Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 4 August 6 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete and convert to a redirect page. TerriersFan 04:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bohemian Polka[edit]

It is only significant in the fact that it is a cover of Bohemian Rhapsody. It was never released as a single, and therefore probably isn't very famous, it should be deleted. MalwareSmarts 23:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable parody, full of fancruft and trivia. (Ugh, who would ever think of saying "you can hear (something contrived) if you play the song backwards" in an encyclopedia?!) Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 23:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Songs that don't make a significant ripple in the music world as a single are non-notable, unless the song creates its own source of notability through controversy or what have you. That doesn't apply here. Consequentially
  • Delete Not really notable, yet interesting to hear, being a cover of the tune and not a regular parody. Pharmboy 01:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to list of songs by Yankovic. Definitely hasn't been charted or placed in rotation or whatsoever. Fails WP:MUSIC. It hasn't been referenced in other popular culture either, so it's like a one off song that isn't notable by itself.--Kylohk 01:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect unless there is a meaningful peak chart position. Dbromage 05:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; i don't see anything to salvage that's not covered by Alapalooza. From the same album, "Talk Soup", "Livin' in the Fridge", and "Harvey the Wonder Hamster" also need assessing. —Piet Delport 06:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to polka. The term "česká polka" ("Bohemian polka" in translation) is used among Czech musicians to distinguish it from other variants. Pavel Vozenilek 11:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. In that case it would need to redirect to a disambiguation page. Dbromage 00:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If that is the case, then I would agree with Ddromage. Pharmboy 14:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dlete JJ Williams 20:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Alapalooza or List of songs by "Weird Al" Yankovic unless notability can be better established. An article about "Bohemian polka" as a musical style should be at Bohemian polka (lower case 'p'). DHowell 05:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Alapalooza or List of songs by as Weird al, as Dhowell said. CrowstarVaseline-on-the-lens-Jitsu!fwends! 21:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above statements. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 17:58, 10 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. --Coredesat 07:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Powers and abilities of Franky (One Piece)[edit]

Powers and abilities of Franky (One Piece) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Giant in-universe list of cruft. No verifiable sources to assert its notability. Delete or merge into Franky (One Piece). Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 23:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 23:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and cleanup: It seems a bit excessive to have a sub article on a fictional character that is larger that the character's article itself. Shiroi Hane 00:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above Snarfies 00:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - the character article is already ridiculously excessive. Slamming in another enormous chunk is untenable. There's already a sufficient summary in the character article without this material. I can;t think of any fictional character who requires a separate article just to detail their powers. Otto4711 01:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - absolutely unsourced, cruft. Seems unnecessary to have such a large article on the powers and abilities of a fictional character. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Also, why should we allow ourselves to have one article on his powers and abilities, and not have another article on, say, his hairdo? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Depends - does he have a cool hairdo? ^_^ Snarfies 22:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The parent article is already pretty detailed about powers. There is no possible real-world relevance or usefulness of an article like this. Plus, I can't imagine there is a hope of third party sourcing it. Gnfnrf 17:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Really little more than a fork, and it's not going to meet WP:V (the main article doesn't). Adrian M. H. 23:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dlete JJ Williams 20:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too often our articles turn into nothing more than trivia about crap. I know that is not very delicate wording, but this stuff really needs to go. Trivia of the mundane must go quickly, silently into the long, dark. --Storm Rider (talk) 07:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 10poundHammer, AllGlorytotheHypnotoad, Gnfnrfet and Strom Rider. Bearian 19:07, 9 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. --Coredesat 07:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beija-Flor Jeans[edit]

Beija-Flor Jeans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable clothing manufacturer. A Google test for "'Beija-Flor Jeans' -wikipedia" yields 227 results, which include two hits for their home page and a number of directory listings. These are reflected in the sources listed in the article. The sun article is about "jeans parties," mentioning Beija Flor in passing. The next three are directory listings from different sources, the fifth is an internal press release. The sixth is a directory listing. The only other claim to notability mentioned in the article is their sparking the "jeans party" movement. A Google test for "jeans party" fails to demonstrate that such a thing even exists, let alone that this company was responsible for setting them lose on the world. Consequentially 23:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A glance at the article history shows that this article passed through Wikipedia:Articles for creation, probably because the reviewer was impressed by the variety of sources. As the nom points out, the sources don't amount to much, and the conflict of interest is hard to escape. Shalom Hello 01:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm the AFC passer; I believed its significance was in the 'innovative' jeans party, but I don't vouch for its inclusion. ALTON .ıl 03:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The links on that page are trivial mentions + directory info. Delete unless somebody can find RS Corpx 05:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too few good sources, unfortunately. Adrian M. H. 23:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral it would be nice to see some more references. --PEAR (talk) 09:59, 7 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 00:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with two or more professions[edit]

List of people with two or more professions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate information and loosely associated topics. Arnold Schwarzenegger is an actor and also Governor of California... Arthur Conan Doyle was a writer and also a medical doctor. Where's the connection between those two people? They've had other jobs, so what? Original research needed here as only people with another "notable" profession are included, but it isn't clear which professions are notable and which aren't. Saikokira 23:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete This is an awful idea for an article... I propose its deletion, as well as the possible comphiscation and repeated sledge-hammering of the author(s) personal computers. Bad, bad page. †Ðanieltiger45† Talk to me 23:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, totally impossible to verify. Totally pointless. Non-notable juncture. And can I do the hammering? (Sorry, had to say it...) Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 00:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete as being against everything we're not against. A beautiful example of "a list of indiscriminate information". AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No speedy criterion fits. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 00:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ... in agreement that this violates WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE in having far too broad of inclusion criteria. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as useless and indiscriminate list. It is better in an category instead, since it would be more maintainable. --JForget 01:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete List of loosely associated items Corpx 04:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see a snowball rolling here... all of us have had different roles in our lifetimes. Mandsford 22:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, go home, change clothes, go somewhere else, and then Remove too. ←BenB4 06:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --PEAR (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete JJ Williams 20:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteBalloonman 16:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, what a total fucking joke who thought of this list? Burntsauce 17:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Not completely useless, but is totally unsourced. Make a Category per JForget. Bearian 19:15, 9 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. —Centrx→talk • 02:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Conner[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 23:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Keep per Corpx. Just about passes WP:PORNBIO criteria 1. Epbr123 12:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • But is one nomination enough to be considered notable? If so, then I have serious reservations... Tabercil 22:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete If only these Wikipedia contributors would think with their brain instead of their genitals. Someone isn't notable just because you enjoyed their smut film. --PEAR (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever it was, PEAR has been blocked by an admin as a vandalism-only account. Tabercil 22:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above statements. I don't have much to say; just not too notable. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 18:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. She doesn't meet the criteria. Lara♥Love 19:19, 10 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. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 01:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Non-admin closure [reply]

Eiffel Tower in popular culture[edit]

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

Delete - directory of loosely associated topics. "Oh look, the Eiffel Tower is on my TV!" is not reason for an article listing off every time the tower shows up anywhere. Do not merge any of it into the tower's article. Otto4711 22:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the Jabba the Hutt article, just quick, and it seems that the "pop culture" section at least has inline citations. Also seems to be a bit of analysis of what it means for Jabba the Hutt to appear in popular culture. No wonder it would make for a featured article. But a mindless list of every cartoon appearance doesn't make for encyclopedic material whatsoever, does it? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said below, being uncited and in list format isn't a reason to delete. Epbr123 17:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really a good thing. How'd an article with such a large, unreferenced section of pure trivia smut make to FA anyway? Yes. I'm talking to you, De Lorean article. But . . yes . . this is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Fact is, even if those sections are bad, this one is inordinately worse. Consequentially 00:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I fully agree with getting rid of the pop culture sections in most of, if not all, of those FAs, at least most of those sections are cited prose, not a giant unreferenced list. -- Kicking222 00:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being uncited and in list format isn't a reason to delete. Epbr123 13:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as being an indiscriminate list of blah blah blah you get the drill. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleterandom, non encyclopedic trivia. Obina 00:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "The tower can be seen in the background, in a scene in the movie Munich." I mean . . why? Nom has it right on this one. Consequentially 00:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone above (including myself). -- Kicking222 00:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep the use is artistically and culturally significant in many ways. for this article, I've started to classify it. perhaps looking at the part I've begun will indicate the significance of the theme. I'll add some references to that also. I remain extremely upset how a few people in a few hours of trivial work, and destroy a major element of wikipedia . It is much harder to build than destroy--it is harder to improve andy article than to remove it. Those who see something with obvious weaknesses and want to simply remove it on the basis of quick and superficial inspection without considering carefully and in detail how it can be improved, are a danger to Wikipedia. And to do so at this speed -- a speed with which constructive people cannot possible keep up, is perhaps a sign of the extreme vulnerability of the project.
Personally, these topics are not a great interest of mine. But my respect for this project has led me to spend most of the week in trying to rescue them--although a little clumsily, as I am dealing with things that could much better be dealt with over time by a group of people knowing the different subjects. . It should not have been necessary--there were much better ways of doing this. I anticipate a long period of trying to recapture lost ground. DGG (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources are provided and that the list is trimmed down, even if it's a landmark it's another of those listcruft trivia articles without sources.--JForget 01:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Keep but edit mercilessly (see below Otto's next comment). A section in the tower's article about how (that is, if) it has become a symbol of Paris and/or France to the world would be a great edition. However, a list of all the instances where it has appeared is simply not necessary or notable in this form. CaveatLectorTalk 01:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think then your vote might have been better cast as keep and edit. it does not take AfD to remove sections from an article. I will mention that an indication of how it has become significant is in fact the frequency of its use. DGG (talk) 01:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So lazy filmmakers who want to establish that their film takes place in Paris use an establishing shot of the Eiffel Tower. From such stuff is not an encyclopedia article made. Otto4711 13:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually disagree, Otto. An article that includes a sourced explanation of why an establishing shot of the Eiffel Tower actually works (i.e. why it is a symbol for Paris and what this establishing shot evokes) is very encyclopedic. CaveatLectorTalk 16:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it is or not, a simple list of such shots would not be. Otto4711 16:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notification as the nom forgot to do it, I have been notifying in a neutral way those registered WP editors who made significant contributions to the article in the past year. DGG (talk) 01:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep this article should be kept because its intresting and shows diffrent popular culture of the eiffel tower, besides people want to delete articles all the time that are perfectly good, we should keep this article, wikipedia does not have to be perfect in every way, and removing this article would lose a usefull article, just because there are not much sources does not mean its not worth including, so keep it.

WP:USEFUL disagrees. And a lack of sources does mean its not worth including, per WP:V. Consequentially 04:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, WP:USEFUL is not policy. It's no wonder that it has never become policy, really. This particular section assumes that alternative projects exist for every Wikipedia article (blatantly false), then assumes that those alternatives are inherently better than Wikipedia articles (blatant non sequitur), and then never even links the fallacious arguments back to the usefulness argument that it's supposed to be criticizing (a blatant ignoratio elenchi). Then it proceeds to tell us that we can't measure usefulness with a yard stick - well, unfortunately the same is true for notability, verifiability, source reliability, and just about everything else. And I think perhaps these shortcuts (WP:V) can be harmful, because you seem be be mixing up Verifiable with verified. Please read Wikipedia's deletion policy ("All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed") rather than sighting policies and essays which are not in themselves reasons for deletion. — xDanielxTalk 23:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And you have completely missed the point of WP:USEFUL. There are things that are useful that don't belong on Wikipedia, therefore claiming that something is useful does not necessarily mean it should be kept. Dictionary definitions are useful, but they belong on Wiktionary. Claiming there isn't a project for this article does not mean Wikipedia should have it. If there were a project appropriate for this article, claiming it to be inferior to Wikipedia also does not mean it is appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. Also, if you want to keep an unsourced article it is your responcibilty to find the sources. Finding no sources over the course of an AFD means that either all attempts have fail or no one is willing to make an attempt. Either way, the article does not belong. Jay32183 00:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jay, you're repeating the same argument plenty of times. Your argument is that usefulness can be trumped by other standards. That does not mean that usefulness is an invalid standard for evaluating AfD discussions, it just means that it is not the only standard. It is actually the responsibility of the nominator, or those wishing to delete an article, to demonstrate that reasonable attempts have been made to find sources without success. I suggest you read WP:DP carefully. An article may be deleted if "Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources," or if "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed." If no one feels like making a serious attempt to find sources, then the article should not be deleted for lack of sources. That is the reading of the policy. — xDanielxTalk 03:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the only things that matter at AFD are WP:NOT, WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. IF your keep violates any one of those then your keep is invalid. Making the argument "useful" disregards all of those. Under no circumstances will I find sources for information some one else provided. Read WP:V, it is the responsibility of those wishing to add or retain material to provide sources. I will not look for sources for an article I said fails WP:NOT, that doesn't make any sense. Do not say "Keep - it can be sourced" unless you are willing to provide sources. Otherwise you are undeserving of any respect and should not be contributing to an encyclopedia. You are responsible for your own work and the work you defend. Do not place the burden on those criticizing it. That does not make any sense at all. Jay32183 03:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jay, WP:V focuses on an article's content, not its existence. The one sentence ("If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.") is clarified in Wikipedia's deletion policy as "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed" (WP:DP). For content disputes, the burden of verifiability is on the editor supporting the contentious claim -- this makes perfect sense, as otherwise any user could carelessly add unverified claims and much work would be required to remove them. When we're dealing with entire articles, the opposite is true: much work has been put into these articles, and canning them because the author(s) were not familiar with the format of a reference tag is disrespectful. When in doubt, remove (or tag) is the principle that is widely accepted for individual contentious claims. When it doubt, keep is the principle that is commonly accepted for entire articles.
Also, WP:V makes it clear that only contentious claims require verification. I do not think that the trivial claims made in this article are contentious.
Of course, I normally do try to find reliable sources for articles in question, as a measure of courtesy. But this is a unique case, since the claims are not contentious in the first place and adding references is simply a trivial bureaucratic procedure, and also because there are too many claims to source all of them in the course of an AfD when all the work may just go to waste anyway.
— xDanielxTalk 07:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely incorrect on every point, has you have been with everything you've said so far. WP:V does not say that only contentious claims require sources, the word only is not included. Making that assumption is idiotic if you understand the principle. Adding references is not a bureaucratic procedure, but a necessity. If content is unsourced, it does not belong on Wikipedia. The deletion policy is incorrectly written if it makes you think otherwise. Stop saying "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed". People saying "Keep" and not providing sources is all attempts failing. Get sources or don't say keep, it really is that simple, and foolish to think otherwise. "When in doubt keep" is never to be used, since undeletion is possible, the discussion can go further. Deleting is always the safest thing to do when unsure. Failing to publish true information is not nearly as bad as publishing false information. You also completely ignored the other four policies I mentioned, three of which this article outright fails. Most importantly it fails WP:NOT#DIR, because that is not something that can be fixed. You can't take loosely associated material and change it into closely associated material. It isn't a formatting issue, it's that the claim that these things are associated because the reference something is being made. That is a ridiculous claim. Taking any two movies and finding the Eiffel Tower is a complete triviality. Jay32183 18:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A few quotes from WP:V: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." ... "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" (emphasis theirs). I ignored the other policies and guidelines because you did not explain how you thought this article violated them, and frankly I'm not interested in hearing it. I'm rapidly loosing interest in this discussion--I'm concerned that you're continuing this debate for personal or ideological reasons and not substantive ones. We've had civility issues in past discussions, but now you are really pushing on WP:NPA with remarks like "You are completely incorrect on every point" and "Making that assumption is idiotic." — xDanielxTalk 22:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete List of loosely associated items, but that any movie/video that has a scene set with the tower in the background should be included on this list. Corpx 04:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though it could use a lot of cleanup. If this article is deleted then this sort of stuff will start popping up in the main article on the Eiffel Tower, which is already rather long. Eventually it would need to be split out again. So why not just fix this up nice and save the extra effort? Lots of other pop culture articles exist without causing problems, I don't see what harm this one in particular embodies. Bryan Derksen 07:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping this article, and other pop culture articles are also being deleted. Better here than in the main article is not a reason for keeping this article. If the information is not stuff that should be included in the main article then it shouldn't be spun off into its own article either. Otto4711 13:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sections get spun off into their own articles because they're too long, not because they're not notable. Epbr123 13:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Review any number of similar AFDs for these spun off IPC articles. There is almost invariably smoeone who wants them kept because they don't want the trivia clogging up the main article. Indeed, a number of AFDs have comments from the creators of the IPC articles explicitly stating that they spun off the IPC section not because the article was too long but because they felt the information was not appropriate for the article. There are even some who state that the section was removed so that the main article could make FA status. Otto4711 14:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's clearly no consensus that all IPC sections and articles should be deleted. Epbr123 14:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At no time did I suggest that consensus exists to delete all IPC articles. There's pretty clearly quite strong consensus that articles like this one, that are trivia dumps, are unencyclopedic as they are being deleted at quite the rapid clip. The only arguments generally offered up for them are along the lines of what we've seen here; arguments that carry no weight like "put it here so it doesn't end up somewhere else" and the heartfelt pleas like DGG has been making of late since he's been unsuccessful in his other arguments. Otto4711 15:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - I can see the Eiffel tower being worthy of a "cultural significance" type of study, as it's very symbolic. However, this article will invariably turn into a list of every Hollywood chase scene that had the Eiffel in the background. Oh look: James Bond chased a bad guy up the Eiffel. An asteroid hits earth in Deep Impact, and because it hits Paris (instead of, say, somewhere in Yakutsk) you get to see the Eiffel get blown up. For something iconic like the Eiffel, I'd suggest a section in the main article (no, wait for it) simply titled "Cultural Significance", properly written in a scholarly way like the rest of the main article is, that deals with only the cultural significance of the Eiffel. Such a section heading would probably suggest to newbies that they aren't to add in every American corporate movie or cartoon that shows the Eiffel just to let the viewers know "this scene happens in Paris". The "pop culture" sections could be generally eradicated and replaced with "cultural significance" sections in the main articles, to provide proper encyclopedic treatment of the subject. What do you think of that? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is another frivolous nomination on the sole basis of the words "popular culture" in the title. All such nominations ought to be rejected on principle at this point. RandomCritic 15:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not only a failure to assume good faith it is for all intents and purposes an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. You don't like how the outcomes of these AFDs has been going but all the reasons you've offered in other AFDs have been rejected, so you come up with this. Otto4711 16:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because article shows iconic status of this notable monument. I wonder, though, if "popular" would be better than "pop" in the article's title? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as said above the Effel tower is an iconic symbol. It has appeared in many famous works of art, films, and countless mentions in poems. I could see how this information was originally on the main article but had to be broken off as the main article became too large as well as this section. I do agree it could use a more encyclopedic tone to it instead of simply 'bullets', but like all stubs has the potental to become an article of interest. Mkdwtalk 19:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I'm assuming that the "under construction" tag went on after the delete nomination, because I can't tell from the history. This one aspires to be better than the "I saw the ________ on TV" type of IPC and, since the Eiffel Tower definitely is a pop culture icon, I think it will succeed. Let's face it, when you picture Paris (or for that matter, France), what do you see in your mind's eye? The Louvre? IPC's are not inherently bad, and an intelligently edited IPC article can be worthwhile. Mandsford 22:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I put it on yesterday when i started re-arranging the content, to make it clear not all the content had been sorted yet. I added clearer headings, and I could use some help with moving the material correctly. DGG (talk) 04:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just a collection of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR Jay32183 05:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Redundant unencyclopedic trivia. -- bulletproof 3:16 05:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This is an iconic symbol and the page does assert notability.-- bulletproof 3:16 05:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if we're going to have any pop culture articles, well-known cultural symbols qualify more than, you know, television shows getting referenced on other TV shows. ←BenB4 06:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete iconic symbol and patriotism aside, this article violates WP:NOT#INFO. I also strongly disagree with the opinions above that the article "asserts" notability. There are no reliable, secondary sources that prove the Eiffel Tower is important in "pop" culture; rather, there are many trivial instances of even the smallest glimpse of the Eiffel Tower in various forms of media, and from these bits and pieces we are supposed to assume that this building is therefore notable. That's not the way an encyclopedia works. María (críticame) 15:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The listed films and TV programs are themselves reliable, secondary sources that indicate the Eiffel Tower is important in "pop" culture. Epbr123 15:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they are primary sources. A movie is also not a reliable source for its own analysis; it merely proves that such-and-such scene exists (which is not what is being refuted). A third-party source, on the other hand, should do more than indicate what makes the scene notable. Please read WP:PSTS, which states that "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." María (críticame) 15:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not the movie scenes which require secondary sources here, it's the Eifel Tower's impact on popular culture. Anyway, I'm sure there is plenty of written secondary sources which discuss the Tower's cultural impact. And articles aren't forbidden to use primary sources in addition to secondary ones. Epbr123 15:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From your summary of my statement (your first sentence), I'm almost inclined to think that you're agreeing with me, but it's difficult to be certain. Of course it is not forbidden to use primary sources as well as secondary sources, but again I suggest you read the policy; secondary sources are used to analyze and interpret ideas/opinions, such as "The Eiffel Tower is important in pop culture." If secondary sources are so readily available, however, then why are they not listed in the article? María (críticame) 16:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Eiffel Tower has had an important impact on popular culture. Is it better to prove this by quoting this statement from a book, or by listing examples of exactly how it has impacted popular culture? I would say the second. Epbr123 16:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, a lack of citations isn't a reason to delete an article. Epbr123 17:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This subject is so obviously notable that the existence of independant secondary sources shouldn't have to be proven to save it from deletion. Anyway, this source states "silent surreal shots of the lighted Eiffel tower gave the film an eerily romantic tone." This is a secondary source discussing the tower's use in popular culture, proving that the subject is notable. Epbr123 18:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's OR by synthesis. And, no, although I agree that the Eiffel Tower is indeed notable, its notability in popular culture is assuredly not proven by this article. Again, this list is trivial, indiscriminate, unencyclopedic cruft. María (críticame) 18:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using your logic, most of the sections in the Eiffel Tower article should be deleted. There are no secondary sources provided which prove that the Events, Similar towers and reproductions, Installations or Background sections are notable topics. Epbr123 19:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. They should. The "events" section is just WP:TRIVIA with a different label, and the reproduction of the tower in other cities lacks reliable sources citing the importance of such reproduction. Your argument is an extension of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Consequentially 19:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So everything in the Eiffel Tower article should be deleted? Epbr123 20:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not what Consequentially said. I agree completely with their assessment, but we mustn't get off-topic; this AFD is not about Eiffel Tower, and you are utilizing OTHERSTUFF, which is not looked upon favorably. María (críticame) 20:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is what he said. None of the sections in the Eiffel Tower article have sources showing they are notable topics. Epbr123 20:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That isn't what he said. I said that the trivia section labeled Events and the trivial sections of Background and Installation should be removed. How does "some things" equate to "whole thing?" Consequentially 21:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not what I said. I said most things, not some things. Getting back to my main point, its ridiculous to insist that sections should only be included in articles if there are sources provided which prove that the sections themselves are notable. The important thing is that the content of the sections be notable. Epbr123 21:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you're right on that one. That's something I'd have to see on a case-by-case basis to make up my mind on. But still, we apply notability and verifiability requirements to every article on Wikipedia, why should we not apply those same rules to Foo in popular culture lists? In the same way bands and people and places and things have to demonstrate a reason why they should be covered within the encyclopedia, so, too, should cultural mentions of foo. The quality of a list that is restricted to items of significance would be a boon to the encyclopedia. Consequentially 04:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what kind of proof is needed to show this topic is notable, but the Eiffel Tower itself has an exhibit called The Eiffel Tower in films.

