As always, I will reconsider my position if the article is cleaned up and sourced.-gadfium 03:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete "Seth Jackson aka Beth Jackson"? A Google search for ""Seth Jackson" New Zealand" turns up nothing relevant whatsoever. I'm calling a hoax. fuzzy510 07:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete google searches for "Seth Jackson" along with any of the apparently-notable subjects the article suggests he is associated with turn up one hit exactly: this article. Probable hoax. JulesH 11:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my prod reasoning: looks like a non-notable blogger, unsourced, written in a very positive light, no relevant Ghits, etc Mel sa ran 12:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, utterly nonnotable, no reliable sources. NawlinWiki 14:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sounds like a load of bollocks: 'helped pass anti-smacking bill despite not being an MP, freed Ahmed Zouai...' *cough* sure you did. --Helenalex 22:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a hoax. No reliable sources. --Ace of Swords 19:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a1 empty, g1 nonsense. NawlinWiki 01:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

602000[edit]

Even accounting for it being misnamed (should be the number or year, surely), this article has no sources or indications of verifiability. SamBC(talk) 00:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense. Solar eclipse says "the last total solar eclipse on Earth will occur in slightly less than 600 million years".[85] Dbromage [Talk] 01:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete At present there appears to be insufficient reliable sourcing. JoshuaZ 23:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian calendar[edit]

Really not sure what to say about this one... if it is accurate, it's so badly written it's hard to tell, and there's no English language sources. I know English language sources aren't compulsory, but still... the article really doesn't feel right. SamBC(talk) 00:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It appears there is (or was) an Albanian calendar of the type described.[86][87] However this article fails WP:V and WP:RS. Possibly userfy until verified? Dbromage [Talk] 00:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know English sources aren't compulsory, but reliable sources are; the only source currently cited in the article seems to be the personal website of some professor of music [88]. Main question here is whether the Albanians actually had their own calendar. Gbooks search on "Albanian calendar" [89] doesn't help. [90] Google Scholar search might be of more help. [91] cab 00:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletions. cab 00:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Setting my Albanian heritage aside :), I think the article has potential. I can look for some english refs. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 01:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added an english ref. Is this enough to work with for now? Kiss me, I'm Albanian! J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 01:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this one needs expert attention. for one thing, I don;'t think the new ref is using "Albanian" in the modern sense -- the article using the term in quotes. This is very specialized philology & I have no confidence that the references support the article content. DGG (talk) 03:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have requested expert opinion from WikiProject Time. Dbromage [Talk] 04:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better sourcing is provided. While the Albanian-language reference seems to indicate there's something to the topic (there's a list of further references cited there), right now the article doesn't even state when and where and by whom that calender was supposedly employed. This makes it dangerously close to even a speedy (CSD A1). As for the English-language source, I share the doubt voiced by DGG; from the context this seems to be talking about Caucasian Albania rather than Albania proper. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's pretty clear that this is a legitimate topic. The weakness of the article is a sad reflection of Wikipedia's systemic bias. Abberley2 15:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: All but one (the [92] "Encyclopedia of Albanian popular music") of the web hits on google books and google scholar talk either about the Caucasian Albanians (an entirely different people unrelated to the modern Albanians), or just use "Albanian calendar" in the sense of "the set of days of celebration or remembrance relevant to Albanians", i.e. not in the sense of a separate calendaric system. And in the case of that one page by Vasil Tole, it's not clear to me either to what extent he is really describing an independent calendaric system, or rather just a set of folkloristic traditions related to days and seasons in the normal calendar. Besides, why would a work about popular music be describing a calendaric system in the first place, and be a reliable source for it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has an Albanian language source, and as with any other calendar system, it's worth including in an encylopedia. I don't know if there's the facility on the internet for translating an Albanian article, but I think it's worth trying. Mandsford 22:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: but is what that page described really a calendar system in the first place? I'd recommend holding back with keep votes until we've verified what that page is actually saying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What's described is certainly a calendar system - different way of defining moths, etc etc, and presumably years, if their new year corresponded early May in either the Gregorian or Julian calendars. A year being the same length as the Julian or Gregorian year is certainly not something that stops it being a separate calendar system. Now, whether it's notable and verifiable, and accurately represented, is another matter. SamBC(talk) 23:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What's described in the article is certainly a calendar system, sure -- but is that also what is described in the (alleged) source? I cannot find anything there, for instance, that looks similar to a claim about 45-day long months. What that page seems to be talking about is just the Albanian names of the weekdays (normal 7-day week) and what dates are conventionally considered beginnings and endings of seasons like summer and winter - but these dates themselves are evidently defined in terms of Christian saints' namedays, i.e. in terms of the conventional Christian calendar. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's only a 'conventional Christian calendar' in terms of what days are holidays festivals etc. In the sense described in the article this is a calendar system comparable to the Julian and Gregorian calendars. But now I'm waffling. SamBC(talk) 23:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - By "conventional Christian calendar" I meant exactly the Gregorian and/or Julian calendars. Point is, you can't have Christian holidays without basing them on either of these. The source seems to say, for instance, that the main division of the seasons were the feast days of St George ("Shën Gjergj") and St Demetrius ("Shën Mitër"). Now, these are defined as being on 23 April and 26 October, in the Gregorian or Julian calendar, because that's when the church celebrates them. You can't have them on any other days, and you can't have them without your calendar being underlyingly the Gregorian or Julian one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I checked the Albanian website referred to. The article should be kept, but should be revised a little. I may do it myself some other time.