Epbr123 08:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah! That's the kind of thing that I think makes a good "in popular culture" article. Of course, we should always start with a section in an article, and if we could reference that exhibit in the main article, we're doing the right thing. My problem is that said exhibit probably doesn't mention Deep Impact, or similar appearances, and they remain out of the realm of significance. I wish there were more sources like that, because those a good encyclopedia make.Consequentially 19:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per the unsigned comment DGG replied to. Mathmo Talk 21:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 18:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG and Mathmo. Lack of sources is not a reason for deletion unless "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed" (WP:DP). This subject is interesting and notable, and a lot of work has been put into the article. It's not violating any policy, and it's not causing any harm. — xDanielxTalk 23:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it's not a good article as it is, it can be improved. I agree that an "indiscriminate collection" is not what we should have, but a coherent account with a substantial list of examples could replace an indiscriminate collection. Michael Hardy 21:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...and I would add that in this case the way the occurrences are classified seems intelligent and useful to the reader. Michael Hardy 21:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've moved the article; instead of pop it now says popular. I've fixed the links to the new redirect page (except the ones from user pages and talk pages). Michael Hardy 21:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Otto4711 wrote
"Oh look, the Eiffel Tower is on my TV!" is not reason for an article listing off every time the tower shows up anywhere.
I agree, but that's not a reason to delete this. If people are being indiscriminate in what they include in this article, that's a reason to edit this article, not to delete it. "... in popular culture lists" should not generally be indiscriminate. Michael Hardy 21:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - in order to keep the main article short, it is inevitable that such off-shoot articles are necessary  — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 22:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This article has greatly improved since getting listed here. Maybe that was what it needed to make it more clearly worth keeping. Maybe some of the "delete" voters will want to reconsider in light of the new edits. Earlier it looked as if it might have been an indiscriminate list, but now its coherent and organized. Michael Hardy 22:57, 9 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. --Coredesat 07:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every Day Should Be Saturday[edit]

Every Day Should Be Saturday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

nn college football blog, main claim of notability is that is was mentioned in passing by a San Jose newspaper, which isn't enough for notability. Biggspowd 22:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Outside the Alexa top 100,000 with a page rank so insignificant, the site doesn't bother tracking it. Consequentially 00:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Prominent site in the college football world; Wikipedia junkies might not understand this world, a world that consists of people who leave their computers from time to time to interact with other people regarding things like beer and university athletics. Don't be afraid of that which you don't understand, Wikipedia nerds. 24.124.69.9 01:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah yes, the good ol' "you are nerds with no lives" argument. Such enlightening and insightful reasoning you have there. Ironic, however, that you tell us to live in the real world, yet you're not showing us any proof from said real world that this site is talked about there. That's why we're deleting it. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Make no mistake, us college football fans have odd lives as well. Our fandom, however, tends more towards the actual interaction with humans than it does towards false demagoguery. What, pray tell, constitutes "proof"? New media and blogs by their very nature are often not cited by mainstream media sources; that does not, however, make them non-notable. 24.124.69.9 02:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, it does. Notability, according to Wikipedia, is bestowed by third-party, independent media coverage. A lack of third-party, independent media coverage, ergo, is a lack of notability. And if you're going to claim that "Wikipedia junkies might not understand this world, a world that consists of people who leave their computers from time to time to interact with other people regarding things like beer and university athletics," you might want to pick a Wikipedia junkie who doesn't have season tickets at Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum. Consequentially 02:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I read this blog occasionally, but its lacking "significant coverage from independent sources" `Corpx 04:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's also a dubious idea to portray other people as "Wikipedia nerds" who never "leave their computers" when one is trying to justify the maintenance of a Wikipedia entry about another web site. --Metropolitan90 05:57, 6 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 00:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of personnel 351st Bomb Group 508th Bomb Squadron[edit]

List of personnel 351st Bomb Group 508th Bomb Squadron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Aside from the obvious WP:V challenge of proving all of these people actually served in the unit, there is little reason to chronicle people who don't meet WP:N on their own. Also, take into account the maintenance issue. Formerly prodded, prod tag removed by 70.91.192.37.Consequentially 22:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOT. This is indiscriminate information of no encyclopedic value. --Dhartung | Talk 22:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless list containing people in which they (all of them) look they done have any articles--JForget 01:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is pretty much the definition of a directory entry. I'm doubtful enough about listing commanding officers of military units, but the whole personnel roster? Not appropriate for Wikipedia. FrozenPurpleCube 04:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. I don't understand why there would be a directory of the 508th Bomb Squadron in Wikipedia when there isn't even a general article about the squadron to explain why it is notable. --Metropolitan90 05:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as copyvio - if you follow the link at the bottom of the page, you'll find a website where this personnel list is duplicated exactly. Also, delete for lack of context: only the link tells you that these guys were in WWII. Also, just the fact that it's no more than a list is enough for deletion. Note, I personally like the idea of keeping this information stored somewhere for posterity, as I feel otherwise that the soldiers of WWII will be forgotten; I just think Wikipedia isn't the appropriate place to keep lists of all veterans. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a copyvio, as this is merely information that comes from PD sources and does not constitute a creative work. IOW, it's basically like copying a phonebook. FrozenPurpleCube 15:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry, much as I idolize and appreciate our WW2 vets, this is not the place to make an article on every member of a squadron in the Army Air Forces. I assume that the 508th has a website, and this would be a welcome addition there. Mandsford 22:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if the group were notable for a specific action and the list was of people who were in the group at that point in time then I MIGHT change my stance. But as is... Balloonman 16:07, 9 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 23:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TruthAboutDuke[edit]

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

nn sports blog, alexa is around 3,000,000 and never in top 100,000. A few references, but are indirect and not related to site. Most webpages do not need WP entries. Biggspowd 22:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete despite some trivial coverage by the New York Times and the Baltimore Sun, two major newspapers. This sports blog covers criticism of a single team, and it's not popular or relevant to a general American sports fan (such as yours truly). I think the lengthy citations of the website may constitute a violation of WP:NPOV by "undue weight", aside from the fundamental lack of notability. Shalom Hello 01:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Don't care about the "I'm too dumb to uninstall a toolbar" Alexa rank. Searches find Myspace/usenet/myspace/ownsite/myspace/wikipedia/youtube links. References that don't list the site and loaded with google ads. Fails wp:n and wp:v. Pharmboy 22:53, 10 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 22:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vainquer Magazine[edit]

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

nn internet magazine, alexa is around 6,000,000 and was never in top 100,000. Borderline spam and no showing of notability. Biggspowd 21:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sitting on the fence, but I have a couple of comments. First, the article fails WP:WEB - no other publications have considered this startup magazine important, if the external links are any guide. The low Alexa rank supports this characterization. However, the magazine has profiled such major popular singers as Avril Lavigne, and the article history (more than a year) hints that it may have a cult following of readers. Shalom Hello 01:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete unless cites about this web-mag can be found. Bearian 19:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The URL for the magazine is dead; besides, like Shalom said, the article fails WP:WEB. --Aarktica 21:26, 12 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. For something lacking any semblance of reliable sources or notability, merging is not the best option. — TKD::Talk 22:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tequila Terror (Drinking game)[edit]

Tequila Terror (Drinking game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable drinking game; see also WP:NFT. Oli Filth 21:49, 5 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. --Coredesat 07:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prophet Onias[edit]

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

Major problems with WP:BLP and WP:OR: no references or citations is the primary problem. A user on the Talk page admits that the entire article was constructed from personal knowledge and therefore cannot be properly referenced and cited. Google search turns up some passing references to his existence, but nothing like the detail contained in the article. Might not even be notable enough to justify an article. This is somewhat confirmed by the limited number of links to the article from other articles and the nature of those links. SESmith 21:45, 5 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. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Event[edit]

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

nn wrestling event, was not on PPV or television, many other cards of similar attributes have been deleted. Had prod removed by wrestling fanboi. Biggspowd 21:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Yep, seems pretty non-notable to me. -- Kicking222 00:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So, it's a wrestling event, way back in 1986. If it really was a WWF event, certainly it should at least have some newspaper mention? It's unlikely that RS can be found on the web since it dates back over 20 years.--Kylohk 01:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am the wrestling fan who removed the prod for such fanboy reasons as the event actually being Notable and at the time had one Reliable source as well (I guess assuming good faith isn't necessary when it comes to pro wrestling??). Furthermore I've gone ahead and shown that there are plenty of sources on this event which shows 3-4-5 places that independently report the same results etc. I'd say it's well within the guidelines of what should or should not have an article on Wikipedia - but what do I know, I'm just a fanboi apparently. MPJ-DK 06:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Set huge attendance records for a wrestling show in Canada, over 60,000+ attended the outdoor event. I think the record is still set to this day (Correct me if I'm wrong, anyone). FamicomJL 07:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think so, the WM III record was for the US and there have been higher in Japan and Korea but I haven't found one with higher attendance in Canada
  • Comment Yeah, I had meant the record for Canada. My bad if I wasn't clear enough. FamicomJL 07:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment no, no, no you were clear, I was just supporting that statement MPJ-DK 07:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —MPJ-DK 07:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has sources now. It is notable for the attendance record and the fact that it was such a huge event back before WWE did monthly pay-per-views. Nikki311 07:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' The article has a whole hell of a lot of sources, I glanced at it when it was up to 35 or something. The other dormant events held by the WWE (Fully Loaded, Insurexxion, etc) still have pages here and i feel this is another one for that pile. --SteelersFan UK06 09:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I still feel this is far from notable, I will withdraw the nomination. It has gone through the usual pro wrestling "improvement" drive of adding sources from fansites, which are clearly not WP:RS. And most of the "32 sources" are from the same website. Total junk, but if you want this place to be a cesspool, that's your fault. Biggspowd 14:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment so you ARE incapable of "Assuming good faith" then? There is a printed source (a book) in there as well as Slam! Wrestling Canada's biggest wrestling related news site and I've cited websites that are known to be accurate, while they may not hold up to your high and mighty standards they're far from cesspools and have been proven time and again to be accurate, especially when I added external links that confirms the content, if less reliable the fact that several independent sources says the same it definitly makes up for it. MPJ-DK 16:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Almost none of the sources seem to be reliable by the standards of WP:RS. www.thehistoryofwwe.com is not a reliable source, prowrestlinghistory.com isn't either. We have a mention in a book that might be a reliable source. JoshuaZ 20:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That’s kinda weird because after having read WP:RS I tend to find that both thehistoryofwwe.com and prowrestlinghistory.com would in no way go so much against WP:RS that it’s grounds for deletion. Let’s examine it
From the section "What is a reliable source": Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. – having used both sites as "fact checks" for events I’ve seen myself over the last 15-20 years and always found them to correctly reflect the facts as I've seen them myself I’d say it’s trustworthy. I’ve used these sites to find dates for litterally thousands of matches I’ve taped off TV since 1989 and not once have they got the result of the match wrong – authoritative indeed. As it states in general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources, there aren’t any wrestling websites that are more reliable out there and they’re definitly appropriate
Not only that but it’s not like the facts that these citations support are in any way contentious or surprising facts about something that’s not widely know (in wrestling circles at least). There aren’t any ”exceptional claims” that’d require ”exceptional sources”
And seriously you can’t just claim that the book ”might not be a reliable source”, don’t just make an accusation like that back it up with something otherwise you’re just trying to undermine it as a source since it’d speak against deleting the article – and such underhanded tactics naturally can’t be your intention here (we'er all acting in good faith after all) at all so I’m sure you have good reason to try and undermine it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MPJ-DK (talk • contribs)
I'm afraid that you need to reread WP:RS including the sentence you just quoted. The relevant form of fact checking is that that do there own fact checking with having "an established structure for fact-checking" and "editorial oversight". I don't see any evidence that either of these websites has anything of the sort. The book again as I said might be a reliable source, I don't know much about it. One reliable source is less than impressive. JoshuaZ 15:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So because you don't personally know much about it's okay to try and make it look less reliable? What are sources for? To prove that it's not original research, I quotes 3-4-5 different instances that support the claims in the article - ergo it's not original research, it's got enough reliable sources to pass the notability claim and as such shouldn't be deleted. That you have a problem with some of the sources isn't grounds for deletion when it fullfills the requirement of WP:N with the book and the Canoe website reference, the rest honestly is just icing on the cake to disprove any thoughts of "original research", no matter how much you'd like to undermine the book as a reliable source. This is getting ridiculous and honestly not worth arguing over, the vote is cast it's done MPJ-DK 15:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked into the book in more detail and it seems to pass WP:RS. I've still seen no evidence to back your claims that the two websites are reliable sources. I can't find on either website any evidence of editorial oversight or fact-checking which are necessary for something to constitute a reliable source. JoshuaZ 16:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've known Graham (thehistoryofthewwe.com's webmaster) for many years. The fact that he's had people who are retired wrestlers, and even the WWE THEMSELVES, visit, and the I.P.'s to prove it (Well, atleast when I asked a few years ago,) should prove enough that it's a relaible source. I think he stated legendary manager Jim Cornette once quoted using his site to look in information in an interview This has become SERIOUS nitpicking, gentleman. Just two people's opinions. Why not e-mail the webmaster himself and ask for more information about how notable the site is/isn't, and make a decision from there? FamicomJL 17:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Why is this AfD still open? It has been the standard five days, and the nominator withdrew the nomination. Nikki311 19:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer. AfDs remain open for at least five days. They have been known to remain open for longer, and it's no big deal if they do. Regardless, I'm closing this one right now, so no worries, eh? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:26, 12 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. --Coredesat 07:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega[edit]

Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page is non-notable as it relies on a website and self-referential books. Page also seems to not follow Wikipedia guidelines in WP:SPAM. I am also answering a challenge made without civility and in bad faith by User:IPSOS found here: [1] Kephera975 21:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Request to close AfD, Merge - with Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, as per the other AfDs on related articles here, here, and here. ColdmachineTalk 21:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC) The article seems fairly comprehensive to me. If you are concerned about the verifiability of sources then perhaps you could improve the article rather than nominating it for AfD? Surely that would be more constructive? (edit conflict) I see you added a note about your dispute with User:IPSOS: AfD is not the place to raise the matter. ColdmachineTalk 21:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - with Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, to integrate the numerous contemporary orders into one central and more comprehensive article, per AfDs here, here, here and here. ColdmachineTalk 21:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. With respect, merging all those articles would cause ongoing problems. The fact that they each claim some connection to Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn does not make it true. They are not at all the same thing and there is no reference or source to support their inclusion in the same article. If they are merged it will become much more difficult to disambiguate them and would create fertile ground for continual edit warring about what should or should not be included. All of that aside, this AfD is about a non-notable organization that has only self-promotional references, so this article should be deleted and not merged anyway, whatever happens on those other AfD's. --Parsifal Hello 00:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I don't believe this is a noteable organisation, plus it does read a bit spammy. Note that dozens of current occult orders claim to be descended from earlier orders- so be careful when googling as they may bear no direct relation to earlier orgs of the same name/those they claim association with. (off topic- I believe Kephera may, albeit perhaps indirectly, be clearing up wiki of non-noteable orgs. Any sources in the article seem to be fringe magazines. 30 separate google mentions or something, including wikipedia.Merkinsmum 21:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request to Close AFD Nominator seems to be acting in bad faith when he says "I am answering a challenge made..." in the actual nom itself. This ties into Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Open_Source_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn. I don't want to assume bad faith, but the nom's own words clearly indicate he has a horse in this race, or clearly a point to be made, which is reason to close discussion. In short, the entire premise of this nom is tainted, and nominating articles because you were dared, challenged or otherwise IS bad faith. Pharmboy 21:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see any reliable sources which back up the notability of this organization. It's clearly not a bad faith nomination; he was requested, by another user to nominate this page, and did so. I don't see any reason to oppose on such a basis. --Haemo 21:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment assume goodish faith, no matter what the nominators personal feelings this org may well be worth deleting. Their war is irrelevant to the sustance of the AfD (complete lack of noteability of this org). He was half-joking about the challenge thing. We don't have to play it straight all the time you know:) His comment was in response to one by User:IPSOS and there seems to be mutual aggrevation which he is also experiencing from User:IPSOS.Merkinsmum 21:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think he was joking, and the tone and links I provide confirm this. His being tagged as a sockpuppet for someone with continuous POINT issues aside, it is inappropriate to use this as a basis (real or otherwise) for a nom. I didn't vote yes/no on the article. Sometimes policy is more important that a single article. Pharmboy 21:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, please see the talk page where myself and several other users were attempting to politely discuss the issues, when suddenly Kephera975 starts flinging accusations of bias and threatens that he thinks none of these well-established articles would survive nomination for deletion. He did this is lieu of actually discussion concerns raised in a mature manner. IPSOS (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete every reference to this article is golden-dawn.com - or strange trademark registrations. Where are the outside 3rd party references that makes this notable? --Kim D. Petersen 21:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absent a showing of coverage in third-party sources that establish notability. Concerns of bad faith are perhaps a reflection of this situation being a bit of a furball, but it doesn't invalidate this nomination. It probably just means everybody needs to be cool, and realize that having axes to grind isn't helpful for Wikpiedia. FrozenPurpleCube 21:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Flunks WP:N. At best, it merits a sentence in the main article. THF 23:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Self-promotional. The website linked in the article multiple times even contains a membership order form, you can join for $99.00 plus $50.00 per year, using PayPal, right here. --Parsifal Hello 03:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - notability not established. IPSOS (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fnord - the mgt. ←BenB4 06:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources, notability not established, no coverage in any third party publication. GlassFET 15:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Light Merge - I agree with Coldmachine in the manner that this should be merged, but it is misleading to those who are a part of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and it's not part of the organization directly. If anything, the only reason I don't lean towards a total deletion is due to the fact that people are entitled to their beliefs. WP isn't a place for advertising memberships however. Why is this not an article that is part of if it is legitimate? --Mnemnoch 02:33, 10 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 00:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty pocky[edit]

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

Probable hoax - no references, and Google brings up nothing. Oli Filth 20:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete You may be right, but even if not, it isn't notable, and as you say, not verifiable. Also smells of 'something made up at school one day'. Pharmboy 20:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's probably just a joke someone made up one day. --Haemo 21:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if anything, per WP:NEO. Mkdwtalk 22:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per hoax and possible bad joke.--JForget 01:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Also violates WP:OR, WP:N, and WP:V. Bearian 19:28, 9 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 00:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

La migra (game)[edit]

La migra (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A non notable variation on tag. Wikipedia is not for stuff made up in school. The content shouldn't be merged anywhere unless there are reliable sources detailing this game, which is doubtful Darksun 20:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete per WP:NFT. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 20:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non Notable, No WP:RS and 'yikes' what they said about nft. Obina 00:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry if it isn't very notable in Europe but it seems fairly common in the united states, as I have heard that it is played in at least 2 states:Texas and California. It is the most notable variation of tag I have heard of. Also: if wikipedia is to be as encyclopedic as possible, why are there articles on videogames? and why does every editor merit his own page? Unless wikipedia's server is full and articles not of the highest importance must be deleted, I see no need to delete La Migra. 67.180.96.180 02:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Video games are included because they can be verified by reliable sources. If you can provide such sources for this article, then it could be kept in some form. --Darksun 11:06, 6 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. --Coredesat 07:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Rossstar[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced, unwikied vanity page advert for DJ Rossstar. Edits are primarily done by editors which are probably sock-puppets for the DJ with little other interest than in DJ Rossstar (occasionally making edits to other articles to reference DJ Rossstar [2]), and also by the DJ himself [3] (it was necessary for him to create a "DJ Rossstar" account so that he could legally upload his own picture on March 17, the same day Dansaysno put it on the DJ Rossstar bio). ~ JohnnyMrNinja 20:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No evidence of notability. —SlamDiego←T 20:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete as spam. No notability, no external sources outside of a Myspaz page, quite obviously spam. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:43, 6 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. --Coredesat 07:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reach The Sky[edit]

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

Non-notable band (see criteria at WP:MUSIC). Apparently split up in 2003, so no chance it will get any more notable. One band member used to have a bio and that has already been deleted. Savidan 20:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. No evidence of notability. —SlamDiego←T 21:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - but not speedy. Members went on to become associated with other bands like Rise Against, who are notable enough for WP:BAND. But, the article has no reliable sources, no proof, and no assertion of notability, so it should go. However, you raise a good point - they won't be getting any more notable now that they've broken up. Ah, the wonder of pop culture's fleeting notability! AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:46, 6 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 22:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taxiarhis Apostolikas[edit]

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

Non-Notable athlete - does not meet WP:BIO for athletes having not played in a fully professional league. Contested PROD - no reason for contesting given Mattinbgn/ talk 20:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Hang on - the entry says he was with Olympiakos in 2004; that's one of the biggest clubs in the world [4]. If that's true, it's a relevant consideration, even if he didn't get a professional game. The language at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability would allow players who have not played to be notable if most other players at the same club have articles: Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad already have articles. This should be confirmed before deletion. --Greatest hits 06:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There is no evidence provided in the article that he played a single game for Olympiakos or was even on their first team squad. He certainly is not on their first team squad now. Even if he was on a first team squad, discussion on a project talk page doesn't override WP:BIO. The discussion on the talk page reads to me that they are suggesting an article can be created for a current first team squad member for clubs of sufficient stature, not a previous squad member. If, as seems more likely, he was merely was a youth player then that doesn't meet WP:BIO either. There was nothing I could find in English showing any association between Mr Apostolikas and the club, although there may be a Greek language source. If evidence comes to light that he did play a competitive league game in the first team for the club I will reconsider my !vote. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 07:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Aarktica 21:33, 12 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 have been presented. JoshuaZ 20:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

relies on a website and a newspaper article for notability. There is only one secondary source and it is trivial or incidental at best. Kephera975 19:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Bad faith nomination made in violation of WP:POINT. See [5] and [6], and check user's contribs for recent multiple nominations of articles. IPSOS (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment note that the nominator conveniently ignores the book source (Wicker, Christine (2005). Not In Kansas Anymore - A Curious Tale of How Magic is Transforming America. Harper San Francisco. ISBN 0-06-072678-4) where both the founder and the Order are discussed at some length. IPSOS (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not in the guidelines of notability or W:SPAM. I am acting as a neutral party who believes all of these articles are not verifiable according to Wikipedia. Verifiability trumps the baseless accusation of "bad faith". I did not ignore the Wicker source, I am stating it is trivial. The book hardly mentioned the subject matter in any depth whatsoever. Even so, that is only one source, and a shoddy one at that. I would want the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega page deleted as well for the same reasons but you have that article protected even though, as it stands, it looks like a violation of a trademark. Kephera975 20:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep As the article and references seem fine. Nom seems petty and relies on subjective analysis on the sources, pushing WP:Good faith to the limit. Pharmboy 21:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, User:IPSOS acted in bad faith as can be seen on my talk page: [7] Kephera975 21:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not interested in a tit for tat or "he started it" conversation. I am not your father nor here to referee. Dragging your little spat with IPSOS into AFDs shows an amazing lack of judgement and taints the process, particularly Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rosicrucian_Order_of_Alpha_et_Omega where you say that you nomnated it because you were challenged. I can't see how that is anything but a bad faith action. Pharmboy 21:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails notability. If not deleted then merge into Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. As for the book as source - My aunt Karin was once mentioned in a book about Flensburg (where she lives) - does that make her notable? (edit conflict) --Kim D. Petersen 21:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that it has enough WP:WEIGHT to entail merging. The current references certainly wouldn't merit such. --Kim D. Petersen 21:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn to the extent there is any verifiable notable comment, but I don't think more than a sentence survives. THF 23:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge if we must. But I can find no WP:RS evidence of notability - I urge caution of sources for a merge. Obina 00:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment this AfD should be considered on it's own merits no matter who has nominated it. IMHO several of the articles this person's nominated are valid deletion candidates. The row between him and User:IPSOS goes both ways with User:IPSOS being equally provocative and with a dubious history of his own. It is Ipsos who left a message on Kephera's talk page goading him to start the other article's AfD. I advised him to go ahead at it was an obvious potential candidate for AfD, as can be seen by the consensus beginning to emerge at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rosicrucian_Order_of_Alpha_et_Omega. So everyone please consider each AfD on it's own merits, no matter what the nominators motives each individual article should be kept or deleted based on it's non-noteability, spamminess or lack there of.Merkinsmum 13:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*delete - no demonstration of notability from independent third-party sources, no verifiability outside of their own writings. I hate bad-faith AfDs and people creating them to make a WP:POINT, but to tell you the truth, if some witchy person goes and writes a bunch of books, that doesn't make them notable. What makes them notable is independent third-party coverage. If these witchy people are unknown outside of their own friends and readers, they don't go into Wikipedia. I can accept WP:POINT if it helps identify self-congratulatory spam that needs to be removed from Wikipedia. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep - adding the Thelema Coast to Coast interview and the Krengel article into the sources for this article seem to make for notability, at least within their own community.AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.Your note fails WP:CIVIL and I respectfully request that you strike out the words some witchy person and these witchy people and choose a more appropriate way to express your thoughts. Those are disparaging comments about the religious beliefs of actual human beings. I am not involved with that religion or philosophy, but the people who are, are as worthy of respect as those of any other religion.
Regarding the point of your comment, if a person of a certain religious belief writes a book, and people who believe in that religion buy the book, and it is written about in magazines that are read by people of that religion, there is nothing about WP:Notable that says that's not good enough and that people of other religions, or of no religion, have to consume the material in order for it to be notable. --Parsifal Hello 01:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[struck-out my comment since the prior comment has been modified, my reply no longer is relevent. --Parsifal Hello 19:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)][reply]
Sorry, I've modified my entire comment now that some independent sources have been added. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've now struck-out my comment as well. I didn't mean to be heavy-handed in my note if it came across that way. No offense was intended. --Parsifal Hello 18:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The dispute between nominator and others is not at issue. The real issue is that deletion should not be used en lieu of normal editing processes. RandomCritic 15:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article has been in existence for over a year and there have been no editorial improvements made. This ignores the fact that any article which does not meet verifiability standards is fair game for deletion. Kephera975 17:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the nominator, it is not necessary for you to repeat your arguments in the body of the AfD. In addition, the article was added as a project-stub several weeks ago to Wikipedia:WikiProject Thelema, before this AfD, which means it was already tagged for improvement by the project. Wikipedia is not in a hurry. Deletion is not a good substitute for improvement of articles. --Parsifal Hello 06:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - I've added a couple more references produced since the ones already cited in the article. Clearly this Order has attracted the attention of others. It's existence is verifiable and its notability is for the combination of the Open Source paradigm with occultism. That's what the sources find notable as well. IPSOS (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, very weak keep I'd heard of them (not that that's really grounds for a keep lol) and like the idea of open source, that's why I haven't really given an opinion yet. But they're already mentioned in Open Source Religion and could be merged there.Merkinsmum 20:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Liking open source doesn't make this article notable. --PEAR (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Keep. Do not merge. Unlike some of the other Golden Dawn-related orders that were mass-nominated for AfD by Kephera975, this one is different in many ways. I had not seen it previously but have now reviewed it and found it notable and verifiable. This order is relatively new, but was created by Sam Webster, an author who is notable himself, including for example that he wrote Epilogue to the 1986 edition of Israel Regardie's Golden Dawn: The Original Account of the Teachings, Rites & Ceremonies of the Hermetic Order. This order is unique in that it invites relationships with other orders and as it is based on the open-source software movement and take a collaborative approach rather than self-promotional, and have already been written-up in a variety of newspapers and magazine articles, which further confirms it is WP:Notable and WP:Verifiable and that the article should be kept. re-edited per reply to Merkinsmum below. --Parsifal Hello 00:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-reasons not to merge. A couple editors have suggested merging with Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. That has also been suggested on some of the other AfDs of Golden-Dawn related orders. I apologize for duplicating some of this comment on more than one page, but since the AfD's were posted on an assembly line, I don't see how that can be avoided. Some of the articles should be kept, and some of them should be deleted - the each have different notability and references and need to be treated as separate articles. Merging them would cause ongoing problems. Most claim some connection to Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, but that does not make it true. The various orders are not directly related and there is no reference or source to support that they should be in the same article. If the articles are merged it will become much more difficult to disambiguate them and would create fertile ground for continual edit warring. All of that aside, this organization (The Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn ) is different than the others in that it does not even claim direct connection with the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn on its website. This order states that it is part of the same current of thought, and traces its historical basis in philosophical terms, but it specifically avoids what the others do in that it states it is not a formal descendent of the original Golden Dawn order. That alone is a reason not to merge this article into the others. --Parsifal Hello 00:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi Parsifal you say this org has "been written-up in a variety of newspapers and magazine articles" if so please add them, then maybe it'd be definitely worth a keep. There's only one interview and one book reference in that are good sources at the mo. I don't deny the idea of the OSOGD has probably been commented upon, but we need to prove it:)(put it in the article, rather than here.)Merkinsmum 09:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops - you got me - I was going too fast when I did my first search. I took up your challenge and did some more searching and it turns out that what I thought were publications were actually blogs, plus one physical magazine that turned out to be self-published by the OSOGD. But they have been mentioned in the book listed in the article - I confirmed that on Google books, and the two blogs referenced in the article are respectable enough. I've struck out that portion of my initial comment and changed from strong keep to keep. --Parsifal Hello 10:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Merging to The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. would be a problem because they state on their website that they have no connection with any of the other orders that use those words. They state that they offer a free license for any sincere order to use the words, and that they are not controlling the use of the words and any other order that uses the title is independent and separate from them. --Parsifal Hello 18:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The site does clearly state here that they "certify" these groups for use of the words, but don't control the workings or teachings of the groups. This would simply have to be made clear in the merged article, which could contain very short sections, say a paragraph each, on each of the licensees and their distinctive features, if any. I agree that the better solution is to keep this article. I'm not so worried about the other orders. If they are notable, sources will be found and the articles can be restored or rewritten. GlassFET 18:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So we add a website and a podcast. The editors here are seasoned and intelligent editors. It is confusing that they would completely ignore the requirements for independent sources in WP:N (Organizations). Kephera975 19:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Despite what others are saying here, this is an independent religion. It just needs to be better categorized rather than merging to other articles, which will cause problems. --Mnemnoch 17:33, 10 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. --Coredesat 07:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Ayoub[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability, and appears to have been created as a coatrack for Ayoub's anti-vaccination views. Sideshow Bob Roberts 19:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 00:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Midgley 01:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Most of the content is unsourced, and as Sideshow Bob says, it's a coatrack for anti-vaccination. It has numerous problems with non-NPOV content. --Kristjan Wager 15:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete vanity soapbox for nn individual. Bigdaddy1981 16:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's not a coatrack - he's primarily noteworthy due to his anti-vaccination views. As far as Kristjan Wager's comment "most of the content is unsourced" it's one of the most heavily-referenced short articles I've seen in a while, and I managed to fix 3 of the fact tags with a few minutes of Google-searching. As a recent parent, I've had several people who hold anti-vaccination views quote him at me to tell me that I shouldn't have my kids vaccinated. [Comment redacted, per WP:BLP.] As far as Bigdaddy1981's "vanity soapbox" comment, if it were one, there wouldn't be a criticism section. CruiserBob 00:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment of the ten references, I can see 5 that relate to his putative notability (notes 5-9) of these, one (8) is a self made YouTube video, another (5) is a blog and another (7) is something the article's subject wrote for a website called independent-media.tv (it bills itself as "only for news ignored and under reported"). Perhaps its not vanity; but I can't see how this is "one of the most heavily-referenced short articles" you've seen. I further note that two of the remaining citation needed tags are in the section which attempts to establish the subject's notability. As far as I can see the only possible notability for this man rests on his past sporting achievements. Bigdaddy1981 01:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm surprised by the suggestion that this article is "one of the most heavily-referenced short articles I've seen in a while". We don't judge an article by the number of references but by their quality: in this case, the references are uniformly unreliable (apart from the link to his macaque paper). As far as I can tell, he hasn't been the subject of a single reliable, published source (let alone the substantial coverage that Wikipedia generally demands) so this article will probably always be entirely dependent on unreliable sources.
If you believe Ayoub is notable, it would be helpful if you could show how he meets one of the criteria at either WP:BIO or WP:PROF. "Several people have mentioned him to me" is not evidence of notability. Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Do you think the Illinois Times or the Paramus Post are somehow beholden to Ayoub, or their coverage is otherwise unreliable? And given that notes 6 & 7 are quotes of Ayoub which describe his position, the fact that they are from things he's written/recorded himself make them perfect as reliable sources for showing what his position on vaccination are. Further, the fact that the blogger in note 9 feels the need to discredit Ayoub is a strong indication that he's notable among the anti-vaccination crowd. [Comment redacted, per WP:BLP.] the anti-vaccination movement gets enough play that his prominence in it makes him notable enough to merit inclusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CruiserBob (talk • contribs) 04:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
To clarify, nobody's saying the Illinois Times or the Paramus Post are "beholden to Ayoub". The problem is that these are small, local papers so they don't establish notability. If he's notable, he should have a lot more to show for it than two articles in local papers and a blog entry.
Also, small local newsmedia like these don't generally have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that Wikipedia requires from its sources so we shouldn't automatically take everything they say at face value. The article currently suggests that Ayoub has received "national media coverage". If this is true, we should be able to quote examples. Judging from the evidence presented so far, my granny's received more media coverage than this guy. Sideshow Bob Roberts 14:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If he is really notable for the expression of his views, wouldn't we expect there to be more in the way of sources than two local newspapers? His views are not unique--there are other espousing the same probably dubious theory, and it is necessary to show that he in particular is notable for them, not just that the theory that autism is caused by mercury in routine immunization is notable. he didn't develop the theory. DGG (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "Ayoub DM" draws only six hits on PubMed; one is a recent letter to Am J Epidemiol, one is is 1983 Science paper, there are three radiology-related papers over the intervening twenty years, plus one letter to the editor of Am J Surg. Four actual publications over twenty-four years – even including one in Science – is a very weak publication record. It sure looks like this guy is being used as yet another coatrack to push a particular anti-vaccination position—for some reason this article has a "Quotes" section, and there seems to be an effort to remove criticism[8] from the article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I may not agree with his views, he appears to be notable for his activities in the vaccination opposition movement. Surely he's as notable as the least notable person on Wikipedia. Andrew73 15:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Surely he's as notable as the least notable person on Wikipedia" is a textbook example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and, as such, is not a very good argument. 65.241.15.131 18:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 8 papers on Medline for either 'D Ayoub' or 'DM Ayoub', even with one in Science, does not suggest a strong publication record which would meet WP:PROF on its own. I could find no evidence from the article or Google of high-quality national/international independent sources covering his stance on vaccines. Espresso Addict 16:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TenOfAllTrades, DGG. Current level of sourcing fails both WP:BIO and WP:PROF. There's been a note somewhere that he's received a Stegner Fellowship; if that can be sourced, then perhaps it would meet the WP:PROF bar as receiving a notable award.My mistake - I misread the canvassing taking place here. Currently his publication record and academic position argue against PROF notability, and the lack of substantial independent secondary-source coverage argues against WP:BIO notability. Even if kept, the article requires a near-complete rewrite, as it is currently a poorly sourced, POV WP:COATRACK. MastCell Talk 19:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, DGG, Bigdaddy1981, Espresso Addict, et al. This is a classic bad article of a biography of a non-notable "scientist" used as a coatrack for publicizing unusual theories. Bearian 19:38, 9 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 as per WP:SNOW. Capitalistroadster 17:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal society of human rights investigators[edit]

Royal society of human rights investigators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fairly certain that this is a hoax. Couldn't find any references. Chris 19:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Any queries concerning the RSHRI should be directed to Mr. James Scott Francis of 21 Oaktree Road, Croydon North, Victoria, 3136, Australia, or by email: james.s.francis@optusnet.com.au. The RSHRI registered URL is: www.rshri.com.au. Existing server facilities are currently being reconfigured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Scott Francis (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. There are severe verifiability problems with the article given that no sources are provided and seem to be difficult to find. I doubt that the queen has given her imprimatur to the organisation if it exists. Capitalistroadster 02:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a monarchist order that simultaneous wants to establish the Queen as the highest authority in the UK and Australia, AND also wants to abolish nation states in favor of a "liberal democratic global parliamentary system based upon the Westminster system of governance. Hard to believe its serious.DGG (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteSpeedy delete. No such organisation is listed as having been granted a Royal Charter[9], a legal requirement to be able to use "Royal" in the title. Dbromage 06:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have changed my vote to speedy and nominated the article for speedy. No such organisation can be confirmed to exist. I also removed some blatant copyright violations from the talk page, which James Scott Francis appears to be using as a soapbox. Dbromage [Talk]Australia 00:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's spam anyway. The Evil Spartan 22:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax. It is not clear where it claims to be incorporated, but in Britain, it would need some licence to use the word Royal, without which the word cannot be part of a company name. Its principles are also mistaken. The Queen is not a dictator. Consitutional lawyers will explain tha the sovereign power in Britain lies in the Queen In Parliament. Peterkingiron 23:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It needs a Royal Charter to use the word Royal in the title. Dbromage [Talk]Australia 00:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Perhaps the points need to be explicitly made (1) that this constraint applies where HRH is head-of-state, and (2) that this organization claims to have a .au domain (id est, where HRH is indeed head-of-state). Elsewhere (as in the United States), anyone could use the word “royal” to entitle pretty much anything. —The Royal SlamDiego←T 00:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. I think you mean Her Majesty, who is indeed the Queen of Australia too. You'd think an organisation that "acknowledges that the Queen’s excellent Majesty ... is the highest power" would follow the rules about using the word "Royal". Anyway, rshri.com.au is currently not registered. Dbromage [Talk]Australia 00:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: I appreciate the correction, as I don't want to go to the Tower as a result of a protocol failure when I am knighted. In any case, as I said earlier, the fact that the domain isn't (or at least wasn't) even registered is part of what demonstrates that this article represents hoax or delusion. —The Right Honorable SlamDiego←T 03:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete established that this is a hoax. Hut 8.5 11:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since the article's creator James Scott Francis (talk · contribs) has now been blocked for vandalism of said article, is there any need to keep this discussion going? Dbromage [Talk]Australia 03:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Well, I see some value in Dbromage keeping me from making a greater fool of myself, but I suppose that's not sufficient. —SlamDiego←T 03:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - why are we still debating this? Aren't there any admins willing to ignore all rules for the good of the encyclopedia? The Evil Spartan 16:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a likely hoax, the article creator has been banned and even if this were not a hoax the verifiability issues are so severe that it should be deleted anyhow. Burntsauce 17:42, 9 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. Navou banter 04:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zdzisław Jan Zamoyski[edit]

Zdzisław Jan Zamoyski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-noteable Polish guy, fails WP:BIO, WP:N blah blah blah. Next! Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 19:35, 5 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 Unlikely Angel and add any sourced content there. JoshuaZ 20:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heavens to Betsy (1994 TV series)[edit]

Heavens to Betsy (1994 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete. Non-noteable TV show which, after some vigirous searching, I can find no sources for. Dolly Parton fan site-possibly. Wikipedia-no. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 19:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How so, from the coverage in a multitude of independent sources? Sometimes things that didn't happen are notable, and technically this has been aired, just in a modified form. FrozenPurpleCube 02:19, 6 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. --Coredesat 07:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ordo Stella Matutina[edit]

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

Completing malformed nom by User:Kephera975 (nomination already existed; moved to proper "2nd nomination"). Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 19:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Bad faith nomination made in violation of WP:POINT. See [10] and [11], and check user's contribs for recent multiple nominations of articles. IPSOS (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete unfortunately his comments in the diffs you gave are right, this is a non-noteable organisation and article seems self-promotional advert.Merkinsmum 20:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete pure self promotion, there are no 3rd party (or even 2nd party) references to show notability. --Kim D. Petersen 21:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete. WP:SPAM, no WP:RS or signs of WP:N. THF 23:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - no independent sources. I'm willing to change my vote if this article gets properly sourced before the AfD closes. See Order of Nine Angles for how to properly source an article on a tiny little-known esoteric group (Satanist, in this case). AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment The thing is, I think there was some press attention to the ONA when they were around, due to there being a 'satanic panic' on at the time, and a lot of mentions of them since by various groups. This Stella group I think haven't been mentioned hardly anywhere, let alone in any mainstream publications.Merkinsmum 02:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and therefore, as you point out above, they are not notable. Wikipedia is not for something made up in a book published by Llewellyn one day. As for ONA though, it seems they got most of their independent coverage due to their purported association with neo-Nazism. Maybe these guys should look into that? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and use as a redirect to Stella Matutina. Grutness...wha? 02:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established. Redirecting to Stella Matutina is a good idea. IPSOS (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - with Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, to integrate the numerous contemporary orders into one central and more comprehensive article, per AfDs here, here, here and here. ColdmachineTalk 21:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do not merge with Golden Dawn article. Not notable. No third-party references. Also, the article states that it operates under the "under the legal umbrella of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc." But that is questionable because the corporation grants certification to every Golden Dawn order, in other words, they allow others to use the trademark freely, but they are not an "umbrella" under which the other groups operate. There is no implied endorsement.
Someone suggested merging with Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. That has also been suggested on some of the other AfDs of Golden-Dawn related orders. I apologize for duplicating some of this comment, but since the AfD's were posted on an assembly line, I don't see how that can be avoided. Some of the articles should be kept, and some should be deleted - each have different notability and references and need to be treated separately. Merging would cause ongoing problems. Most claim connection to Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, but that does not make it true. There is no reference to support that they should be in the same article . If the articles are merged it will become more difficult to disambiguate and would create fertile ground for edit warring. All of that aside, this organization (Ordo Stella Matutina) is not notable and the article should be deleted. Regarding redirecting it to Stella Matutina, I don't have enough knowledge on that to make a recommendation one way or the other. --Parsifal Hello 05:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I appreciate that pov; I have little knowledge about the ins and outs of these organisations, or the politics which appear to exist between them. The logic was that since all of them have been inspired from and consider themselves "contemporary Golden Dawn orders" then it seems only sensible they should have brief stripped down details within the main Golden Dawn article. They are already mentioned there in any event so I'm unclear on what the basis of opposition is? ColdmachineTalk 17:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment well, I would oppose a merge on WP:V grounds. Since these organizations are actually not the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, their self-published material cannot be used in that article. See the section on self-published material and the specific exception that it can only be used in an article about the author or publisher of the material. Basically, if the organization is not notable enough to support its own article, policy prevents it being merged to another article. IPSOS (talk) 00:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if it were redirected to 'stella matutina' a sentence would have to be added saying this org is not the SM, the same as the original order, but a newer org, revival based on it.Merkinsmum 09:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's pretty much what I'd been thinking too - maybe a subsection at the bottom saying "The name was revived in X by an organisation calling itself OSM, though there is no connection with the earlier body." Grutness...wha? 00:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Again I agree with Coldmachine. This is an original idea which should be at least noted on the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn page where people with these beliefs can be self-initiated and how.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for now While Wikipedia is not news and most reality show contestants are not inherently notable, this contestant was a finalist who seems to have created a large amount of press. This is essentially a tentative keep. If her album and other results do not result in any later coverage, this close should not be considered a strong precedent against future AfDs. JoshuaZ 20:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haley Scarnato[edit]