P.S. Perhaps you need to remove the second link.--Getoar 09:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Does it say anything about 45-day "months" and similar outlandish stuff? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The creator of the article has now added another "source" reference, pointing to a graphics that seems to support something like 45-day units. That graphics, complete with a nice decorative swastika in the middle, occurs together with an anonymous text on the web in an Albanian webforum here and on another webpage with the telling title "werwolf88" [93] and apparent fascist/neonazi/nationalist leanings. In both pages it seems to have been posted just a couple days ago. Not the most reliable of sources, I'd say. A fashionable nationalist meme of some sorts? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pit lizard[edit]

Non-notable (it would seem) slang with no WP:RS. SamBC(talk) 00:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Could be used in one of Wikipedia's slang listings. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 02:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It hasn't establish notoriety as of yet.--PrestonH 20:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO - lack of "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term" Corpx 04:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have no emotional attachment to this particular issue/decision. I accept the delete. Sometimes I do wonder who really decides what is "notable" and what is not. Seems rather subjective at times. Ladycascadia 17:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 JoshuaZ 22:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelize China Fellowship[edit]

Not sure about notability, seems to be promotional, no sources or references. SamBC(talk) 00:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The search engine results does not reveal any reliable sources independent on church websites. Had they started some controversies or whatnot, they ought to have some newspaper mention.--Alasdair 02:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The organization appears to be legit. Definitely the author needs to expound on the article and furnish references as to why ECF is notable. But deleting is premature when marking it as a stub is sufficient. Tendancer 02:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it's a stub, it still has to be notable and verifiable. Nothing in the article seems to indicate notability. SamBC(talk) 03:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was created today. For goodness, how about giving the author a chance to prove notability. If it's still a two-sentences article in a month, I'd be all for deletion. To nominate an article two hours after it was created before the author has a chance to prove his/her case, however, is against the instructions clearly spelled out at WP:AFD. The correct action is to tag for references and contact the author, not jump on it. Tendancer 03:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That does not say "don't list it", it says to consider carefully before listing it. It seems a lack of good faith to assume that I did not. It is very easy to create a stub, on first edit, that meats all policies and guidelines. Further, AfDs don't work very quickly, and any changes between now and closure of the AfD will be reflected in the outcome. SamBC(talk) 03:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Again, keep in mind this article was 2 hours old when you nominated it for deletion. The text from WP:AFD states

Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If you can fix the article through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.