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

Delete. Another failed Reality TV contestant. Fails WP:BIO, WP:N etc. Was one of the first to be evicted from the most recent American Idol, he has done nothing noteable before or after her few appearences on the show. The article claims she released an album on iTunes, this is NOT the case. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 19:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I was able to find her EP on ITunes. Are you sure you spelled her name correctly? Besides, there's precedent for keeping anyone who appeared as a finalist. You need a stronger argument to change consensus.Zagalejo 23:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Are you referring to consensus that American Idol finalists are notable, or that finalists of any contest are notable? I've nominated articles for deletion based on the argument that finalists aren't notable and succeeded, but none of them were on American Idol. If a separate standard exists, what is the threshold for finalist? To me, finalist isn't the top eight, where Scarnato was eliminated. Also, what's the standard for inclusion on iTunes? Her own article says that her sales rank disappeared almost immediately, and I managed to find this which talks about the sales ranks of various artists. She's not mentioned in any of the lists, which, according to the article, means she "had "negligible" numbers." It is a blog, but the author is on USA Today staff and served as Senior VP & Editor of the music business trade publication Radio & Records. If the woman is memorable only for her appearance on American Idol, doesn't it say something if the American Idol sales machine doesn't remember her?
  • Well, I had meant that finalists from American Idol do generally survive AFD discussions. (FYI, the show refers to anyone in the final 12 as a finalist). However, it appears that I am wrong, as season 2 contender Rickey Smith was deleted. So... I'll just drop that line of argument. My ITunes comment was just a way of showing that the nominator didn't do his homework. No, having an album an ITunes is not an automatic pass, but the nominator still has an obligation to report the facts correctly. Zagalejo 01:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah. I wasn't sure on that one. Maybe we'll both learn a little more when this picks up a few more opinions. I understand your iTunes comment, though. Consequentially 02:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, DHowell, you've just broken WP:GOOGLE. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 12:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You're also reachign at WP:EFFORT. The notability standard bends in different instances, specifically because of things like this. WP:NOT#NEWS cautions us against temporary fame, and consensus has been that only contestants that win or, rarely, who make it to the very last rounds are notable. Scarnato has no lasting commercial value, as sales numbers demonstrate, and didn't make it to the end of the show. Consequentially 16:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry but you can't judge her commercial value right now. I mean. We aren't even at the point where she could sign with a label yet. Saying that she has no commercial value is crystal ball territory. You can't know that. Right now, she's notable. She's on a nationally touring tour. We're not even 3 months removed from the end of the show she was on. I don't get the rush here. And we have mountains of evidence of non-winners who had success post-show. Chris Daughtry anyone? --WoohookittyWoohoo! 01:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either keep or redirect to American Idol (season 6). (This comment also applies to the other relevant articles the nominator put up for AfD: Brandon Rogers (singer), Stephanie Edwards (singer), Chris Sligh, and Gina Glocksen.) I believe placement as a finalist as opposed to semifinalist or other contestant in this particular program (the highest ranked show in ratings and viewers in the U.S.) should merit personal notability, because they have been recognized by many TV viewers and they are featured more than the other contestants. You may shoot me for not directly addressing WP:N (the need to demonstrate sources), but the Google test is not the best way to establish non-notability in this instance: TV viewers who saw the contestants within and outside of AI (e.g. talk show appearances), and even the non-voting of these contestants should be taken into account as AI is partly a popularity contest by its nature.
It has only been a few months since this season ended. The nominated people may take 1 or 2 years to develop their career outside of Idol, if they choose to do so. (I do know about WP:CRYSTAL, so I kindly ask not to be chided for that, as these articles do not predict future events as they should not.) For that reason, I would rather wait one year at least to determine if a finalist—not just any contestant—takes advantage of her or his AI experience in order to judge notabilty. Notice also the first nomination for Chris Sligh, which indicated the contestant was notable for being a finalist, albeit during the show's run. (I also know consensus can change, but I am more welcome to discussion on this point.)
I wonder why the nom selected for AfD contestants who came in 8th place or lower. Is placement a criteria that will determine notability and WP:BIO? If it is, 7th place is a pretty arbitrary standard for inclusion in my book.
I am more confident in supporting the redirect, which my comments seem to be better aligned with. For example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Idol contestants and the redirects to season 6 here, which includes a myriad of person redirects. Merging is obviously out because a TV show article should not have biographies, unless an acceptable subpage is created. TLK'in 04:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Can we please stop this? Every few months, we get users who decide that we need to nuke as many AI articles as possible. I don't get it. The Idol Wikiproject states that all finalists get a page. We have pages for almost all of the other finalists no matter what position they finish in. This is one of many previous deletion votes on similar issues. The thing is. I make the same point I did back in February and March. Right now, these people are notable. In a year, if they haven't released anything or are no longer notable, then I say yes, let's remove the articles. But until then, this just feels a bit premature. I mean. Folks. The finalists (including Haley) are currently on tour and selling out or selling well at many arenas. That feels pretty notable to me. I'm tired of doing this every 3-4 months. And btw, all of the songs she recorded for the show are indeed available on iTunes whether they are part of an official "EP" or not. See here.--WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Participating in a tour that sells out an arena is notable if it's your tour. Disney on Ice sells out arenas, but we don't have articles about Kettle #4 from the Beauty and the Beast dance number. Scarnato is not touring on her own. Scarnato is not selling out stadiums. Scarnato isn't even generating a lot of sales, as the ITunes sales numbers above point out. So, aside from scraping by into 8th place on American Idol, you can't tell me that she's notable and support it with verifiable references. That's bad. Consequentially 19:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N states that a subject is notable if they have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." First of all, a Google search of her name returns over 500,000 results. Secondly, she has received coverage in many reliable sources: Yahoo!, Time magazine, ABC News, Fox News, MSNBC, Entertainment Weekly, MTV, TV Guide, AOL, People, VH1, VH1, IGN, E!, CBS, Associated Press, USA Today, not to include the many other newspapers, magazines, television programs (The Oprah Winfrey Show, Larry King Live, Access Hollywood, Entertainment Tonight, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC), etc she has been featured on. --musicpvm 20:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Idol wikiproject is not guideline or policy Corpx 05:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No but we have a long precedent on it. We have previous AfD votes and all of the previous seasons. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTAGAIN. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 10:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't a policy or guideline either. Essays are not guidelines. There is a long precedent in keeping finalists articles. And even without that, as I've said, Scarnato is still on tour selling out arenas. And she was on the #1 rated show on television. I think I made this point on one of the many previous deletion debates involving American Idol, but to me, this is much like an actor on a hit tv series. We have separate articles on many tv characters outside of their show. How exactly is this different? I can see the arguments here for reality shows like The Next Food Network Star but this is a different animal. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why should we delete this entry? She was a top 12 Finalist on a show viewed by hundreds of millions, and toured the country with many of the finalists. Even if she is mostly forgotten a year from now, why should we delete it? Should we delete wikipedia entries about silent movies that most people alive have never seen before? No, we should keep this entry.

  • As stated above, what you are quoting is not a policy or guideline. Honestly, and this is just my opinion, I don't think that essay even holds as much weight as a WikiProject. It's a personal opinion and nothing else. WikiProject at least has some consensus behind it. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable American Idol finalist. She is also particpating in a notable national tour. --musicpvm 08:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't the typical reality show. And besides, notability outside of the show might not be known for awhile. Look at Mandisa. She just now released her first CD and it's been a year since she was on the show. Well over a year. I just see too much incorrect information and assumptions in your nomination. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. What keeps getting quoted is a listing of reasons and that's really all it is. As for this being different from other reality shows, it looks like you might be a Brit? Think of this as The X Factor. Or the UK Big Brother. The winner always ends up with a #1 single or album. The show is the "water cooler" show for the entire time it's on. Even newspapers that avoid reality shows like that plague will have an entire column devoted to the show. And more often than not, the finalists end up being notable for things outside of the show. Jennifer Hudson won an Oscar. The entire top 9 from season 5 except for Ace Young have charted an album on the Billboard charts. Carrie Underwood has been the best selling American artist over the last year or so. It's the most popular show in the US according to the Nielsen ratings. It just simply isn't any other reality show. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 01:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect *sigh* This just keeps popping up so many times its obvious things need to change. This idea has been brought many times and it seems to be the way that works. My proposal is that we list all the finalists and maybe even semi-finalists of every season in one list per season. If they become notable later then an article is created and that's done with. Anyways, for those of us at WP:IDOL we really need a policy or guideline for this. ►Tennis Dynamite◄ 17:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A guidline already exists. At WP:IDOL, it clearly states "For contestants, it has been decided that only finalists may have their own article. Semi-finalists are redirected to their season's article." The problem is these constant deletion discussions. The finalists are obviously notable. --musicpvm 18:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:IDOL is not a guideline Corpx 01:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yep but it's what we've followed for quite some time, guideline or not. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 01:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Maybe it should become a guideline or these AFD's will keep coming. Either way these shouldn't be deleted. ►Tennis Dynamite◄ 16:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this should be kept. As of right now they are noteable. andre1010

    • Keep. Keep this. She was on the most watched show in America and released an EP that is avaialble on Itunes. She is also included a few American Idol Packages which did in fact make it on the Pop and Overall chart. She isn't unworthy because she is under contract from American Idol right now meaning she can't sign to a label or release any news on if she has. It's too early to tell so I say we keep this until we are proven otherwise. MrRP1234
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hemlock Martinis 22:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese settlements in Tibet[edit]

Chinese settlements in Tibet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Wang C-H 19:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The article makes a claim of notability - that the settlements have contributed to the modernization of Tibet. There are sources backing this up. Even if there is controversy on this point, it warrants an article.--Danaman5 20:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although the title may be too limiting (do all Chinese move into just these settlements? I don't think so). The Chinese government has been "settling" ethnic Chinese into Tibet for the entire time they've controlled it. Is there no other article on this? --Dhartung | Talk 20:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Notable topic, though it needs better sourcing than a bunch of Free Tibet websites and a single heavily partisan journal article. cab 00:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly notable. It would be better titled Chinese Settlement of Tibet or Chinese Immigration to Tibet however. Bigdaddy1981 04:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for notability. RandomCritic 15:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs cleaning up to bring it up to standard. It is a bit difficult to garner information from NPOV sources - there have not, I don't think, been any resolutions against this settlement policy made by the UN or other similar international bodies. This fact however does not make it non-notable. Chesdovi 15:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. Admins, please close. --Wang C-H 15:42, 6 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, nomination withdrawn. Kusma (talk) 06:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huaxia[edit]

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

This article is a definition of a Chinese term; WP:NOT a dictionary. Wang C-H 19:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The article is already more than a mere definition. It has a great deal of historical information as well. I think it is worthy of being an article.--Danaman5 20:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's a good deal beyond a dictionary definition here. Articles on words are perfectly acceptable so long as they put the word in context; see Category:Interjections for a number of examples. Zetawoof(ζ) 22:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. It's not so much as a Chinese term, but the Chinese tribe that became the Han Chinese civilization. How this article can even be nominated for deletion is beyond me. _dk 23:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. --Targeman 23:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Strong Keep - This is an extremely notable concept in Chinese history. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per all above. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the nomination. Admins, please close. --Wang C-H 06:00, 6 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 for now Look people, this isn't very complicated. There's no reason to delete these articles now when they are likely to be much more notable in the future. WP:NOTNEWS may apply later, but it is too early to tell. We aren't talking about someone who made the news because they taught a dog to stand on its hind legs and belch the national anthems of a dozen different countries. Nor are we talking about a reality televsion shown on channel 345.678 at 2 AM. We're talking about a finalist in the most popular reality show in the United States. If in 6 months or a year Glocksen has produced nothing else of note then we should re-examine the matter. I do however note that there are many google news hits and that the article is not very well sourced as it currently stands. I strongly suggest that those who support keeping the article source it to the best of their abilities. JoshuaZ 20:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Glocksen[edit]

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

Delete. Another failed Reality TV contestant. Fails WP:BIO, WP:N etc. Was the first to be evicted from the most recent American Idol, she has done nothing noteable before or after his few appearences on the show. I checked all of the trustworthy, reliable sites, and none of them say a word about her, or the EP she supposedly released. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 19:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Did you actually look at Itunes? The EP is available for sale. Zagalejo 23:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I disagree. American Idol is the most watched television show in history. Its contestants are very note worthy. Besides, it is way to early to say she hasn't done anything since the show. Shes still under contract with American Idol, so she can't get a record deal yet. Also, Gina was the 4th person eliminated from the Top 12, not the first. MarkMc1990 05:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - She wasn't the first to be voted off, and her EP is on iTunes, here. ~HJ [talk]@½ -01:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either keep or redirect to American Idol (season 6) (redirect slightly preferred). See my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haley Scarnato. TLK'in 04:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Can we please stop this? Every few months, we get users who decide that we need to nuke as many AI articles as possible. I don't get it. The Idol Wikiproject states that all finalists get a page. We have pages for almost all of the other finalists no matter what position they finish in. This is one of many previous deletion votes on similar issues. The thing is. I make the same point I did back in February and March. Right now, these people are notable. In a year, if they haven't released anything or are no longer notable, then I say yes, let's remove the articles. But until then, this just feels a bit premature. I mean. Folks. 10 of the finalists (including Gina) are currently on tour and selling out or selling well at many arenas. That feels pretty notable to me. I'm tired of doing this every 3-4 months. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTAGAIN. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 10:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but you are quoting a non-policy/guideline to say that the Idol WikiProject is a non-policy guideline. Cancels out. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't the typical reality show. And it's not as if she was on the show for a week. And besides, notability outside of the show might not be known for awhile. Look at Mandisa. She just now released her first CD and it's been a year since she was on the show. Well over a year. I just see too much incorrect information and assumptions in your nomination. I mean. "She has done nothing noteable before or after her few appearances on the show". I'd say that a nationwide tour that is selling out arenas is something notable. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is in no way a policy or a guideline; it is a personal essay. The singer also passes WP:MUSIC (#4). She is currently on a major national tour. How different is this from other reality shows? Well, first off it is the most watched show in the United States and also has a large audience internationally. The fact is Gina Glocksen is better known to the public than most winners of other reality shows. Being a finalist in the sixth season, she received notable media attention and press coverage. --musicpvm 18:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She just got engadeged on stage at an American Idol Tour concert in her home State of Illinios on Tuesday, August 7th. I thought that would have been added to her bio. Her page absolutely should not be deleted. She is noteworthy for being an American Idol finalist, and it often takes the finalist a year, or sometimes longer in the case of Jennifer Hudson, to gain noteworthy fame beyond the show. Why would this be a discussion?
Add it to the article. :) I guess that's the point I keep drumming home. Why the rush? Right now, she is notable. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 01:51, 10 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 speedied. android79 19:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wing-Benn Deng[edit]

Wing-Benn Deng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No references establishing notability. Wang C-H 19:08, 5 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, All votes were keep and nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. --JForget 01:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zhongshan Road[edit]

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

This is the Chinese equivalent of "Main Street" or "Broadway" and so does not deserve an article of its own. Wang C-H 19:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Thanks. If you hadn't described it so well, I would have skipped right past this. We have articles about "Martin Luther King Boulevard" and it's interesting that Chinese towns have their own counterpart with a Sun Yat-sen street. Mandsford 19:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Something that appears in so many Chinese cities is surely a notable phenomenon.--Danaman5 20:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Hello Main Street, hello Broadway. _dk 23:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, didn't do my homework. I withdraw the nomination. --Wang C-H 23:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admins, nomination withdrawn, please close. --Wang C-H 23:31, 5 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 for now. Closing logic is the same as that for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gina Glocksen and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haley Scarnato. JoshuaZ 20:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Sligh[edit]

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

DELETE - This person has done nothing really worth noting in grand scheme of things. he is a moderately good singer but so are thousands of others. That's my opinion anyway. Delete. Another failed Reality TV contestant. Fails WP:BIO, WP:N etc. Was the third to be evicted from the most recent American Idol, he has done nothing noteable before or after his few appearences on the show. Is now a member of a band-however, this band is NOT noteable. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 19:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - Notability is solely based on appearance on a show Corpx 04:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I stated below, that's not correct. He's currently on tour with the other finalists, selling out or close to selling out arenas all over the US. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either keep or redirect to American Idol (season 6) (redirect slightly preferred). See my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haley Scarnato. TLK'in 04:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The first AfD showed there was consensus this person was notable. Of course, notability should not be determined at the height of a short burst of news coverage or TV viewership. But this would show that a person's notability is relative to points in time, doesn't it? I am asking this for guidance with future American Idol (and other reality show) contestant biographies, including if redirects of contestants are appropriate. TLK'in 04:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Can we please stop this? Every few months, we get users who decide that we need to nuke as many AI articles as possible. I don't get it. The Idol Wikiproject states that all finalists get a page. We have pages for almost all of the other finalists no matter what position they finish in. This is one of many previous deletion votes on similar issues. The thing is. I make the same point I did back in February and March. Right now, these people are notable. In a year, if they haven't released anything or are no longer notable, then I say yes, let's remove the articles. But until then, this just feels a bit premature. I mean. Folks. 10 of the finalists (including Chris Slight) are currently on tour and selling out or selling well at many arenas. That feels pretty notable to me. I'm tired of doing this every 3-4 months. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTAGAIN. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 10:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't the typical reality show. And it's not as if she was on the show for one week or two. I've said before that I understand not having articles on semi-finalists. And besides, notability outside of the show might not be known for awhile. Look at Mandisa. She just now released her first CD and it's been a year since she was on the show. Well over a year. I just see too much incorrect information and assumptions in your nomination. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - This person has done nothing really worth noting in grand scheme of things. he is a moderately good singer but so are thousands of others. That's my opinion anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalejenkins (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP, his notability extends beyond that of a game-show contestant. As mentioned above, he is currently on tour with other AI artists, being viewed live by tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of people. Additionally, the CD put out by his band, Half Past Forever, has sold well and has remained high on the list of best-selling cd's on Amazon.com. Additionally, Half Past Forever was recently signed to a national record label. That in and of itself already makes Sligh more notable than most AI contestants, and worthy of his own page. I agree with Woohookitty, we just went through this a few months ago and established his notability; must we continue to thrash this dead horse? Check out his personal website at http://www.chrissligh.com/, it'll put to rest some of your doubts. (Barang 19:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • I think alot of it is folks who don't realize just how big this show is and how big the contestants on it are. It's simply not a "normal" reality show. I mean. Every Idol winner save one has had their first CD debut at #1. And several lower ranked ones have found success beyond the show. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 01:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reality TV winners are noteable, other contestants are not. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 09:54, 10 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. --Coredesat 07:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit and Resistance: Political Theology and American Indian Liberation[edit]

Spirit and Resistance: Political Theology and American Indian Liberation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be spam. Almost solely the work of Hroðgar æ Beocwealm, whose only other major contributions seem to be to George Tinker, the author of the book that is the subject of this article. Hroðgar æ Beocwealm also inserted a link to George Tinker into List of writers from peoples indigenous to the Americas, and hyperlinked a suspiciously prominent mention of the book (added by an anon) in Panentheism to this article. (I suspect that Hroðgar æ Beocwealm may actually be George Tinker himself, but can't prove it.) Finally, the article was prodded back in February but Hroðgar æ Beocwealm de-prodded it. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - I may be prejudiced against WP:VSCA originating from WP:SPAs. However, the original author did post on the talk page, after the prod, saying that he would try to find third-party sources for the article. He then disappeared, came back a month later to write another article on Tinker, and then disappeared again. Thus the article seems to be undertaken in bad faith. Also, it's completely unsourced, and everything after the first paragraph looks like it was CTRL-Ved straight from a press release. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That's quite a huge plot summary for a book with zero third-party reviews, citations, or other references. -- Kicking222 00:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom, above, and as I shall note. WP needs more articles about Native Americans, but this is not one of them. Violates a scattering of rules, most importantly, non-fair-use of a copyright. Quite a few Ghits [12], showing it's being sold at Amazon, Walmart etc. Ample time was given to the editors to fix it. Do not salt, as some reader might draft a better article. My Old English is a bit weak, but is not Hrothgar the same as George? Bearian 19:47, 9 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 for now. Closing logic is the same as that for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gina Glocksen and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haley Scarnato. I also suggest that google news hits be used to better source this. JoshuaZ 20:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Edwards (singer)[edit]

Stephanie Edwards (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete. Another failed Reality TV contestant. Fails WP:BIO, WP:N etc. Was the second to be evicted from the most recent American Idol, she has done nothing noteable before or after his few appearences on the show. Hasn't, and isn't planning to, release any music so can't be classed as a singer or musician. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 18:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie was seen by tens of millions of people, and many recognize the name. Simply because you do not know if she is planning to release an album does not mean that she won't. She is more of a celebrity than many other persons on here. I feel that being a contestant on one of the biggest televisions shows in history justifies her having an article. User:Jameseyx

  • Delete Not notable for anything other than TV show appearance, which I think violates WP:NOT#NEWS Corpx 04:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think we can judge that just yet. And if that's the criteria, then we need to delete most of the finalists' pages, not just for season 6. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either keep or redirect to American Idol (season 6) (redirect slightly preferred). See my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haley Scarnato. TLK'in 04:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Can we please stop this? Every few months, we get users who decide that we need to nuke as many AI articles as possible. I don't get it. The Idol Wikiproject states that all finalists get a page. We have pages for almost all of the other finalists no matter what position they finish in. This is one of many previous deletion votes on similar issues. The thing is. I make the same point I did back in February and March. Right now, these people are notable. In a year, if they haven't released anything or are no longer notable, then I say yes, let's remove the articles. But until then, this just feels a bit premature. I mean. Folks. 10 of the finalists are currently on tour and selling out or selling well at many arenas. That feels pretty notable to me. I'm tired of doing this every 3-4 months. And how do we know what she'll release? And they can't even sign with labels until November, so it's impossible to know what they will or won't do. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTAGAIN. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 10:12, 9 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 for now. Closing logic is the same as that for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gina Glocksen and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haley Scarnato. I also suggest that google news hits be used to better source this. JoshuaZ 21:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Rogers (singer)[edit]

Brandon Rogers (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete. Another failed Reality TV contestant. Fails WP:BIO, WP:N etc. Was the first to be evicted from the most recent American Idol, he has done nothing noteable before or after his few appearences on the show. Hasn't, and isn't planning to, release any music so can't be classed as a singer or musician. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 18:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete does not have the notability as a singer and the claim to notability is teh appearance on a TV show, which I think would fall under WP:NOT#NEWS Corpx 04:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. --PEAR (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either keep or redirect to American Idol (season 6) (redirect slightly preferred). See my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haley Scarnato. TLK'in 04:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Can we please stop this? Every few months, we get users who decide that we need to nuke as many AI articles as possible. I don't get it. The Idol Wikiproject states that all finalists get a page. We have pages for almost all of the other finalists no matter what position they finish in. This is one of many previous deletion votes on similar issues. The thing is. I make the same point I did back in February and March. Right now, these people are notable. In a year, if they haven't released anything or are no longer notable, then I say yes, let's remove the articles. But until then, this just feels a bit premature. I mean. Folks. 10 of the finalists are currently on tour and selling out or selling well at many arenas. That feels pretty notable to me. I'm tired of doing this every 3-4 months. And sorry but...not planning on releasing anything? Do you know him? :) The thing is, they can't even sign a deal until November unless they are the winner or runner up. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTAGAIN. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 10:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this wasn't the #1 rated show in the biggest media market in the world, I'd agree. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 01:50, 10 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:The undertow. Non-admin closure. Iain99 08:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tsoutsu special beam[edit]

Tsoutsu special beam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not enough context provided to prove notability or even explain the concept. Csphdmoney 18:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible to understand what this is about without any prior knowledge of the subject. DELETE! Jameseyx 19:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete as hoax, only GHits are Wikipedia and mirrors. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 19:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Hammer. I think it is impossible to understand the subject because there is no such thing. Pharmboy 21:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Insufficient context to be comprehensible, tagged as such. Iain99 23:41, 5 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. John254 02:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Robotics in Scandinavia AB[edit]

Institute of Robotics in Scandinavia AB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Csphdmoney 18:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Numerous secondary sources as external links (should be converted to citations) but does not assert notability. Also covered in Wired[13] and several Swedish language publications. A candidate for cleanup. The Null Device 10:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as many of the "external links" appear to be actually references, and thus it passes WP:CORP. The "AB" is equivalent to Ltd. or Corp. Bearian 19:55, 9 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. --Coredesat 07:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Computerese[edit]

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

WP:NOT a dictionary. Csphdmoney 18:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article is a dictionary definition, and has virtually no potential to become anything other than that. I'd suggest a merge with computer jargon, but the term isn't even specific enough torefer to that, it's simply a word which

refers to terms associated with computers. Calgary 19:08, 5 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 of the discussion was Keep Unanimous keep vote. Even the nom didn't cast the delete vote. non-admin closure.--JForget 01:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Sox Nation[edit]