Have you tried to e.g. contact the author first and ask him/her to please expound on the content? That would be truly in spirit WP:AGF rather than assume he/she was trying to evangelize/promote something on wiki--for all I know maybe it is an attempt to evangelize on wiki, but I also know I can't pass that judgment after 2 hours. Tendancer 03:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can't judge that, hence the fact that it's brought here for wider discussion and review. Nominating for AfD does not prejudice against it being kept. SamBC(talk) 03:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to note a quick google search retrieved numerous articles on ECF's founder: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=andrew+gih&hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8. He's mentioned in a couple articles on wiki, including this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMF_International which looked like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OMF_International&oldid=23369298 after 2 hours. Nominating for Afd def *shouldn't* prejudice against it being kept, but it does and I think in this case the author def should've been given a lot more time than 2 hrs. That's just not what WP:AFD is for. Tendancer 03:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've somewhat expanded the article. The ECF is 60 years old, multinational, and zh.wikipedia.org has an article on the founder (we don't). The organization has minimal online presence in English; probably even more online presence in Chinese, given that every English page I found had a Chinese version, but not vice versa. From a 1980s California Court case I could determine that there are several different legal organizations with named beginning ECF; incluing ECF Inc. and ECF Hong Kong (who were the two parties to that case.) GRBerry 03:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not taking sides on the org or the founder notability. However I'm not too sure how encyclopaedic one can say the zh article is. All that article is a bullet point list of biography details (e.g. born here, went study here, did this here, die here). KTC 05:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- GRBerry 03:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article as it currently exists. The fact that a topic has poor English net presence doesn't mean it isn't notable. Currently, if claims made in article can be verified regarding the various entities the group has founded, it certainly qualifies as notable. John Carter 21:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources conferring significant coverage are found. As of now, there's just trivial mentions + directory info Corpx 04:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this seems like it could be a valid article with some more work. It seems a little difficult to separate the founder from the group; some expansion on the group or a merge into the individual may be alternatives. I did a dogpile and got 79 hits in English speaking sources. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of any notability.--Sefringle^Talk 03:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how it's promotional, and it also it could be used by those researching Christianity in China. Laleena^{Talk to me} _{Contributions to Wikipedia} 21:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meg Swansen[edit]

I think there's an assertion of notability, but I don't see her as notable myself. Does not seem to be verifiable either, from info in the article, aside from the fact she wrote a book (big whoop). SamBC(talk) 00:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just created the article a few hours ago, in part because several Wikipedians at the AfD for Sweater design wanted to see more about modern designers of knitted garments. Meg Swansen is universally known among knitters, partly thanks to her famous mom, Elizabeth Zimmermann, and partly thanks to her own indefatigable efforts to promote knitting. She's also the owner of Schoolhouse Press, a publishing firm. To be sure, there are many one-book knitting authors who do not merit their own encyclopedia article, but that's not the case here. Please be patient and let me fill out the article before you consider it for deletion. I sincerely hope that you think that knitting is a worthy encyclopedia topic, and that you are just objecting to the undeveloped state of this article. Willow 00:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Then feel free to add reliable sources. Dbromage [Talk] 01:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added references to well-known journals in the knitting community, and to a 1996 book that surveyed famous knitters in America. Willow 01:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. Looks better but it's still a very small stub and contains some peacock terms. Dbromage [Talk] 01:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've got several days - AfDs stay open a good while. SamBC(talk) 01:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Willow seems to know what she's talking about; these articles describe Swansen as "a household name among serious knitters." I'm sure there are sufficient sources to satisfy WP:BIO. Zagalejo 03:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She is one of 38 women profiled in the book Knitting in America. In addition to her biography in that book, there are other WP:RS materials from which to develop this article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 04:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She appears to be a knitting superstar (if there ever was one). - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Although the results of Google searches are of course not definitive, they do give some indication of how noteworthy someone is, and how many sources there are to flesh out an article. This name is not super common, yet has almost 28,000 google hits by my count. Not only has she written at least 4 books, and writes a regular knitting column in a popular knitting magazine she oversees, but she seems to have produced a large number of DVDs on various knitting projects. The surprise here is NOT that this woman is notable, but that there has not been an article about her yet on Wikipedia! It seems like a definite oversight that hopefully this article will correct.--Filll 14:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, obvious nonsense. Kusma (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedism[edit]

complete bollocks - WP:NOT a publisher of original research Fredrick day 00:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see that this has already been deleted three times before but in a different form, so it's not a G4. I would suggest that this be added to Wikipedia:Protected titles/August 2007/List after deletion. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy if the creator wishes to keep it as a Wikipedia essay, otherwise delete, original research and not an encyclopedia article. I assumed it was meant for project space when I saw it. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 00:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and BJAODN. Dbromage [Talk] 00:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy & delete per Zeibura. Cute, but not in the article namespace. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or move to BJAODN – per zeibura. –Animum 00:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, original research. Has been moved to my personal BJAODN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 02:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 05:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOT and WP:NOR. Carlosguitar 08:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, original essay. NawlinWiki 14:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to BJAODN This is funny! Jesse Viviano 19:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to BJAODN It is more appropriate there.--PrestonH 20:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The author, in saying that Wikipedists have no god, has obviously never read talk pages regarding Scientology, Christianity, Islam... well, you get the idea. Delete and BJAODN if necessary. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to BJAODN per Jesse and Preston. -WarthogDemon 22:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sadly, this is not funny. Because nearly anybody here could have written a funnier article about Wikipedia as a religion. Notably, Wikipedia is as close to an Internet church as I have ever witnessed. The funny thing is, this essay writes itself right here on AfD. The FIVE PILLARS, the holy commandments of WP:____, the sins of listcruft and incivility, the cautions of "assume good faith in nominations"... I love Wikipedia and I love AfD (some of you guys, I can live without). This, however, doesn't belong in BJAODN. Even a bad joke has to be funny to be a bad joke. Mandsford 23:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR--JForget 00:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to BJAODN per above editors. This could be made to be funnier with little effort.
- 'Comment what Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense? See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#BJAODN deletions. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE per logic of DGG. Rlevse 02:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Artak Movsisyan[edit]