Red Sox Nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is about a group of people (Boston Red Sox fans) that have absolutely no notability. Ksy92003(talk) 18:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Absolutely no notability? Wha-huh? [14] gets me plenty of results, several of which discuss the actual fan-ship involved. Like [15] this one discussing the economic impact of fans buying ice cream. Now I'm not sure about the quality of this article, I might even suggest moving most of it to something more generically discussing fans of the Boston Red Sox, but I think your claim is a bit excessive. MLB teams are notable. Fans of these teams warrant coverage as well. Thus the only question here is how to cover it. Deletion isn't the way to do it. FrozenPurpleCube 19:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Red Sox Nation is the fans. The fans don't have any notability. The Red Sox' fans aren't any more notable than Tampa Bay Devil Rays fans. This article gives the impression that the Red Sox are the only team to have any fans, a bold-faced lie. Are the fans notable? Is the fact that they cheer on the Red Sox what makes it notable? No, so how are they notable then? Ksy92003(talk) 19:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your concern about an impression given by the article is addressed by editing for NPOV, not deletion. I see no reason to make a distinction between fans of the Red Sox and the Devil Rays or any other pro sports team. I think the fans of any team should be covered to at least some extent. And the notability of this particular group of fans is expressed above. See the source I provided? That's just one of many. There are plenty of others. Like [16][17] [18]. I think there's enough coverage in multiple third-party sources to satisfy notability. I recognize your concerns about NPOV, but that's a cleanup concern, nothing more. To claim absolutely no notability? For the fans of a professional sports team? I'm sorry, but that's clearly incorrect. FrozenPurpleCube 19:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article really gives the impression that the Boston Red Sox are the only professional sports team with fans, and to have an entire article about the fans of one team that aren't any more notable than those of any other team in any sport seems unfair... and you say "To claim absolutely no notability? For the fans of a professional sports team? I'm sorry, but that's clearly incorrect." Do you know how many professional sports teams there are in the world? Thousands and thousands. What makes Red Sox fans any more notable than Devil Rays fans, Kansas City Royals fans, Pittsburgh Pirates fan, etc.? Ksy92003(talk) 19:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, any impression get from an article is addressed by editing for NPOV, not deletion. And no, I don't see them as particularly more notable than any of those other teams fans. If you believe Wikipedia's coverage of them isn't sufficient, then it would not be that this article exists, but that those articles aren't sufficient. I suggest improving them. I really think you're confusing "notability" with "neutrality" . The two are not the same concept. Whether or not the Red Sox Nation is notable doesn't depend on fans of the Royals, the Colts, or the Whalers. It depends on the existing coverage of the Red Sox Nation. Which exists, as evidenced by the articles I've provided. FrozenPurpleCube 19:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The issue is not if the members of Red Sox Nation are notable individually, but rather if the collective is notable, just as it would be for any other collection of people. Red Sox Nation is so notable, that it was the subject of Fever Pitch. The article may need major clean up, but not deletion. BTW, the nominator's comment about the "bold-faced lie" is a bit over the top.... --After Midnight 0001 19:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - All sports teams have fans, agreed. But it is naive to assume that all fans everywhere are the same, or to deny the cultural relevance of the unique cult-like followings that certain teams enjoy. Red Sox fans are generally considered to be more of a vocal, historic, and cohesive entity than those of other teams. Much like Raider Nation, Cardinal Nation, or the Barmy Army, to name a few relevant examples, Red Sox Nation is universally recognized in the baseball world as an important part of the local sports scene, and is significant enough to merit its own article independent of the Boston Red Sox article. -- Elcocinero 20:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not a sports fan, let alone a baseball fan, let alone a Sox fan, but the significance of this horde group has been quite plain to me. —SlamDiego←T 21:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could use some tidying up, sorting, citation, and conversion to prose, but the third-party material to do so. Keep. -- saberwyn 21:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per After Midnight (whose username I thoroughly enjoy). I sympathize with the arguments for deletion but I think the collective is notable as a whole. The article is definitely in need of serious attention but I think with more sources, more NPOV, and maybe a discussion of the origins of the term might make it a worthwhile article. --Midnightdreary 23:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article on this obnoxious group of people. A Lexis Nexis search reulted in 114 articles in just the past few months. The term is widely used on SportsCenter and the like. Pablo Talk | Contributions 23:47, 5 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 transwiki and delete. --Coredesat 07:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother (UK) Quotes[edit]

Big Brother (UK) Quotes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Speedy, snowball delete. Where do I start? Fails WP:TRIVIA in the title alone. Fails WP:N also. It's so bad, failing so many guidlines, I don't know what to say. Transwiki to WikiQuote? Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 18:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete after moving quotes to wikiquote. Shabda 18:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the quotes seem poorly scribed here; I'm not even sure of their reliability for transwiking. Marasmusine 18:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete This is exactly why we have Wikiquote. Spellcast 18:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki and then delete. KTC 20:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Marasmusine. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 21:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki as suggested by Spellcast and KTC.--JForget 02:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nomination Cornell Rockey 17:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikiquote. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikiquote. Mathmo Talk 21:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A totally unsourced list of quotes of little value, being mostly unfunny, not witty and unmemorable. --Malcolmxl5 23:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If it were sourced I would endorse the idea of a transwiki, but its not. Burntsauce 18:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not belong at Wikipedia; also cites no sources/references. --musicpvm 08:34, 9 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). Ignoring a couple of "keep" recommendations that don't address relevant policies or guidelines, it seems that there might be enough reliable sources to make this article pass standards; no one contradicted QuagmireDog's find of sources, but, at the same time, there wasn't a strong affirmation that they would be enough. In any event, please expand and source the article appropriately. — TKD::Talk 22:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GLtron[edit]

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

Open-source free game based on Tron, makes absolutely no assertions of notability ~ JohnnyMrNinja 17:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Google search brings up lots of download sites, but not much meaningful comment, still less from reliable sources Iain99 18:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is well written and definitely should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameseyx (talk • contribs)
    An article should be kept if the subject is notable, and removed if not, no matter how well written it is. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article could perhaps use a re-write. The criteria for games is substantially low. If games like Radar_Scope are kept, this should be as well. Ar-wiki 04:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A) WP:Othercrapexists. B) Criteria for games are the same for every other subject when it comes to notability and inclusion, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." If other articles also fail to meet Wikipedia standards for inclusion then they should also be removed, until such time as they are notable. C) A game that single-handedly brought down Nintendo's American division before anyone had heard of Nintendo is likely notable. A game who's lack of marketability led to the creation of a game called Donkey Kong (and the character "Jump Man", later known as Mario), which was simply designed to use the surplus of Radar Scope hardware lying around... this game seems notable to me (but irrelevant to this discussion). ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The nomination from JohnnyMrNinja invokes WP:JNN with no evidence to back it up. Arguments for deletion from Iain99 & Miremare invokes WP:GOOGLEHITS without context (Do other games of a similar nature have substantially more "Google Hits"? Wouldn't the proliferation of download links signify notability, as opposed to a similar program that is available only at a few sites? What is a "reliable" or "independent" source?). However, brighterorange also invokes WP:GOOGLEHITS for the argument of keeping the article. JohnnyMrNinja correctly calls out Jameseyx's argument as WP:EFFORT & Ar-wiki's argument as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
As far as I'm concerned, the argument for nomination is flawed because there is no evidence to corroborate the charge. Since there is no evidence to support the nomination of deletion & all subsequent arguments for deletion are within the realm of WP:GOOGLEHITS, my vote is Speedy Keep. -75.130.90.56 15:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)-[reply]
Comment WP:GOOGLEHITS wasn't invoked. I didn't say "there aren't many Google hits so delete it", and User:brighterorange didn't say "there are some Google hits so keep it". He said that in his opinion the search turned up some reliable sources. I commented that, in my opinion, the Google results didn't provide the required notability, which is also what User:Iain99 said. That coupled with the lack of sources in the article meant that notability was still, in my opinion, yet be proved. That was the reason I !voted delete. Someone mentioning Google is not a good enough reason to dismiss their arguments. Also claiming that the nomination is flawed because "there is no evidence to corroborate the charge" is a little odd. The "charge" is that the game is not notable; The "evidence" is that there are no sources in the article to show notability. Articles have to prove that they deserve to be on Wikipedia. Miremare 17:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Your creative & narrow interpretation of WP:GOOGLEHITS is duly noted. However, you freely admit to using the search engine Google to gauge the notability of the article in question. By the definition of the Googlehits argument, Google is often viewed as an inaccurate measure of notability. Therefore, that argument is inadmissible.
Furthermore, you then cite that "Someone mentioning Google is not a good enough reason to dismiss their arguments." However, 2 people here (Iain99 & yourself) exclusively invoked Google as a basis for dismissal. So how can it be that Google can be used solely as a basis for dismissal but not as a basis for being kept?
It is up to the nominator to prove that their nomination is valid which did not occur in this case. Non-notable as compared to... Half-Life 2? Racing programs? Sci-Fi programs? Other freeware programs? Freeware programs for the Linux system? If you can not objectively compare notability from non-notability, what difference does the citation of sources matter?
How can an article prove that it is worthy of Wikipedia when such proof appears to be subjective in nature? For instance, the proof that Iain99 uses for the article's deletion (download sites are not "reliable" sources) may also be used as proof for its continued inclusion (download sites as "reliable" sources).
Until there is an objective method to determine notability, it can not be used as a method for deletion. The reasoning behind the nomination is invalid & the article, by definition, should not be deleted. Speedy Keep -75.130.90.56 19:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)-[reply]
We've been dealing with these kinds of issues for a long time and we do have plenty of answers to them. Just take a look at WP:N and WP:RS. I'd like to clarify, though, in that I'm not talking about Google hits at all... this is a search of Google news archives, which turn up results in reliable sources such as Computer Gaming World, Macworld, PC World, etc. I think that is enough to establish notability, but I guess my standards are lower than Miremare's. (Iain99 didn't address my find, and he was using a straight up web search, which is not a very good way to find RS, and definitely not a good way to show their absence.) — brighterorange (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:75.130.90.56, I'm not entirely sure what you're saying. It appears to be something along the lines of "WP:GOOGLEHITS means that you can't use Google to find sources", in which case I'd suggest that your interpretation of it is somewhat more creative than mine. But I'd like to say that I did not and do not "freely admit to using the search engine Google to gauge the notability of the article in question". I was using the quality of the sources thrown up by Google/Google News, and the absense of sources in the article itself. If there's anything else I could use, I'm open to suggestions. Google is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion other than as a means to find sources. Miremare 21:59, 12 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. John254 02:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Zionism[edit]

Neo-Zionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A nonnotable neologism with limited use, per WP:NEO. TewfikTalk 17:57, 5 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 00:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sodalitas Rosae Crucis et Solis Alati[edit]

Sodalitas Rosae Crucis et Solis Alati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a stub with notability completely unestablished by what appears to be only self reference to the organization's website. There are no secondary sources here at all. Kephera975 17:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Bad faith nomination made in violation of WP:POINT. See [19] and [20], and check user's contribs for recent multiple nominations of articles. IPSOS (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nomination made in consideration for Wikipedia standards of verifiability and neutraility. These standards should apply to all of the articles found here per WP:SPAM including the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega article. I would have bundled them all except you are protecting that article. Kephera975 20:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't give your opinion twice. You nomination is your "vote". This give the appearance of ballot stuffing. Please expand your nomination if you feel it was incomplete rather than add another delete (non)vote. IPSOS (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non noteable, promotional. even more non-noteable than the 'stella matutina' order that's also up for AfD.Merkinsmum 20:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems clear to me that User:IPSOS is working in bad faith as he has singled out one of these un-notable articles but not the others. Clearly, if he defends the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. and its licensees, bias is well indicated. See: Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega which should also be deleted but is protected by User:IPSOS. Kephera975 20:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please stop spreading misinformation. A look at the protection log shows that I was not the one who protected it. Plus it is only protected against moves. IPSOS (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: there are a lot of nn Rosicrucian/hermetic/mystical groups, and they can't really stand alone without their parent article, so I think this should be deleted, though a general article with all this little stubs included might work as well. Then again, it still doesn't satisfy notability well enough, I think. MSJapan 21:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absent a showing of notability through coverage in third-party sources. FrozenPurpleCube 21:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a merge is sort of a good idea, but we could just list some of the prominent orgs that claim derivation on the GD page, we only need a summary of any really important differences between these orgs, rather than a lot about them in the GD article.Merkinsmum 22:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no 3rd party references to show notability. --Kim D. Petersen 22:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Flunks WP:N. At best merits part of a sentence in Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. THF 23:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as non-notable (at least, no notability is established), or merge into a master article for all such groups. SamBC 03:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - notability not established. IPSOS (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do not merge. Non-notable. No third-party references. Do not merge into Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn because there is no direct relationship and no reference or source to support their inclusion in the same article. --Parsifal Hello 01:40, 7 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 Dying Fetus. No individual notability has been shown, but users are correct that these cases are best handled by merge/redirect to the group. In this case, I didn't see anything substantial that wasn't already in the target article, so just a redirect will suffice. — TKD::Talk 22:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trey Williams[edit]

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

This is a factoid, not notable enough for article. Had it tagged to merge with Dying Fetus, original author removed tags and then deleted discussion on talk page after just one week. Article wasn't improved or refed in the while. Felt it was better to be here to hash out. Pharmboy 17:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close try WP:PM instead. FrozenPurpleCube 18:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article was first up for speedy delete. Attempt to merge was a compromise as it had one sentence that was potentially to be merged. AFD is proper as I question the notability of the entire article (per nom). The fact that merge was tried is incidental to nom. Pharmboy 18:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, cuz, uh, I dunno... IT'S A MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT FROM A SEMINAL DEATH-METAL BAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS ARTICLE IS JUST AS IMPORTANT AS JOHN GALLAGHER'S OR SEAN BEASLEY'S!!!!!!!! Dark Executioner 23:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner[reply]

Comment Exactly. It is an announcement. Thank you for proving my point, that it is news, an announcement and not an article. This is EXACTLY why it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, and policy is very clear about this. I'm not saying it isn't important, I'm saying Wikipedia isn't the place for this. WP:NOT talks about this, in multiple sections. Pharmboy 00:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close I totally agree with DE. Let's keep the article.

68.218.44.10 23:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close This article needs to be left exactly as it is. It's no bigger than the other articles about Dying Fetus' members. Plus, fans need to know this stuff.

Festering Rat Corpse 23:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Festering Rat Corpse[reply]

Close What a waste. We should be trying to find more info about this guy, instead of nominating it for deletion. I would recommend looking him up on Google or About.com, just be sure to put it in your own words. Besides, if the article is deleted, how in the WORLD could we improve on it?

Cowboy From Hell 666 23:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Cowboy From Hell 666[reply]

Close Point made. Enough said.

Death Metal Is The Best Subgenre 23:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Death Metal Is The Best Subgenre[reply]

  • comment Just saying "close" without a reason isn't a vote. It was a request for procedure, but it didn't apply. It looks like you have successfully canvassedsome friends to show up and vote, but this isn't a Wikipedia is not a democracy. Cowboy From Hell 666 , Death Metal Is The Best Subgenre and 68.218.44.10 are all single purpose single use accounts, (which is interesting to an admin with access to IP info) This would be one hell of a coincidence otherwise.
  • None have addressed the nom at all. "ILIKEIT" isn't a valid reason to keep. No one tried to merge these one/two sentence articles or fix them. I don't mean to be funny, but you have honestly used more lines of text in snide remarks in my talk and in the article summary than the entire article in question has in content. If someone wants to actually address policy, I'm all ears. Pharmboy 00:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main article and merge the content.--JForget 02:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - not notable outside of being in a band. In fact, it'd be good to look at deleting all individual member articles unless they have some importance outside of the band. Merge is unnecessary as there's essentially no content. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, (which is way the redirect option) is that it does not bring more info other then what it is said in the band's article.--JForget 15:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, let's just delete ALL info about death-metal personell and leave the world without any easily-accessable info whatsoever. Yeah, that makes PERFECT sense. At least I'm trying to enlighten the world, cuz SOME of us might actually want to KNOW ABOUT THEM. Dark Executioner 15:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner[reply]

You know what, just delete the damn article and get it over with. Forgive me for trying to make Wikipedia's coverage of death-metal personell bigger and more diverse. I completely forgot that it was against the rules. Now, let's just move on with our lives. Dark Executioner 15:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner[reply]

  • Dark, this isn't personal. I didn't del/nom it because I wanted less coverage on metal. I was probably banging my head before you were born. I nom'ed it because you left me no choice after trying to work with you, within the policies at Wikipedia. If you stop getting defensive and JUST ASK, someone might have beeen able to help develop a *real* article that covers this properly, and more comprehensively, and within policy. This problem started when you deleted the tags AND the text of TALK for the article, and tried to shut down the conversation. Go read the FIRST talk on the page, I asked you to consider merge, you wouldn't have anything to do with it. This forced it into AFD for an objective look. *OBJECTIVELY*, it should NOT be merged and should be deleted as well as the pages for the other band members, if you want to get technical and follow the letter of Wikipedia policy(read above). My request to merge was trying to compromise and help find a way to incorporate the material, but instead you deleted the original talk, began canvasing and now talking sour grapes. If you really give a shit about the content and an article, you might have better luck by trying to work WITH people instead of against them. Not everyone who tags your article hates you. Pharmboy 16:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm frustrated cuz I can't find any info on this guy whatsoever. I tried Googling him, it just pulled up stuff about an athelete by the same name. On Dying Fetus' website, it just tells about the circumstances on how he joined the band. I think it said that he's from Boston, but I'd have to double-check. Pharmboy, I'm just sick and tired of all the articles I create being nominated for deletion. It's happened before, but believe me, if I had any acess to info, I'd be glad to put it. I just wanted you to wait a while. Now that we're stuck with this, yeah, I'd have to say that my mind is changed and we should delete the article. If we mention it in the main page, then I guess that's enough. It just seems too dry, if you know what I mean. Oh yeah, if you were born before 1989, then that makes you older than me, but in NO WAY makes you a better metalhead. :-) Dark Executioner 20:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner[reply]

If you can't find any information on him, other than the fact that he's in the band, then the best thing we can do is put the information on the band's page. If you wish to consider other options, then perhaps you could write some reputable magazine in the industry and ask them to do a profile on this guy, or the band. Or you could ask that they put more of a bio on their website. FrozenPurpleCube 11:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a bit more on the talk page, but I think this is what we are heading for, which is where we started. I updated the Dying Fetus page somewhat in good faith by adding the info not just on Trey, but on the other current members as well (two other pages are headed for delete as well). It isn't about giving Trey respect, there just isn't enough info out there for a full article yet. Pharmboy 22:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is a new article about an important up-and-coming musician. It can be deleted later if he does nothing to prove that he is more than just news du jour. Bearian 20:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your arguement is exactly what policy says to not keep, someone "up and coming" which is exactly the opposite of notability, thus contrary to policy. Also, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and "news du jour" is exactly what we are avoiding in articles. I think we already have a concensus to delete all (likely via prod) except by the founder and I have already merged the short articles into the main article, per Dark Executioner's input and fixes, and FrozenPurpleCube conversations, as well as conversations on talk page with Dark. I didn't say it wasn't without heated conversation, but the consensus seems to be merge/delete to make the Dying Fetus article better and make the info more accessible for fans. Pharmboy 21:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's better to just put any information you can find on Dying Fetus' mainpage than have tiny articles all over, just like Pharmboy said. I know, Bearian, I tried to keep the article, but after a lack of info, I changed my mind, and decided to work with Pharmboy by just putting it on the main page. Yes, it's a little unconventional when you look at other band's pages on Wikipedia (complete with separate articles about its members), but this is the best way.

So, have we reached a verdict, anybody? Dark Executioner 21:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fauxtential[edit]

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

At best this is a non-notable neologism; Google brings up nothing relevant. At worst, this is a hoax article. Oli Filth 17:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete Outright WP:NFT nonsense. ~Matticus TC 15:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cute try by a newbie, but not for WP. Bearian 20:03, 9 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. --Coredesat 07:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical Wedding[edit]

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

No external sources, no verifiability, doubtful this would pass WP:BAND, and it probably wouldn't pass WP:N. Creator wasn't a single-purpose account - he/she did also contribute to two other articles on Wikipedia. However, this was the person's first article, thus suggesting WP:VSCA. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree with both issues, :band and :n . Probably nice guys and all but it seems like another local band that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Pharmboy 19:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. per nom. Band website as only ref is not exactly ideal--Lenticel (talk) 04:06, 6 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. --Coredesat 07:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh Red[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since March 2007. Article says they released 2 CDs, each with a 200-copy run. Unverified article, no sources whatsoever, reads like a bio, band probably even fails WP:BAND, certainly fails WP:LIVING as there are no sources. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. This band has distributed fewer CDs than I sent out Christmas cards last year. Hopeless. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article practically asserts the non-notability of its own subject. Iain99 18:11, 5 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—users have shown that there is source coverage out there. — Deckiller 00:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stratford Square Mall[edit]

Stratford Square Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

1.3 million square foot super-regional mall, not notable otherwise. Super-regionals should be notable, but this one fails WP:RS and WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 16:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have you actually been through all 300 google news archive hits, or are you just going by the article as it stands? Kappa 18:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What 300 Google News hits? I only get six. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 19:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I think the number might be more like 5,400 [21] Kappa 00:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, that kind of Google News search. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 20:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete unless someone can find articles in there that give "significant coverage" to this mall Corpx 04:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a 1.3 million square foot super-regional mall. A super-regional mall is considered the "dominant shopping venue for the region in which it located" per Shopping mall and would have likely been judged notable based on the rejected WP:MALL. AFD results as tabulated on the talk page of that proposal, have been that articles about malls of this size have been kept, as the largest several hundred in the US. To find articles specifically discussing the history and importance of the mall itself, distinct from articles about happenings at the mall, shoplifting or job openings in the mass of stories linked to in the Google results cited, apparently requires paying several dollars per story for access from the papers involved. This can probably be accessed from some public libraries or university libraries, to sort out the stories which specifically address the significance of the mall and would help to directly satisfy WP:N. Some of the results are clearly about the mall, but the snips do not allow telling whether the coverage is substantial. I hope to look into this further before the AFD is over. Edison 15:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable as a super-regional mall and the 5,400 Google News hits leave little doubt of this. Silensor 20:20, 11 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. --Coredesat 07:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tray surfing[edit]