Not notable. Insufficient sources (the only one provided is not in English), information cannot be verified. No verification available for bibliography. Contested speedy. Realkyhick 00:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Artak Movsisyan is notable for his publications regarding Aratta and the ancient Armenian states. He has a dozen publications, if the user has a problem with references he should add a {{References}} template otherwise we can use other language sources. Not sufficient for deletion. --Vonones 00:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The lack of English language sources is a problem. Ghits appear to suggest the subject meets WP:N and WP:PROF but in its present form the article fails WP:V and WP:RS. Cleanup required != delete. Dbromage [Talk] 00:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not Wikipedia notable. Movsisyan might have fame because of his publications regarding Aratta, but that does not make him Wikipedia notable. Wikipedia notable addresses the amount of reliable source material about Artak Movsisyan that are independent of Artak Movsisyan. There is not enought reliable source material independent of Artak Movsisyan to write a Wikipedia article on the topic.-- Jreferee ^(Talk) 04:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask what makes a historian or scholar notable? he has had a dozen publications, he is notable because of his work, I can expand the article if some time was given. --Vonones 21:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Non-English sources are specifically permitted under Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources in languages other than English, and the biographical information (that he's a professor studying Armenian history and works in the institute named) is confirmed by the external link, so I don't see the nominator's contention of "no verification available". Professors who get interviewed for general-interest publications likely meet WP:PROF (which is hard for non-specialists to judge). The source in question seems to be rather partisan, based on the kinds of statements they make on their front page [94], but for basic information about a professor who's accomplished in his field, it seems fine. However, the list of papers needs to be cited much more clearly (e.g. please give original titles, publication names, dates, journal names and issue numbers, etc.). cab 08:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:PROF. Jauerback 13:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 15:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above for failing WP:PROF. Non-English language sources are not the issue here; lack of notability is. Eusebeus 18:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - per WP:PROF, he matches alot of them. --Vonones 20:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per WP:PROF, he meets none of them. He has published a number of books, but there is not the least information about their importance. Publishing books is not enough for an author, professor or otherwise. they have to be noticed at least in the country of origin, and there is no evidence for that at all. They are in LC with the authors name being given as Movsisyan, A. E. (Artak Erjaniki). Not all of them seem to be books--I cant match them up because LC gives the Armenian titles and this article only the English translations, but some are clearly just pamphlets under 100 pages. Worldcat shows one in english : The sacred highlands : Armenia in the spiritual geography of the ancient Near East by A E Movsisyan : Yerevan : Yerevan University Publishers, 2004. ISBN: 5808405866 held in just two US libraries. There is no indication that is actually is a professor--the article says "senior scientific worker" Google cannot find the server for the interview. I'd be glad to change this to a keep if sufficient documentation can be provided. I recognize the difficulty of documenting it, but we need something more. DGG (talk) 05:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is a local Armenian museum I can get his books and papers on him, I can add more information and more reliable sources, reviews on him and about him etc. So I can expand it. --Vonones 11:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also the site is back up, [95] --Vonones 11:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I read the Russian source, it's legit. He may be marginal, but he's verifiable, and that's what counts, ladies. So I say let's keep him. -- Y not? 07:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PROF Harlowraman 01:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am impressed by the analysis of DGG. Further, the interview starts by describing him as "The senior scientific worker of the institute ...". The evidence points to him being a researcher and an authority who has published fairly widely, but that is part of his day job, but not of him being a full professor nor of his work being especially notable. TerriersFan 01:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EuMAS[edit]

it's masters program - needs a line at most on the relevent university pages - we are not a directory of university courses. Fredrick day 00:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Might not strictly meet the speedy deletion criteria, but does not establish notability per WP:N. Not particularly useful for a general audience either i.e the article does not specify what this course is exactly. Camaron1 | Chris 12:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tried to speedy it - wikilawyerism prevented that - hence an AFD - I'd say it would meet speedy because it's a product - which can be speedy if NN. --Fredrick day 12:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and speedy close - Doesn't meet WP:N. As far as I am aware, WP:CSD#A7 is not limited to those items listed in CSD A7. "A masters program" would seem to fit within the speedy deletion group established by the items a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content. WP:CSD#G11 "product" probably does not apply since an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well. Not that it matters much, but a masters program is a service rather than a product. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I work in academia in the UK and we'd consider both a product and a service. --Fredrick day 18:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nomJForget 00:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 20:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Linden[edit]