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

This is odd enough that I wanted to get consensus from the community. There are three separate things discussed here, non of which I think are notable. The first is surfing down a ice or snow covered hill with a tray (lunchroom, what have you). While there is no doubt this goes on, there isn't any indication this is any more notable then using any other object not designed explicitly for sledding. The second item discussed is placing the trays under the wheels of a car to execute an accelerated doughnut. There are no reliable sources that indicate the popularity of this, or if it is indeed tied to the Ghost ride the whip practice as stated in the article. The third thing discussed is surfing behind a car with the tray. This may be the most notable of the three, but again, kids have tied ropes to damn near anything and towed themselves behind cars. There are no sources that indicate this is any more notable then using a sled or a skateboard in a similar manner. I tried to see if there were good places where I could merge this information, but nothing seemed to fit into existing articles and this article is unsourced anyway, so merging would probably be a waste of time. Perhaps the community can find a proper solution, but if not, I wouldn't mind seeing this article go away. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 16:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - completely lacks notability, provides no WP:RS, and is clearly promoting the YouTube link at the end of the article. --Evb-wiki 16:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom not Notable Harlowraman 16:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cosmic raises a good point by testing this. This is a fad, and as with many a college fad, will generally go unoticed by the press until someone gets killed, after which there is a wave of "notability", not to mention memorials. As a result this is the type of thing that we hope DOESN'T become notable. When you went to school, you might have heard about "elevator surfing" taking place down in Daytona Beach, but when did you first see it in the newspaper? After some poor fool plunged 10 stories down a shaft, no doubt. Since Wikipedians are known for their intelligence rather than their common sense, I say save a life, don't invoke WP:NOTE :| Mandsford 17:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Wait...what? Calgary 19:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for Original research and notability. Also, fads are explicitely NOT wanted in an encyclopedia. "Someone please think of the children" isn't a valid arguement either, as saving lives isn't the goal of wikipedia. This seems to apply as well. Pharmboy 19:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Oh my, this is almost funny. Indeed, I do not see the notability of using a tray to slide down a hill, or a set of stairs, or any of the other meanings and such. Unless there are significant sources to confirm that this is a subject that is both factual and notable (which there aren't) I can't possibly concieve of keeping it. Calgary 19:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a non-notable fad. The above keep vote notes that it's not notable, but urges us to "save a life". Sorry; I don't think the people who need that kind of help are going to be reading Wikipedia, and I definitely don't think that we have any interest promoting this fad. --Haemo 21:31, 5 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" - This is not urbandictionary Corpx 04:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if anything can be done to improve the relevance and verifiability of the content, which I believe it can be. This is not just a local or current fad, but has been done for decades at least. RandomCritic 15:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete College students certainly borrowed cafeteria trays and slid down snow covered hills on them decades ago (been there, done that). But this is just an improvised sled, and not so different from our grandparents sliding down snowy slopes sitting in the bread bowl or in a scoop shovel or kids sliding down a snowy hill on an inner tube today. It has noting in common with the Youtube of a car doing donuts with trays under its rear wheels, and nothing in common with the idiotic practice of being towed by a car while standing on a tray, or on a skateboard, or on a sled in winter. (All illustrations of Darwinism in action). It is a loosely connected set of 3 different things, and lacks references to show notability.Edison 15:52, 6 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 Ruddy Hell! It's Harry and Paul. John254 02:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting beer[edit]

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

Prod on May 5th, removed same day by page creator. Minor sketch by a character in Ruddy Hell! It's Harry and Paul. No assertion of notability other than a link to YouTube. Propose a redirect to Ruddy Hell! It's Harry and Paul. SilkTork 15:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence that this particular sketch is notable. I've put a one-line reference to it into the main article, which is all it needs. Iain99 16:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect per nom. Oli Filth 16:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. Shabda 18:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. Given the merger, we can't delete and then redirect because our site license encourages preserving attribution history. But letting the AFD sit for the full five days ensures a solid consensus against reverting later.--Chaser - T 20:51, 5 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 for deletion. There appears to be consensus to keep at least the Business First and Washington Business Journal, but the others are not so clear. There seems to be a growing thought that they should be all merged/redirected to American City Business Journals, and if this is the case, please take merge/redirect discussion to the appropriate talk pages. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Business Review[edit]

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

Local business journal. An nominating all the journals linked off American City Business Journals Improbcat 15:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus Business First (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dallas Business Journal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pacific Business News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Houston Business Journal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Business First (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Memphis Business Journal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tampa Bay Business Journal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Washington Business Journal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Weak Delete These seem to be non-notable local journals. More to the point they and the listing on American City Business Journals for them seem to be intended more to promote the websites. Improbcat 16:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable publications. Before finding this AfD I found and A7-speedy-tagged the following additional journals:
Austin Business Journal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Atlanta Business Chronicle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
New Mexico Business Weekly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
They have since been speedied. --Finngall talk 17:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep (for Business First); abstain on others — Business First is Louisville's only business newspaper and that makes it notable. Also notable is that it was the first "Business First". Also making it worthy for keeping is that we have references that refer to it. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In all cases, these are probably the only business newspapers in the town. In the case of the Washington Business Journal, the article is weak, but the circulation is pretty large, and the journal often uncovers problems, scandals, etc. that then get covered by the Washington Post. I could imagine the article evolving to include examples of this. I'm pretty sure much reporting on Michael Saylor and the big problems at Microstrategies in the 1990s started at the WBJ. I agree that the American City Business Journals category is probably a form of advertising for the conglomerate (has it been nominated for deletion as a category?), but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. Category:Business newspapers still exists and is probably very useful many. Scarykitty 16:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I speedied lots of these, all virtually identical and spreading like a rash. Jimfbleak 17:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep washington Business Journal due to its extensive history and clear notability per Google News Archive. I would be cautious about some of the others particularly Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta, but I agree that not every publication by this publisher is equally or automatically notable. --Dhartung | Talk 11:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to admins: Nominator messed up when adding this page to the July 25 log--I have relisted it in the August 5 log. --Finngall talk 15:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to American City Business Journals. There is no assertion of notability in any of the articles. A local newspaper is not in itself notable, even though it may be the first or only local newspaper in the town. If there is something significant about any of these journals it can be said in the article on the parent organisation as is the consensus and convention: [22] SilkTork 16:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete and merge I think sections in the main article you mentioned is the practical way to go, for this and similar individual-market oriented periodicals in various fields. DGG (talk) 04:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirects are cheap, why not merge and redirect instead of delete? Just a thought. Mathmo Talk 21:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge, I actually was thinking you were referring to another "The Business Review"..... maybe should have a disambiguation page there instead. Mathmo Talk 21:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep these are important, notable, in each metropolitan area. Bearian 20:05, 9 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. --Coredesat 07:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSS Reboot[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable event, written like an advertisement, no external news sources (despite the many refs, they either are for the CSSreboot.com site, or other sites participating in the event: NOT 3rd party news sources). ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 15:04, 5 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—fails to establish true notability outside of a loose list of appearances. — Deckiller 14:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NYU in popular culture[edit]

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

Delete - random collection of unassociated items which share nothing in common past a mention of greater or lesser triviality to NYU. A list of fictional characters who attemded NYU and a list of TV episodes that mention it or was partially shot there does not constitute an encyclopedia article. Otto4711 14:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - trivial mentions that serve to do nothing except promote American TV shows and movies. This isn't "NYU in popular culture", it's "TV shows and movies that mention NYU" - and that makes it an indiscriminate list. "X in popular culture" articles may be very useful when written properly - but around here they always seem to get bloated out into lists of TV shows, without any non-trivial mentions from third-party reliable sources to prove that the mention is somehow notable for something. That gets as bad as having a List of TV characters with toothbrush moustaches. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but Print it in the alumni magazine Many of us enjoy hearing our own hometown, college, etc. mentioned on a TV show, but that doesn't mean that we want to know every time it happened. Not picking on NYU or on you. There's a reason why this isn't kept in the main article about the school, although some of the more significant (?) stuff might be put in a section of that article. Mandsford 15:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad is right this not NYU in popular culture its books, movies and TV shows that mention NYU in passing. While this is interesting it's not encyclopedic. The scope and depth of these sources does not satisfy WP:N--Cailil talk 16:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All items are uncited article does nothing to say why any of the so called occurances are at all notable. There may be some cases where an involvement with NYU might be significant - but this does nothing to argue this.Nigel Ish 20:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is nothing more than a trivia section presented as a stand alone article. Delete all trivia. What is the point? SilkTork 20:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per triviacruft.--JForget 01:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete list of extremely loosely associated items Corpx 04:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not nominated for any reason other than the words "popular culture" in the title. RandomCritic 15:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for essentially the same reasons we should keep Yale in popular culture. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yale in popular culture) --orlady 16:46, 6 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. --Coredesat 03:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yale in popular culture[edit]

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

Delete - a seemingly random collection of fiction set at or near Yale, trivial mentions of Yale, fictional characters who go or want to go to Yale and fiction set at schools which supposedly resemble Yale. A directory of unassociated topics of no encyclopedic value. Otto4711 13:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a random list. Shabda 14:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge and redirect to Yale - Yale in fiction and popular culture, after deleting all the trivial mentions that serve to do nothing except promote American TV shows and movies. This isn't "Yale in popular culture", it's "TV shows and movies that mention Yale" - and that makes it an indiscriminate list. "X in popular culture" articles may be very useful when written properly - but around here they always seem to get bloated out into lists of TV shows, without any non-trivial mentions from third-party reliable sources to prove that the mention is somehow notable for something. This article does have a couple good "Yale" mentions (see the "other" section), though they're still unattributed; perhaps those can be merged to the main article, and all the TV crap can be purged? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-- is there already and article about Yale in fiction and popular culture?
  • Keep. (COI: I am the creator of the article.) The nomination is paradoxical in suggesting that this list is a "seemingly random collection," but then identifying that the connection in all cases is that the references pertain to Yale. Wikipedia maintains "in popular culture" lists, such as Wikipedia in popular culture, a B-class, High-importance article. (I am not invoking the WP article in a "simply because the WP article exists, we should allow the Yale article to exist" manner. Instead, I'm referring to it as a means for comparison.) Like the Yale in popular culture article, the Wikipedia in popular culture article is a list of referents to Wikipedia. Unlike the Yale in popular culture article, the Wikipedia in popular culture article is more discriminating, better-referenced, and fleshed out with illustrations. Consequently, I can understand a recommendation to clean-up, adding references and cutting incidental references to Yale, but I do not think that deletion is necessary. I believe the list is too long to reasonably merge back into the Yale University article, which itself is already very long. Antelan talk 15:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Since author indicates that he/she will try to clean this up, I vote to keep. Sorry, but an article about Yale in pop culture needs to be a lot better than this. The biggest problem with IPC articles is that they include every mention of the subject, based on the erroneous assumption that if it's demonstrated that something is mentioned a lot, its significance will be obvious. Sadly, that kitchen-sink optional approach ends up making the subject seem silly. And this is YALE you're talking about, second only to Harvard as America's premier university, deserving of better than a generic pop culture article. God forbid that this would be merged into the main article. This is Yale, not Yazoo Community College. Mandsford 15:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - The biggest problem with IPC articles is that they include every mention of the subject is where you identify what I think is the problem with all these lists. If the author pared this down to the notable references to Yale in popular culture, the references that themselves have garnered verifiable non-trivial third-party mention in reliable sources, well... that would work. It would work right until 30 users came along and added back all the 5-second mentions in movies and TV shows that the author just pared out. This would require high maintenance to be an encyclopedic article; but, in that case, why should we have IPC articles to begin with? What purpose do they serve? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purpose they too often serve is as a garbage dump for material that has no place in the main article for the subject. The main article accumulates "references" like the ones in this list, of fictional characters who went to Yale or people who say "Yale" on-screen or the like and, rather than dealing with it in the main article an editor splits it off into a separate article called "X in popular culture." I don't know if that's what happened in this specific instance but that seems to be the general rule of how it goes. The tide seems to be turning against these sorts of articles, however, as evidenced by Category:In popular culture losing about a third of its article content and several of the subcats also being cleaned out in the last couple of weeks. People seems to be beginning to grasp that bare lists of "look at the thing in the thing!" references are unencyclopedic. I'm hoping frankly that this will lead to a change in the culture that such sections in articles are nothing but glorified trivia sections and they come to be viewed with the same sort of disfavor as trivia sections are. Otto4711 16:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It appears to me that this article was carved off from Yale University in order to prevent that article from growing excessively large. Merging it back into that article would merely recreate the problem with excessive length. If there is a continuing trend to delete "in popular culture" articles such as this one, Wikipedians are going to be reluctant to put this information into separate articles, with results that will not be pretty. I agree with others that the article needs improvement (for example, how can "Yale in popular culture" be discussed without mentioning Doonesbury?), but that's not a reason to delete it.--orlady 18:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument boils down to better here than there which is not a reason for keeping the articles. If it doesn't belong in an encyclopedic treatment of the subject in the main article then it doesn't belong in a split-off article on its own. Wikipedians should be reluctant about putting this stuff in separate articles and they should be equally reluctant about accepting it in main articles. Otto4711 18:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the contrary, I am reacting to comments to the effect that this should be moved to an "In popular culture" section of Yale University. The university article is 63 kilobytes long; this is one of at least four articles that have been split off from the university article, not because their subject matter was not worth including in the article, but because the subtopics lent themselves to splitting off. --orlady 21:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is nothing more than a trivia section presented as a stand alone article. Delete all trivia. What is the point? SilkTork 20:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Total junk glorified trivia section that thinks it's an article. Biggspowd 21:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
since when does WP not write about "culture junk"? The glory of WP is that it covers all of it. Notoriously, one persons junk is another's deeply meaningful art. We cover all of what people care about that way. Some people find baseball teams relevant, some people find pokemon relevant, some Opera, and for these and for everything else there are millions who think that such indication is a sign of immaturity or arrogance. Now, the things their works are about are relevant too. The allusions they make in their works are relevant too. that is what culture is about. It's not justthe main themes--those who say that have never thought about how art is made. A book is about a main theme, but the art consists of the detais, of wat is referrred to , of the suggestions that it has for the reader. DGG (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the condition that it be completely rewritten to discuss (and not list) the history of the representation of Yale, which does have notability (and is quite sourceable, mind you). Article might need renaming before or afterwards. CaveatLectorTalk 02:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For the rename, are you thinking something along the lines of "Yale in culture" or "Yale's influence on culture" or something like that but better-phrased than what I can think of at the moment? Antelan talk 02:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that ..in popular culture is fairly lame, and does indicate an inclination to collection really trivial stuff. Yale's influence on culture is a different matter entirely--Yale's influence on culture is the influence of the work done at Yale and by Yale graduates in the arts and other fields of civilized endeavor. We don't have any real articles of this orientation for any university, besides what's implied in the unviersity articles, and lists of X university people, and it would be a good series--an excellent idea--but it's separate. This article is on the effect that popular knowledge of Yale has on cultural artifacts--things written about Yale, or using Yale as a symbol, or as a theme. It is by the total accumulation of these themes that popular culture--contemporary culture-- is built. DGG (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These are not movies or shows about Yale, but the university plays a very minor part in the plot, hence its a list of loosely associated items Corpx 04:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is not just the main subjects. the power of art, popular or highbrow, is in the associations. Writers--even writers of computer games--use the details for a reason, and learning an art is not mainly learning how to pick themes, but to pick the details to illustrate the themes. If someone refers to Yale, they have a reason--when Wodehouse wrote "You're what every father would want for his daughter--a millionaire, a Yale man, and a football player" he had a reason for picking Yale, besides the rhythm of the sentence--by association with both millionaires and football, and as a university his English audience would at least have heard of. By seeing how other authors use it, we build up the picture of culture. To say that the theme only of a work is important is a very superficial reason of what culture is about--that's not why we care about art, or how art is done.
The place for accumulating knowledge about this is Wikipedia. Gathering is not OR; only interpretation is. Even if WP is the not the place for the work, it's the place to collect the sources. I don't want to do this work, but I don't want to destroy the sources for it. I am as a librarian horrified by the speed at which we are destroying access. I will still have access as an admin, and the material should certainly be transferred to another wiki--I can help with that but do not have the time to work on it or organize it-- and it is unnecessary--it could have been kept right here.
The question is how to build these up. The current way of deleting them first is so much the wrong way to go, that it is about this that I am arguing this. I have things both at WP and in the RW I should be doing rather than defending or rewriting these, things I could do much better than this. So let us preserve this, and then improve it. Let us see if every one of these trivial references can be sourced and integrated. If we care about WP, let us preserve the content, even if it takes more than 5 days to do so. Every argument here comes down to "keep, and edit." DGG (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eesh, DGG, look at what you just wrote: "Let us see if every one of these trivial references can be sourced and integrated." Wikipedia is indeed a place to collect sources! Wikipedia is a place to grow articles larger and larger until we have the sum total of all human knowledge! I agree with you! I'm your friend! But I guess I must have a different definition of "knowledge", which disincludes "using a word in a cartoon that refers to e.g. a university, usually done in passing or just in order to establish that this person is e.g. a snob or e.g. a snob from Harvard". Wikipedia shouldn't be a collection of pop-culture trivia collected from Hollywood movies and FOX Network cartoons, should it? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
my meaning of course was that "trivial references," are not truly trivial--that they put all together illuminate culture, as argued above. Culture is not made of major works only. -- look at your example-- snobs are from Harvard, proverbially, but not in the same sense from Yale -- this has a meaning, which does not necessarily a function of the actual percentages, but the perception of the universities involved, which in turn affects the further use in art which is what determines what is sometimes called a meme. It is Hollywood --for better or worse -- which defines American culture, as viewed from elsewhere, and cartoons and video which define it in America. We should make these articles better, so you will be able to read them and understand. DGG (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we truly care about WP then perhaps we should try to set a little bit higher of a standard than "ooh, someone done said 'Yale' in a movie!" for including something. Otto4711 18:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Otto and DGG: Yes, probably. The more I read DGG's replies, the more I can see the merit in his position; and the more I read your replies, the more I see the problems inherent in IPC articles. Considering how much IPC content there is on Wikipedia, maybe this should become a major meta-discussion instead of being hidden here at AfD? It looks like both of you have good points, and you both have high standards for Wikipedia content; but I think IPC sections within the main article can get a much better, scholarly, treatment than these standalone IPC articles which editors admit they're forking out like crazy - probably because they're often no more than a list of trivia without context or (third-party referenced verifiable) interpretation. I dunno, if you do start a policy discussion somewhere, let me know, cos I'd be interested in seeing what the result is. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional Yale alumni would indeed go very well in here. Hadn't thought of that. These discussions can yield improvements, if people think constructively. DGG (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not nominated for any reason other than the words "popular culture" in the title. Contrary to some folks' impressions, there is no Wikipedia policy against having popular culture lists. RandomCritic 15:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But there are, several. WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:N have to be satisfied, first. After that, WP:NOT goes into a lot of detail about what we're not supposed to have, and WP:NOT#INFO specifically covers "indiscriminate lists". AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC) -[reply]
  • comment Here's another problem with "in popular culture" articles: they end up being America-centric, with extreme WP:BIAS. Do we get to see "pop culture references to Yale" from Russian cartoons, or from Pakistani movies, or from Chinese TV shows? No. It ends up being a list of trivial references from trivial American mass media, most of which will be forgotten 5 years from now - unless the TV show goes into syndication, in which case it'll still die after 20 years. And in any case, you still won't have a third-party source asserting that the cartoon's/TV show's/movie's mention of Yale is notable. A "Cultural significance of Yale" article would probably be great, as would a "cultural significance of manatees"; but an "...in popular culture" article always ends up being a list of every time an item is used in a TV show just because its cachet allows a bad script-writer to establish a plot detail in fewer words. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 21:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
another excellent suggestion for improvement--I believe I mentioned the somewhat different use by a British writer to show his stereotyped Americans. By all means let's get the uses elsewhere--let's see whether the French, the Italians, the Chinese refer to Yale and how they do. Let's see what other cultures make of it. It will soon justify several articles. By all means let's write similar articles for universities in other countries, and themes significant there. what does the Sorbonne mean to americans as distinct from Frenchmen? There's a lot to do, once we decide to improve and not discard. I suppose we owe thanks to Otto for inducing this discussion of how to do justice to the subject. DGG (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, then we'll also need articles like "Guangdong in Chinese popular culture" and "Technical University of Mumbai in Indian popular culture" and "Pyramid of Khufu in ancient Egyptian culture". Not that there's anything wrong with that, I'd like reading those articles: but it does imply article multiplication. And doesn't solve the problem of policing all the articles to ensure quality analysis like in the Jabba The Hut article's section on popular culture, instead of "in the movie Wu Ye Li Xe, the protagonist Lo Fan comes from Guangdong". AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, improve and possibly rename per CaveatLector. A decent, properly sourced article could doubtless be written about the portrayal of Yale in fiction, how Yale is used as a signifier of prestige, etc. I'm sure that some cultural-studies type somewhere has written at least a monograph on the subject, if not a whole book. There might also be some useful content in this, which discusses Yale as a real-world signifier of privilege and may include discussion of fiction; not to mention the use of Yale in both fiction and non-fiction, from God and Man at Yale to Chloe Does Yale. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
was waiting for someone to mention that one. About as definite an indicate of noteworthiness as one can find. DGG (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This must obviously be in reference to Chloe Does... ;-) Antelan talk 16:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge—Yale is notable, but this article doesn't assert that Yale in popular culture as a whole is notable. As it stands, it's a loose jumble of fictional appearances, which is unencyclopedic per WP:NOT. Citing WP:NOT#PAPER is incorrect; WP:NOT#PAPER states that it only works if the article doesn't violate anything else on the policy page. — Deckiller 14:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleting this is absurd. I can't imagine what reason one could have to delete this article unless it's a desire to delete indiscriminately everything that ends with "...in popular culture". I wonder if whoever nominated this for deletion knows that the word "Yale" is in the title of this article? Michael Hardy 23:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if you understand that the inclusion of the word "Yale" in an article's title is not a free pass? Did you have any sort of argument other than 'for the love of God, this is Yale we're talking about?' because the notability of Yale does not extend notability to every time Yale is mentioned anywhere. Otto4711 12:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that Michael was saying that it did — I think he was merely noting that Yale is a university with a very clear and important role in American culture, and that an encyclopedic article could be written on the subject of that role. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. Clearly a worthwhile topic for an article but structured as a disconnected list.--Mantanmoreland 15:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep needs a rewrite but is worth a keep.Harlowraman 00:45, 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, reasons for keeping are quite weak and are not from a policy or guideline basis. --Coredesat 07:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Coast Guard in popular culture[edit]

U.S. Coast Guard in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - mish-mash collection of times a Coast Guard vehicle or person has appeared in a film combined with times the words "Coast Guard" happens to be mentioned on TV equals directory of loosely associated topics. Tells us nothing about the Coast Guard or the fiction from which the trivial references are drawn. Otto4711 13:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Just a random list. How come last three AfD are in Populat culture? Shabda 14:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Maybe the list needs to be improved but the US Coast Guard is an important part of popular culture in the United States and is closely intertwined with life in a lot of coastal communities. --- Safemariner 14:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Coast Guard is indeed an important part of the culture of the United States. That does not mean that a list of every time something mentions "Coast Guard" is also notable. Otto4711 15:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep How in the world did the author miss "The Guardian", the Kevin Costner film, and one of the few directly about the Coast Guard? The article does follow the right track in explaining significant portrayals of the Coast Guard but author makes the mistake of cheapening the subject with an EFR (every reference) approach, much of it drawn from his own memory, sometimes mistaken. Regarding Back to the Future, if you must know, the "Coast guard reference" was that Dr. Brown was guessing that Marty was "in the Coast Guard youth auxiliary" while trying to work the mind-reading machine... hardly an honor. Considering that the Coast Guard is the least understood or appreciated branch of the military, it deserves better than this. Save it if you can. Mandsford 15:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is nothing more than a trivia section presented as a stand alone article. Delete all trivia. What is the point? SilkTork 20:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same argument can be made for all of wikipedia. It is a POV to claim something is trivia and something is not --- Safemariner 00:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ok, so famous groups get mentioned sometimes in movies, doesn't mean there should be a trivia article for that. Biggspowd 21:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Such a broad inclusion criteria leads to a list of loosely associated topics Corpx 04:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to some, everything is a loose association: the subjects of a work are tight associations, and so are the references it makes. thats what the netweork of ideas is about. Loose associations are "List of books with characters who name begin with A" 05:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Another in an annoying flood of AfDs proposed for no reason than the words "popular culture" in the title. RandomCritic 15:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comment does not address the substance of the nomination. Your personal annoyance at a certain set of nominations is not a valid argument for keeping the article. Otto4711 18:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is valid argument if the REAL reason for nomination is the title. The content is certainly worth keeping. --- Safemariner 00:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The REAL reason for the nomination is laid out in the nomination. A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet and a trivia dump by any other name is still a trivia dump. Otto4711 14:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per mandsford and randomcritic. Mathmo Talk 21:44, 7 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. --Coredesat 07:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chinese dragons in popular culture[edit]

List of Chinese dragons in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Delete - directory of unassociated topics. Items have nothing in common beyond the inclusion to a greater or lesser degree of importance over a version of a Chinese dragon. This list tells us nothing about dragons and nothing about the fiction from which the listed examples are drawn. Otto4711 13:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Chinese Dragons FTW! --PEAR (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, what does that mean? That is, I know what FTW means... but why, exactly, do you think the article should be kept? -- Kicking222 13:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A dozen non-notable, unreferenced trivia facts do not add up to a legitimate article. -- Kicking222 13:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - Kicking222 says it economically yet well. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I did major in Economics! -- Kicking222 00:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - entirely useless and non-policy-compliant trivia. Moreschi Talk 15:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into Chinese dragon, the fiction section. Mandsford 15:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom et al. WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR and provides no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 16:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Listing every single mention of a dragon in film/music/literature qualifies as indiscriminate info. Spellcast 17:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is nothing more than a trivia section presented as a stand alone article. Delete all trivia. What is the point? SilkTork 20:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mmmh, my favorite combination. Not only "List of" but also "in popular culture", what a treat! OK, before anyone throws ye olde WP:IDONTLIKEIT at me, I shall hasten to add "per WP:OR, WP:NN, and WP:TRIVIA". ;-) --Targeman 23:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, based at least partly on the nomination: "greater or lesser degree of importance over a version of a Chinese dragon: -- so it seems the nom. thinks that some of this is important. He should have rather said, keep , and edit. We do not delete articles because part of it is unimportant. that would be the way to destroy WP--find me an articles where everything in it is important! Deletion is a last resort. DGG (talk) 05:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me just clarify, for our resident master of twisting words: None of this shit is important. It's all garbage and the article is garbage. Otto4711 18:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep things civil here. Remember that one or more Wikipedians worked on any given article, so please refrain from calling their efforts, even if you don't think they belong here in such harsh terms. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:29, 7 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 00:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Hero IV[edit]

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

This is absolute bollocks. Nothing has been announced, ridiculously crystal ball. By the same editor who bought us Call of Duty 5. What next? The Passion of the Christ 2: Rapture? Quake 5? - hahnchen 12:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Self-described "rumor." --Evb-wiki 12:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as unsourced rumor, possible hoax. Either way, it's WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 13:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete All of the above and it is only one sentence and an infobox (rumorbox?) —Travistalk 13:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above - I'm still waiting for Terrance and Phillip 3 - Revenge of the Stink Will (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An Hero > Guitar Hero IV. --PEAR (talk) 13:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duh-lete. I can't wait to hear about the bids for the 2048 Olympics. Also, how the hell could the game be a "prequel to Guitar Hero"? The games don't have stories- you can't have a prequel to something that has no plot or time period. -- Kicking222 13:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete - no content, WP:CRYSTAL, no verifiability, no external sources. How does this article not get deleted on sight? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete -- ditto everybody per Crystal, Rumor, etc. SpikeJones 15:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as CRYSTAL BALLS. It's hard to take seriously an article which says "Nothing is known about the game..." Iain99 16:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pretty clear cut case of crystal balling. Spellcast 17:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. SilkTork 20:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as completely lacking sources, just like a number of other "rumor mill" style articles the author has created today; unfortunate that we need to break out a sledgehammer, like this, but I can't see any easy alternative. To answer the "what next" question, apparently Halo 4. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination this is WP:CRYSTAL ball speculation right now and nothing more. Burntsauce 17:39, 9 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. John254 02:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

142857 (number)[edit]

142857 (number) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is nothing special about this natural nubmer. There is an infinite number of numbers with such properties. Liransh 11:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

":Weak Delete Cyclic number is encyclopedic but every cyclic number is not. It might be better to handle this number on the cyclic number page and redirect from 142857 (number) to that article. Shabda 14:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge the few bits that are significant and not already in Cyclic number to that article, and redirect. Deor 14:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - there's no harm done on having an article on "the most well-known cyclic number". I certainly already knew it before I read this article (and the only other one I can think of is 1/11). Let's have more math articles and less articles on cartoons, eh? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The article demonstrates the concept of a cyclic number better than any dictionary. In addition, 142857 is often referred to in those "fun with math" books that introduce kids to higher mathematics (see my new article, 142857 in popular culture... just kidding). Granted, there will be people who say, "Numbers are NOT supposed to be fun!" but 142857 is more than a parlor trick. Mandsford 15:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I agree with Shabda that not every cyclic number is encyclopedic, this one is, being the best known in the number base we humans use, base 10. Anton Mravcek 19:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This cyclic number's use within the enneagram is sufficient reason for a separate article. Gabriel Kielland 20:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; much the simplest cyclic number, and the only case not complicated by having a zero in its expansion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - smallest cyclic number, therefore notable. Gandalf61 10:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Cyclic number after deleting some sludge like saying that this number is related to 22/7 which is "approximately pi." Really reaching for "amazing" properties.Not very impressed by the "Harshad" and "Kaprekar" properties because they are from the same source, Kaprekar, as in "D. R. Kaprekar, On Kaprekar numbers, J. Rec. Math., 13 (1980-1981), 81-82." People seem to love to glorify themselves by naming classes of numbers after themselves. Edison 16:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many articles give examples of this number. It is shown as the first 6 decimal places of 1/7 as well as being the smallest cyclic number. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. According to WP:1729, it is interesting that 142857 is a cyclic number, but it's not that interesting that it's a Harshad number or a Kaprekar number. WP:NUM says at least three interesting properties are necessary to justify giving a number its own article. Knotslip12 21:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Admittedly I didn't spend hours calculating, but using WP:1729 I thought that it was an "interesting" Kaprekar number. --DeLarge 17:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I ran thru most of the calculation and came up with the same result as you. However, I did not look at any papers, and I didn't test if 142857 is a Kaprekar number in other bases. Anton Mravcek 21:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep so maybe teh only intersting thing about 142857 is that its a cyclic number. But its just so damn famous as a cyclic number that maybe for this number we shuold make one very rare exception for WP:NUM's notability rules. try thes Gooogle search: "142857 -site:wikipedia.org" Numerao 18:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to cyclic number. It's only really notable for this one property, so no separate article is warranted. —David Eppstein 16:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge Everybody learns this number in childhood, because of its cyclic nature. Except those who don't. The latter can learn it here. Michael Hardy 22:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator is wrong, this number is notable as clearly demonstrated above. Please withdraw. Burntsauce 17:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1729 questionaire on this number[edit]

  1. How many n < 107 do NOT have this property in common with Number N? If it's too computationally intensive to calculate, a heuristic estimate is acceptable, or even a rough guesstimate. These are the starting points.
I guesstimate there are 50 Kaprekar numbers less than 10 million, hence we start with 9 999 950 points.
  1. Has a professional mathematician written a peer-reviewed paper or book about this property that specifically mentions Number N?
I can’t access Kaprekar’s paper right now, so I’m assuming it doesn’t specifically mention 142857. Now –50 points.
  1. In a list sorted in ascending order, at what position k does Number N occur? Deduct k from Question 2 points.
According to (sequence A006886 in the OEIS), 142857 is the 25th Kaprekar number. –75 points.
  1. . Might f(N) = False in a different base b?
It’s true in base 10, so that’s 10 points right there. But for each base in which it’s false, it’s a deduction of the base number times the number under consideration. But I don't have access to a CAS right now, so I’ll be charitable for now and award 10 points, so now at –65 points.
  1. Does the sequence of numbers with f(N) = True in Sloane's OEIS specifically list Number N in its Sequence or Signed field?
Yes it does, so that’s +6886 points, bringing this up to 149808 points.
  1. What keywords does the sequence have in its Keywords field?
A point for nonn, another 6886 for nice, a point for easy. 156696 points.
  1. How many points are there? 156696

points > 0. The property in relation to the number is interesting. points = 0. It's your call. points < 0. The property in relation to the number is NOT interesting.

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Australia Tours[edit]

WWE Australia Tours (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WWE tours Japan, UK and Europe twice a year, we do not need individual pages for what are nothing more than fancy house shows. Darrenhusted 10:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Includes:

WWE Global Warning Tour Melbourne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

and its redirect

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

The result was keep (WP:SNOW to an extent). 1 delete argument (weak delete) outnumbered and outargued by lots of keep arguments. Giggy Talk | Review 04:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Live Prayer[edit]

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

A beautifully written and thoroughly comprehensive advertisement for a televangelism programme of no obvious distinction, occupying the coveted 1am slot on a local TV station (but available of course via the Interwebs). If Wikipedia were a directory of televangelists, or an advertisement site,this would be a perfect article. But Wikipedia is neither of those things. Subject was already nuked once at Live Prayer with Bill Keller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) due to OTRS complaints. Guy (Help!) 10:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep it was on national TV at one time, has appeared on The Howard Stern Show & The O'Reilly Factor, and has numerous media references from established sources such as the Associated Press [25], Boston Globe [26], Miami Herald [27], and the Washington Post [28]. --PEAR (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the old article was deleted because it didn't cite any references establishing notability, the new article does, and therefore should be kept. --PEAR (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it was deleted because the subject complained it was not complimentary enough (no such complaint this time, obviously) and because there was no evidence anyone but the subject and his fans and detractors give a shit about it. As evidence the 1am slot on the local TV station which is stated to be its current outlet. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Despite his less than desireable time-slot he does have a massive following (about 40,000 people email his ministry daily) and draws a lot of media attention. --PEAR (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article is well sourced, and it does not read like spam at all. --Evb-wiki 12:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Are you kidding? This article is very well sourced and covers a subject that is, without a doubt, highly notable. I suspect a pointed nomination here... Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 13:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep - I'd be happy if all articles were as well-sourced. It perhaps still requires a bit of editing to make the intro look less like a churchy promo, but it gets quite balanced later on. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reference section sufficiently establishes notability. If the article reflects POV, then it should be edited rather than deleted. —SlamDiego←T 20:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This topic is notable and this article is well-sourced. This is exactly the type of article that could benefit from a well-written, well-researched "criticism" section, but Wikipedia would not benefit from its deletion. David in DC 21:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well sourced and notable. Kukini hablame aqui 05:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The show has a 1 am slot on a local cable station, hardly an earthshaking TV presence. He rented time on a Christian cable network (edit) with a 1% market share (per the article on the network)for 4 months in 2006, again not an earthshaking TV presence. The evidence of notability seems to lump together the man and the TV show, which is not the way notability is judged. The TV show did not appear on the Howard Stern show, the man did. There is a difference. There has been some controvery and notoreity about his attack on Mormons and the wearing of Mormon temple garments by Mitt Romney, but that seems to fall in the "15 minutes of fame" basis for distinguishing between what is encyclopedic and what is merely newsworthy. The article is unabashedly promotional and POV, even to the point of saying in the "Controversy" section "Keller claims to deliver the truth of the Bible without modification even when people may be offended." This is not to say that by additional rhetoric such as the attacks on Mormons, he might become as notable as Father Coughlin in the future, in which case an article could be re-created. Edison 16:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The I network (now ION Television) is not a "Christian cable network", although it clearly promotes some Abrahamic family-values, it's strictly secular. --PEAR (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Founded as PAX network by a self proclaimed "born again Christian" and long featured late night Christian programming while having no hint of sex, violence or strong language in its dramatic programs. Got something like a 1% share of the audience per ION Television which says "Typically, the network's television shows average only 1% of the viewing audience, which is considerably lower than any other (major) broadcast network." Edison 18:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Commennt PAX (now ION) does not label itself as "Christian", most of the programs -- while not containing content offensive to Christians -- are secular. By your logic films by Steven Speilberg must be "Jewish". --PEAR (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Have they always had Jewish and Islamic content about equal to the Christian content? The article on the network says "The network also aired religious programming at night from The Worship Network during the late night hours and contemporary Christian television network Praise TV Friday and Saturday nights from 12:00-3:00AM ET/PT". Please do not edit other peoples comments, as you, PEAR, did here [29]. Edison 19:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment Is there any network in the United States which shows just as much Jewish & Islamic content as Christian (other than the explicitly Jewish & Islamic channels)? No, because most people in the US are Christians; however, ION Television is still secular because they don't explictly claim to be Christian. --PEAR (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Whether the network is Christian or not is irrelevant to this discussion. Theological axes should not be ground here. —SlamDiego←T 20:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I agree with you. --PEAR (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While I may personally object to the subject of the article, it is not relevant for an AFD discussion. The notability is quite well-documented with plenty of independent sources. The tone does seem suspiciously on the positive side, but it is not uncommon for articles to be written by the proponents of the subject. It is certainly not a criterion for deletion. My only real problem with the article is the numerous inline links to specific sections of the website, which seem sort of "spammy" and they really aren't encyclopedic. Furthermore, it is not uncommon for these kinds of links to go stale over time. Much better to just keep a single external link to the website and let anyone who is interested navigate to the relevant page. I'll see if I can clean it up somewhat. --Pekaje 14:26, 7 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. --Coredesat 03:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shaheed Agha Ziauddin Rizvi[edit]

Shaheed Agha Ziauddin Rizvi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

vanity piece-this reads halfway between advert and religious tract Chris 10:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete Completely non-notable, no sources. This article is more a religious attack than anything else. Faithlessthewonderboy 10:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : religious tract is right. –SESmith 10:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom & al. --Targeman 12:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Harlowraman 14:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep with a suggestion - the creator of the article, Abulfazl, has actually created quite a lot of articles about topics in the Pakistan/Afghanistan area. However, as far as this article is concerned, someone came along after June 2007, deleted all Abulfazl's content, and replaced it with the non-encyclopedic mess you see today. I'd like to suggest that, if you all agree, we revert this article back to [June 5 edit], and try discussing that instead. That old revision, while not written in perfect English, is at least attributed and a serious attempt to start an encyclopedic article. However, I won't revert without your agreement. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply I say it's worth reverting, knowing that, and see where that takes us. Chris 18:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE - OK, it has now been reverted, from the political creed back to what was a half-decent starter article on a person who was probably notable in his land. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment-better, but hard to read-can someone familiar with the subject clean it up? Chris 00:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
fixed up the language a bit more. It's not a great article, but considering it's on an Afghan, I'm happy that we have something. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've also tightened it a little, added it to two WikiProjects and salvaged the picture from the delete-worthy version. All are invited to revisit and adjust votes if they feel necessary. I change my vote to keep in this restored condition, and hope someone will watch it. Chris 03:21, 6 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. --Coredesat 07:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best of the Bloodiest Brawls, Vol. 1[edit]

Best of the Bloodiest Brawls, Vol. 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

DVD cruft, a list of matches and nothing else. The same applies to all the following articles. Darrenhusted 10:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doomsday: The Best of Abyss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Enigma: The Best of Jeff Hardy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Heaven Sent, Hell Bound: The Best of Christopher Daniels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nevermore: The Best of Raven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Phenomenal: The Best of AJ Styles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Phenomenal: The Best of AJ Styles, Volume 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sting: Return of an Icon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
TNA's 50 Greatest Moments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Best of the X Division, Volume 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Best of the X Division, Volume 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unstoppable: The Best of Samoa Joe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This will lead to the CfD of Category:Total Nonstop Action Wrestling DVDs, as it will be empty after this AfD (assuming there is a vote to delete all).

  • Delete All, per nom and my vote in the WWE DVDs AfD. Nikki311 18:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All, per nom, and that TNA DVDs are far less notable than WWE ones, and WWE DVDs have been deleted from here, so by default, the TNA ones should too. Biggspowd 19:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All - no notability, badly written, most just violations of WP:NOT#DIR. Send them. --SteelersFan UK06 06:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete maybe if they had made even a small attempt at sourcing anything it'd be a different matter MPJ-DK 07:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. JPG-GR 23:42, 6 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. --Coredesat 08:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Howe (headmaster)[edit]

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

Not notable, These peoples refences are Not independent of the subject. They have not received significant recognised awards or honors. So they don't pass WP:BIO & WP:PROF. ExtraDry 08:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: I have split this from a multiple nomination in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Trathen). --Canley 09:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Howe taught on three continents in the mid-19th century, was Headmaster of one of the most historic schools in Canada and then Headmaster of a GPS School in Australia. At a time when most teachers were lucky to leave their village he looks pretty notable to me. Can somone fill in the blanks and tell us why he left Jarvis? That might make Howe really notable. This one needs considerable work - lets give it a chance. Tallum 09:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please look at WP:BIO for what is notable. Your more than welcome to copy it over to your userspace and work on it over there. ExtraDry 09:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please look closely at this call for deletion by ExtraDry - it is difficult to assume good faith with this editor's current record of disruption. Tallum 09:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make false accusations. ExtraDry 09:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 10:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PROF. Regardless of anyone's alleged ulterior motives, subject doesn't appear to be notable. Faithlessthewonderboy 10:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless more information is provided, subject falls short of WP:BIO. Running private high schools is not notability, nor is teaching in multiple Commonwealth countries (an endless list). --Dhartung | Talk 11:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no indication of this headmaster passing notability standards. Hut 8.5 12:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 16:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent coverage of the subject, not major contributions to the enduring historical record...I don't se how this passes the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people). Calgary 19:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This bloke was before his time - live through a scandal in Canada, reinvent yourself in Australia without anybody being any the wiser. Lets beef him up and find the full story. Anyway keeping him does less harm than supporting all these ridiculous calls for deletion. Waterdanks 21:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The assertion that there is no independent coverage of the subject may be false. The references appear to point to books published about Newington College. If these are available and give details of his time there, they are independent. They are not written by him or his son or whatever. I also agree with Waterdanks. I would say too that Headmasters are quite often notable, because of there influence on their pupils, the education system and their local community. I do not know whether there is bad faith in this nomination, but it is certainly part of a number of proposals to AfD that have some relationship to Newington College. --Bduke 22:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can at least explain how the references are independent and lead to satisfaction of WP:BIO. SamBC 03:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The position itself is not inherently notable and there is lack of sources attesting to the notability of this person Corpx 04:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I notice the school he was headmaster of, and I remember the campaign a few weeks ago to remove all the articles for all the distinguished alumni of that school. The nom here attempted to remove all the articles on all the judges, university vice-chancellors, and other extremely notable Australian and Commonwealth people who were associated with the school. (a summary of this is on his talk page & also in the contributions, which link to them all)--all of which were unanimously or almost unanimously kept at AfD. I no longer AGF on any nomination from this editor on any topic connected with this school. as for this article, by general decisions here before, headmasters of really important schools are notable. In this case, there are even books on the history of the school which treat of him. DGG (talk) 05:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from you not WP:AGF do you have anything to add to this Articles for deletion? As please note this is Not a vote. Also of course books about the history of the school which was written by a former staff member which are not independent of the subject as per WP:BIO would mention him. ExtraDry 09:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think you will find that DGG does add to this article with the comment: "by general decisions here before, headmasters of really important schools are notable". I have found that Howe was the founding Headmaster of Galt Collegiate Institute and Vocational School and so is now a headmaster of three historically important schools. There are two histories of Newington College listed as references. The first is by David S Macmillan, who was the archivist of the University of Sydney, a notable historian and to the best of my knowledge independent of Newington. The second is by the Rev Dr Peter Swain, who was chaplain at Newington and for many years archivist. He has published two histories of Newington and a biography of Charles Prescott. His biography of Prescott was reworked from his MA thesis for the University of Sydney. As a regular contributor to the Australian Dictionary of Biography he has a solid reputation as an historian and it is nonsense to suggest he isn't independent of of the subject who was a Headmaster of Newington one hundred years before Swain taught there. Tallum 01:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly disagree with the statement that headmasters like this are inherently notable because of their position. If the position is important enough, then reliable sources will give coverage to the person(s) occupying it. Notability should depend on sources giving significant coverage to this person, not the position. The two independent links in the article (St James Cathedral & Cambridge City HOF) both give one line mentions to this person, which is not "significant coverage" as per WP:N Corpx 03:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Corpx. --ForbiddenWord 12:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Michael Howe is the son of Michael Howe a poor Irish farmer and is given a place at Trinity College as a sizar (i.e. bursary student) and receives in time a bachelors and masters degree before being granted a doctorate. He teaches on three continents in the mid 1800s appears to be at the centre of a sexual scandal in Canada and yet is written about in glowing terms as the headmaster of an elite Sydney school notable, I don't know but interesting yes. After creating the page, others seem to have found out a good deal more than I did and this call for deletion will, I'm sure, lead to more details. Howe should stay. Mitchplusone 11:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable as an an example of anglican Irish upward mobility in the colonies. I don't know about Howe's influence in the now long established Canadian schools but if the alumni of Newington in the Howe era were added as references to this article you would see that he is notable for those he has educated in Australia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Castlemate (talk • contribs).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 08:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Home Configurator[edit]

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

Pure spam for some estate agent. -- RHaworth 09:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete Reads like an advertisement. Faithlessthewonderboy 10:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --PEAR (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. -- Spam spam spam spam, as the song goes. Chris 19:49, 5 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 I took a few extra steps in closing this AfD, including doing a google news search which showed many possible sources. If people in the discussion had added any sources I would have closed this as a straight keep. It is unhelpful for people to call for keeping based on the existence of sourcing and not attempt to dig up the sources at all. Furthermore, I think that this may make more sense as a subsection of Papal conclave, 2005 and so a merge may be in order. JoshuaZ 17:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation about the papal conclave, 2005[edit]