This article seems to be part of Charles Linden's promotional marking for his method to treat anxiety disorders. There is also a significant lack of reliable sources wanted by WP:BLP. Most sources that exist on the internet are published by the subject of the article. Absentis 02:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would've said just tag for now and give it a couple months to see if adequate references can be added, but content as written definitely is too commercial and unencyclopedic. Tendancer 02:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only part of any encyclopedic value is the criticism section. Everything else reads like an ad, and fails to site a single credible source. — Zioroboco 03:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Biased, and unencyclopedic. --H irohisat ^Talk 03:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject may be notable, true - but the bias and advertising inherent to article place it beyond help. A fresh, unbiased start is warranted. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 03:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Articles that read like a résumé give me anxiety disorders. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Number 5 7 11:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he advertises himself. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure I see the problem with this article. Thanks to the sourced criticism that the nominator added before nominating it to deletion it reads as a rather well-written article about a vaguely notable unqualified mental health self-help writer with fringe theories. It certainly doesn't seem biased, or appear to be an advert. Yes, the parts written by User:Charleslinden1 may be somewhat biased, but he hasn't edited the article for several months now, and it seems relatively free of self-promotion now. As to whether this means it should be kept or not, I'm not sure, but I am pretty sure that some of the deletion concerns above should be taken with a pinch of salt. JulesH 12:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the fact he fails WP:BIO horribly, this article also has a bad case of WP:COI, since the creator is Charleslinden1. Jauerback 14:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snow White and the Seven Dwarves (Mountains)[edit]

Found this with a speedy tag on it, with the following claim: "I lived, hiked and canoed the area for many years and never heard of them. I'm a mapoholic, and I've never seen these names entered on any NTS sheet or other map of the area. Perhaps the author is confused with the Christmas Mountains. No supporting references are given. The names do not appear in Alan Rayburn's "Geographical Names of New Brunswick". No such names are in the Canadian database, http://geonames.nrcan.gc.ca/ ". I do not know the truth behind this, so wanted to move it to AfD instead. No opinion from me. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 07:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem notable enough. Bulldog123 10:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless some verifiable info is provided to show this name actualy beeing used for these mountains. I believe pretty much every geographic location can be worthy of an article, but some basic proof of existance should be a minimum requirement. Maybe this is a case of an alternative unofficial local name or something, but if that's the case it makes a poor choice for the article title. Since is does now show up in any maps or databases over mountains in the area and we don't know theyr supposed location (so we could check if there is anything with a different official name there) I'd say delete this as unverifiable at this time. --Sherool (talk) 11:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Sherool, appears to be entirely unsourceable. In fact, the IP who argues for deletion on the article's talk makes a much better case for the mountains not existing than the article does for the opposite. Dina 13:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no evidence. This appears to be about as non-notable a name for a group of mountains as it's possible to get. However, one registered editor did make edits to the article that suggests some knowledge: [96] I'll let User:Plasma east know this discussion is taking place. SilkTork 13:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Goldom. Thanks for the afd warning SilkTork. I standardized this article and categorized it many months ago during an editing blitz for New Brunswick stub articles, but didn't verify the information at the time. The Christmas Mountains do exist and consist of the following peaks: North Pole Mountain, Mount St. Nicholas, Mount Blitzen, Mount Donder, Mount Dancer, Mount Dasher, Mount Vixen, Mount Prancer, and Mount Comet. The names and location can be seen on this map: http://www.snb.ca/atlas/21O02F.pdf? or verified through the geonames.nrcan.gc.ca website. I would suggest a straight delete of this article, or possibly create a redirect to a new entry for the Christmas Mountains, since these peaks contained an ecologically significant old growth forest that was logged with great controversy by Repap during the mid-1990s.Plasma east 14:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just realized that a Christmas Mountains article currently exists, so either a redirect, or to prevent confusion, straightforward delete.Plasma east 14:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the lack of info and sources, probably merge this to New Brunswick or Miramichi.--JForget 01:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with a mention in an appropriate article Corpx 03:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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