Speculation about the papal conclave, 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I think the title says it all really. The total lack of references is a violation of Verifiability policy Tim! 09:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. The subject is notable, as anyone who wasn't on Mars in 2005 can attest. The article needs sources ASAP, which should be quite easy. I notified the author. --Targeman 12:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Agree with Targeman. Subject is notable and worthwhile; article is reasonably well-written. However if not sourced it can hardly stay. Cheers, Ian Rose 14:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Targeman. The article is well written and anyone that was following it at the time will recall reading sources giving such information. It's a case of finding and referencing those sources now! KTC 20:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is little changed since Jtdirl created it over two years ago, meaning he or she would be a good bet for sources, but given the way Jtdirl left, I wouldn't count on that. I trust that it is accurate without the sources, but I'm not familiar with the speculation the press was publishing then, and the assurances of a few anonymous editors on Wikipedia are not very reassuring to the casual reader of this article who isn't familiar with the excellent record of the person who created it. So what I propose is moving it to a talk subpage of Papal conclave, 2005 (effectively deleting it) and leaving a note at Talk:Papal conclave, 2005 that the problem was sources, and anyone who adds them is welcome to restore the article to mainspace.--Chaser - T 21:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obsolete WP:CRYSTAL ball. Articles about speculation are inherently problematic. The article contains comments such as "A Latin American pope is a strong possibility" to be elected in 2005. I have no doubt that we could find articles from 2005 saying that there was a strong possibility that a pope from Latin America would be elected. However, we know that, in fact, the pope elected was not from Latin America, and the only way we could prove that any Latin Americans were considered strong candidates would be for one of the cardinals to violate the oath of secrecy. So unless and until that happens, there could be no reliable sources to say that "A Latin American pope was a strong possibility in 2005". --Metropolitan90 06:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously fails WP:NOR. >Radiant< 09:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't obviously fail NOR. It is known that there were a lot of secondary sources carrying that information at the time. You can argue those does not constitute reliable sources as Metropolitan90 had, but it's not OR. -- KTC 09:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Targeman. Mathmo Talk 21:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's sad (actually rather more than sad) that Jtdirl is now so pissed off with the whole WP project that his response to Targeman's courteous notification of this AFD was "Who gives a fuck?" I think he could have once been relied on for some references, but probably not now. I feel there is useful (and encyclopædic) material here, so I go for Weak keep but tagged as {{unreferenced}} (curiously, there is no such tag at present, even though those are the stated grounds for the AFD). It needs anyway to be rephrased to reflect the fact that the conclave is now in the past, and the issue should be revisited at a later date. (Chaser's proposal is also viable.) Vilĉjo 14:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, agree with Targeman (talk · contribs). Another possibility is that much of the article could be moved over to a generic "speculation about any pope" article. Kingdon 02:27, 11 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, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Musicians[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic list. The information isn't of particular note in itself, largely unsourced and begins from the unreferenced premise that "most people" assume musicians aren't smart. Marwood 09:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List is purely opinion. Also assumes that holding an advanced degree guarantees intelligence. Faithlessthewonderboy 09:37, 5 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, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Tandy[edit]

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

Footballer who has never played first-team professional football. His sole claim to notability is his involvement in an altercation with Joey Barton during his time as a youth player at Manchester City. Oldelpaso 09:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Criteria for notability for athletes includes playing in a fully professional league. Until he has, he shouldn't have a page. Faithlessthewonderboy 09:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Faithlessthewonderboy. WP:BIO requires that he has played in a fully professional league. Possibility a candidate for CSD A7, an unremarkable person? --Malcolmxl5 16:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not played a game in a fully-professional league. Number 57 08:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO. Dave101→talk  10:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- BanRay 16:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, to Joey Barton as he is notable for what Barton did to him but not notable on his own.Englishrose 23:18, 9 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. --Coredesat 08:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gubbi Huchappa[edit]

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

A Google search does not give any results for this person apart from the Wikipedia links. Mkeranat 09:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Weak Delete Does not meet WP:BIO. Faithlessthewonderboy 09:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since there was only 51 Google hits, I couldn't find any non-trivial mentions from multiple, reliable sources. Spellcast 11:01, 6 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 - references provided assert notability and are clearly independent of the subject. NON-admin closure :: maelgwn - talk 06:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Trathen[edit]

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

Not notable, These peoples refences are Not independent of the subject. They have not received significant recognised awards or honors. So they don't pass WP:BIO & WP:PROF

  • Strong Keep Do a little research and you will see that in 1970, at the height of the Vietnam War, the Rev Doug Trathen's call for young Australian men to resist the draft was an enormous story in all the main stream press. His obituary in the Sydney Morning Herald almost thirty years later suggests that he was indeed notable. That obituary is without doubt independent of the subject. It is difficult to believe that the nominator in this instance knows anything of the subject or the times. Tallum 09:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:BIO "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability." A obituary would not be substantial. ExtraDry 09:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages

  • Michael Howe (headmaster) ExtraDry 08:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being a headmaster of some random school is not notable. Shabda 08:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep Howe taught on three continents in the mid-19th century, was Headmaster of one of the most historic schools in Canada and then Headmaster of a GPS School in Australia. At a time when most teachers were lucky to leave their village he looks pretty notable to me. Can somone fill in the blanks and tell us why he left Jarvis? That might make Howe really notable. This one needs considerable work - lets give it a chance. Tallum 09:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC) **Comment Please look at WP:BIO for what is notable. Your more than welcome to copy it over to your userspace and work on it over there. ExtraDry 09:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Comment Please look closely at this call for deletion by ExtraDry - it is difficult to assume good faith with this editor's current record of disruption. Tallum 09:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC) :Please do not make false accusations. ExtraDry 09:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC) (moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Howe (headmaster))[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 09:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Douglas Trathen is also referred to in a large section concerning "The Trathen case" in the book A Nation at War: Australian Politics, Society and Diplomacy During the Vietnam War 1965-1975 by Peter Edwards (see Google Books). That's another independent reliable source (i.e. multiple), and the book clearly explains the substantial effect of Trathen's actions in Australia. --Canley 09:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although it appears he wrote a letter that (somewhat indirectly) led to his resignation, it isn't clear that this incident makes him notable or received substantial coverage or had a lasting impact. --Dhartung | Talk 12:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 16:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Trathen affair was a major religious, political and moral issue and says a great deal about the conservative nature of the church and GPS education in the 1970s. He is without doubt a notable Australian churchman and headmaster. Waterdanks 21:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable and referenced. Needs expansion. --Bduke 22:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Canley's reference. Article needs better sourcing but that is a case for cleanup not deletion. Capitalistroadster 02:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable, referenced, encyclopedic. Hesperian 04:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of references to his notability. An obituary does not establish notability Corpx 04:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Canley. Capitalistroadster makes an excellent point. JRG 05:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Canley and Capitalistroadster. Needs to be rewritten with emphasis on the Vietnam issue. The Null Device 11:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Read all the national newspapers mid-year 1970 and you will see how notable Douglas Trathen was. If this call for deletion is part of an attack on Newington College and Old Newingtonians it seems odd as Trathen was sacked by the College before they realised that they didn't have the power do do so (as an ordained minister the church alone had the power) and the whole incident caused a great deal of embarrassment to the College Council and its chairman, the General Manager of the ABC Sir Talbot Duckmanton. Trahten's notability is about the anti-war movement and Newington is just a sideline. The nom hasn't done any homework and is being disruptive at best. Mitchplusone 11:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Connect Trathen with well written articles on Sir Sir Alan Walker who was President of the Methodist Conference at the time, Talbot Duckmanton of the ABC (who was Chairman of Newington College Council) and the anti-war movement in Australia during the Vietnam War and Trathen's notability becomes very clear. The issue is dicussed in school history programmes to this day as evidenced by the VCE and Shrine of Remembrance study guide.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LLG's (Ladies Love Gangstas)[edit]

LLG's (Ladies Love Gangstas) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

"one of the youngest, smallest, and least notorious gangs in the United States." Nothing comes up on google. Reasons to delete: non-notable, hoax, joke, blp. Take your pick. Calliopejen1 08:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable at all. google search list only the wikipedia page. Shabda 09:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Appears to be a vanity page. Faithlessthewonderboy 09:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Harlowraman 16:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP:NN, and provides no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 22:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BLP and sourcing issues (although I doubt any real members would complain).--Chaser - T 21:57, 5 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 00:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

God-Des and She[edit]

God-Des and She (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Small, non-notable band, possibly vanity article PEAR (talk) 07:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I see plenty of sources to establish notability [30] [31] [32] and google news archives has a mention in Newsweek one can verify in the google news archives results.--Chaser - T 08:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Needs a lot of work, but appears to be somewhat notable. Faithlessthewonderboy 10:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep they are not mainstream perhaps but I have heard about them in relation to the gay hip-hop underground. Jmm6f488 02:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Chaser. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep they are well-known in the lesbian music community and possibly the larger women's music community. Their music has been included on a few national compilations as well. Benjiboi 11:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - featured in documentary Pick Up the Mic which has screened nationally in the US on Logo (TV channel). However, does need to be revised to be less press-releasey.--Larrybob 18:42, 6 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 (redirecting or copyediting is at the discretion of any editor) Nabla 02:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Beast Machines characters[edit]

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

All but one of these entries has an article of its own, and content here repeats content on those individual character articles. Each of the section headers -- Maximals, Predacons, Vehicons -- has its own category, each of which has many more entries than are on this List of..., suggesting this list is both incomplete and would become unwieldy if it were exhaustive. Recommend axing the list and replacing it with Category:Beast Machines characters. --EEMeltonIV 07:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't know the Transformers world beyond ~1986 well enough to know if that's the best category suggestions, or how best to situate it in relation to the myriad other Transformers-related categories; other suggestions welcome. --EEMeltonIV 07:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I agree with the nomination and suggest splitting out the drones into their own article (after that, a redirect will be necessary to preserve attribution history, as our license suggests). Then clear incoming links to this article and create the category as suggested.--Chaser - T 07:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Actually, this doesn't even require AFD. If you want to withdraw the nom, I'll close it and implement as described.--Chaser - T 08:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds swell to me -- if you're willing to do the grunt work, go for it. --EEMeltonIV 06:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Beast Machines or delete, redundant list as each character has its own article. JIP | Talk 08:59, 5 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 consensus of established editors. Flood of apparent single-purpose accounts do not address policy/guideline-based reasons for deletion. --Coredesat 08:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Hightower[edit]

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

Contested prod; rationale was "Organization with no referenced assertion of notability; delete per WP:CORP." I can't find any reliable independent sources to establish this organization's notability. --Muchness 06:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep for the preservation of medieval history as taught in schools, it's an enhancement to better learning or understanding. They are community oriented and are not for profit. Also a legit Canadian Corporation. See external links to Industry Canada in article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.61.202 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 5 August 2007— 207.112.61.202 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Neutral. Their main website is based on geocities.com which makes me doubtful about this kingdom. But otherwise this seems notable. Shabda 09:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is well maintained. Organization is established under LUTES name. Suggest that a Wiki article on LUTES be linked to this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.61.202 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 5 August 2007 Duplicate !vote struck. ELIMINATORJR 21:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]
This IP has made 2 contribs to wikipedia both oof them votes to keep in this afd [[33]] [34]. This is a possible single purpose account--Cailil talk 17:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ORG. Faithlessthewonderboy 10:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As with the Society for Creative Anachronism, this is a group, with affilliates (clubs) across North America that preserves interest in medieval history by encouraging re-enactments, etc. I'm not sure why the article isn't entitled "LUTES", since that's the organization that oversees this, but maybe it's more likely to be found here. 15:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources" - there are no seconary reliable sources for this article. Unless it can be rewritten and verified using reliable sources it has to go. The Society for Creative Anachronism article has 15 refs this has 0--Cailil talk 16:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Somebody else deleted 15:52, 5's ID from this discussion. According to the history I beleive it's Mandsford's comment. Accidental vandalism makes even this page up for deletion! Copied with minor edit from history section: 15:52, 5 August 2007 Mandsford (1,285 bytes) Anastasia the Innocent 19:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actual Anastasia, Mandsford may have typed 5~ rather than 4[35] the user id was excluded from the original post so nobody deleted it. I don't follow what you mean when you say "Accidental vandalism makes even this page up for deletion!", could you explain?--Cailil talk 20:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cailil. I thought I saw his ID on his post earlier and then later it was gone. That's why I went to look to see if I could find out what happened. Maybe it's stigmatism. With discussions ongoing it's good to see who wrote what so new people joining this forum can read previous comments before making theirs. Thanks for your quick reply. :) Anastasia the Innocent 20:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought I had signed my comment. Sometimes I overlook it. Signed now, for eiether the second or first time. Mandsford 22:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC) (Well, I did sign it and it disappeared again. Must be a gremlin in the system) Mandsford 17:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay :) BTW i've put a notice at WP:ANI about the IPs and possible vote-stacking.--Cailil talk 20:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This group has been in existance for only four years compared to the four decades that the Society for Creative Anachronism has. The Kingdom of Hightower's reliability as mentioned in the article under community, states that their members volunteer their time with such organizations as Casa Loma's Renaissance Festival, 55 Division Police Week, community events like Taste of the Danforth and Riverdale's Canada Day, among others. The internet is not the only source that validates the existance of a group. See recently added "Media" online and print sources of Hightower's article. Expanding LUTES article that links to this page is recommended. Anastasia the Innocent 17:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP. There ARE references to this group. It's called real life - not the internet. Are the moderators that uneducated that they only use the internet for references? It's obvious this group is still small, so there are no references on the internet - why would there be? As someone else has pointed out, the group is well known at Casa Loma and provides educational demos to school children. I'd suggest you contact someone in hightower and request real life references. I am an active member of the Society of Creative Anachronism (SCA). It is well known that the SCA lost their right to use Casa Loma. Instead, Hightower was invited to fill in some of the gaps. Why don't one of you moderators call Casa Loma and confirm the affiliation? Or is there a hidden agenda? I feel like quiting the SCA and I think at least one of you moderators are part of the SCA...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.123.72.87 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 5 August 2007
— 74.123.72.87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
This Ip has no other edits to wikipedia this is their only contribution to the encyclopedia so far. They are also from the same region as 207.112.61.202. Vote-stacking is against wikipedia's rules, as is the creation of single purpose accounts to manufacture consensus in an AFD--Cailil talk 20:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cailil, if someone from another organization has reason to vote in favour of this article staying active, how can that be vote-stacking? The IPs don't look the same to me, maybe I'm missing something. I'm going to remove myself from this discussion for a while as I dont' see the logic in all this.
Hightower's wiki page has been up for a year and suddenly this is going on.
I might just delete the article myself and spare everyone this agrivation.
Good health, Waes Haeil, Anastasia the Innocent 21:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So a well respected institute such as Ryerson University is not considered as a notable, reliable source or a heritage landmark like Casa Loma? That is strange.
But I do see your point about this deck stacking business.
It's very clear.
You should be advising the editors of these articles on how to improve their pages, NOT THREATEN THEM because of some bias opinion or some other thing going on.
As wiki editors and admins, you should be helping people build better pages. Give them the tools they need to keep building on that. Make Wikipedia better.
This is probably why Wikipedia is not a reliable encyclopedia to begin with. That's why the majority of people refuse to quote from it as it always subject to change, by uniformed indivduals, or vandals, etc. And when I see this silly nonsense that's going on here today, I have to shake my head and say, "some people have too much time on their hands and do not use it for the betterment of all".
Good health and many blessings, Anastasia the Innocent 22:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP It says that this group is a registered non-profit organization. That's all the credibility it needs to survive and function. It seems to me that this group is being attacked for another reason.— 82.193.219.130 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 01:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • KEEPRe: using sources on the internet. The SCA does have many online references but that's because they have existed for so long. I suggest the persons responsible for up keeping the article should cite references outside the internet. thanks. katherine_annmarie_king@yahoo.com— 68.46.218.62 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 01:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • KEEPOk, I created a user ID here so I appear as a person (how does this even make a difference?). The article should be kept for sure. Can the creator Anastasia in Innocent cite non-internet sources to validate the entry? Does this help? It's been mentioned by someone already and I agree with the above statement that you should be helping and assisting people in improving the way they create articles. This over use of power reminds me of craigslist where people can arbitrarily remove something just because they feel like it or don't like something on a personal level. This seems to me like an attack by someone in the SCA (the person who initiated the complaint). Where are they now to defend themselves or state their true intention and purpose of the complaint? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Saz (talk • contribs) — Lord Saz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Weak Delete per lack of sources attesting to notability Corpx 04:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • hello... I'm trying to establish what criteria they are wanting if established articals and announcments via reputable sources like Ryerson & Casa Loma don't seem to measure up. this is a very young group and you can't compare it to one that's been established for 40 yrs. This wiki page has been up for a year so why now, all of a sudden it's being threatened for deletion. I agree that this discussion shouldn't be disrupted, but this notice was only flagged a day or so ago and it seems that there is little or no time to state a case. It appears like a done deal. This page has taken a year to build and I feel bullied into making swift changes. I'm 52, not a spring chicken any more.

I have a question. If there are two individuals in the same location, why can there only be one vote? I think that if there are two people either living together or living a mile away from one another, their opinion should still count. I'm unsure of how democracy works in this tribunal.

Who do we appeal to?

Any and all help is appreciated. Thank you. Anastasia the Innocent 04:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They should create an account. That way two people on the same computer can edit (and vote) as individuals. Obviously this is isn't fool-proof, as in the case of sock-puppets, but it helps. If someone is interested enough in contributing to wikipedia, creating an account is not a big deal. Freshacconci 14:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. "Vote" is misleading, as the info box at the top of the page indicates. This isn't a vote tally but a discussion. An administrator will weigh the arguments pro and con and decide which is more convincing. So the "vote stacking" approach actually works against a cause as forming an articulate argument is more persuasive. I've seen AfDs close with a "keep" even with a majority "delete" votes. It all has to do with the strength of arguments. One cornerstone of wikipedia is to assume good faith and I think most editors on wikipedia are interested in expanding the encyclopedia rather than deleting articles. However, not every article created can be saved for a variety of reasons including those failing WP:V and WP:NOTE. There are a number of "rules" and procedures in place to prevent abuse and self-promotion. Generally, if you are involved with an organization, writing about it is a problem per WP:COI and WP:NPOV. This isn't absolute of course, but is a guideline that mostly works. Freshacconci 14:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article indicates it is a fine organization working toward good purposes, but the same could be said of most local church congregations, and they are not notable in general. The article lacks references to show it has had much impact beyond its own membeership, and fails to satisfy WP:N or WP:ORG. It might do so in the future, and then th article could be recreated, when and if it has multiple instances substantial coverage in reliable and independent sources. Edison 16:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the organization is "community" involved, and cites functions and events that are CLEARLY community, how do you come to such a conclusion as to say it "shows little impact beyond its own membership"? Police Week is documentd by the local paper SNAP, see link in section titled Media. Police Week is a week for the Police force, 55 Division is a precinct in the Police department. AKA: COMMUNITY!!! Casa Loma is a heritage site, a REAL CASTLE run by a charitable group called the Kiwanis club, and Hightower volunteers at their Renaissance festival event. They are not paid actors. It's long, hot, tiring work.. unpaid work, for the betterment of the community and its participants get no kickbacks or favours in return! Unlike some other organizations with the same interests, we go out to local events regardless of the fact they are "mundane" in dress. Education is about giving to the community and not self-perpetuating in a closed tight society that only gives to the community if there is something in it for them. Anastasia the Innocent 03:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
* Comment Good evening everyone, as I read through these messages, I see a string of contradictions made over the last 24 hours or so and yet no one has answered my questions with a direct answer. Mandsford's name seems to disappear from the archive by way of Gremlins, and when accusations of vote stacking are directed across the table, suddenly majority votes are no longer the deciding factor. When told of the "guidelines" with regards to wiki pages, such as self promotion, you forget that the SCA pages have a very big section of wikipedia, edited by SCAdians, and SCAdian editors listed in the wiki directory. I have seen small medieval/viking groups disappear from the wikipedia for one reason or another, and though this particular page has been here for a year, suddenly it is under attack. One cannot talk about self-promotion if you are talking about a large group like the SCA written by it's subscribers and yet attack other groups. why, even people that play in Warhammer, edit their pages.

If a person working for the Department of Tourism in Paris France, writes an article about the Eiffel Tower, is that self-promoting? The same goes for the person living in Toronto, proud of his or her city and writes about the CN Tower, Casa Loma or Centre Island. People write about what they know! Landmarks, lifestyles, organizations. They go hand-in-hand.

What I see here is alot of rhetoric and contradiction and very little discussion with regards to questions. This is more like a dirvish dance floor than a round table discussion.

I appreciate positive, reasonable feedback from some of you others, and I thank you very much for some of the help you posted. It is my belief that we are all here for the same purpose, to make the wikipedia pages more reliable as an information source.

Have a nice evening everyone, and thankyou again, Anastasia the Innocent 00:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as I mention above, "voting" is a misleading term as wikipedia policy clearly states that AFD discussions are not a vote. I was merely attempting to point out that any attempts at "vote stacking" (i.e. "voting" more than once, asking your friends to "vote" and so on) are ultimately futile, as it isn't a vote. In the end one person decides if an article stays or not, an administrator. As such, wikipedia really isn't a democracy. There are rules and procedures for electing administrators (and that is an election where votes are counted) who then have the authority to make these sorts of decisions. There is also an appeals process, deletion reviews. A deleted article can also be rewritten and reposted (if improved). There is no contradiction, but perhaps merely poor attempts to explain the procedures. Wikipedia has a learning curve and it takes a while to understand the various rules. This is both good an bad in the end, I suppose, and I would have no idea how to change it. In the end, wikipedia is a private website which allows complete strangers to change the content, which is an interesting concept if you think about it. We all tend to gravitate towards what we are interested in and know about. That's to be expected. And when we have an interest and level of knowledge in a topic we tend to become territorial about the content. But in the end we are all amateurs here, working on a hobby. Can someone working at the Eiffel Tower write about it on wikipedia? Of course, but the notability of the Eiffel Tower is beyond dispute. It's a bit more complicated when it's a small organization. This does not mean that the organization in question has no value or does not contribute to its community, but some editors feel it is not notable at this point. However, I don't feel that there is an agenda at work here, and I can only speak for myself, but I don't feel I have a bias here. On the contrary, I'm actually quite neutral on this topic and I've based my assessment on the evidence at hand. Thanks for listening. Freshacconci 01:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Freshacconci, thankyou for your replies. They have been helpful. You said that you are neutral, however you voted to "delete" yesterday, therefore that is not considered neutral unless you change your vote to reflect that. Regardless, you are the only person here that is making any sense and without typos too!:) I hope you are enjoying your summer and you have my sincerest apologies that these discussions are taking you away from some of that peace and relaxation. Have a nice evening and thankyou again. Anastasia the Innocent 03:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete Lacks adequate sources to denote notability. There is no way to tell source 1 is even creditable since it is so badly formated. (Exactly what kind of source is it and was it even published and in what journal or newspaper?) And even if it is deemed a reliable published source, it alone does not confer notability. Other reliable third-party sources are needed. That the group participates in a festival at a historic location also does not confer notability on the group either. The last three all appear to be self-referencing or primary sources which cannot confer notability under any circumstances. --Farix (Talk) 03:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see that at aproximately 11 of the 15 references on the SCA page are self written documents, some by long time members (and one a friend of mine). Are they up for deletion as well? I see they're flagged, but not up for deletion. The same goes for the Warhammer page. They were tagged in July to improve and verify their sources. The Hightower page wasn't given the opportunity of a tag to improve its sources, it was suddenly flagged for deletion. I think that because of the lack of consistancy with "rules/guidelines" going on between articles, I will probably appeal to the higher ups. In my humble opinion, it's making Wikipedia look bias and unprofessional. This is probably why some people have their own programs to set up their own Wiki-mirror pages. It's understandable. Sadly, if some editors want to go around deleting Wiki-articles and concluding that some organizations (as legitimate as there) are not valid, then this lovely website will no longer have any articles. Encyclopedias need articles. they are supposed to get BIGGER not smaller! I have an old Encyclopedia Britanica that dates way back that was only in two large volumes, now look how many they have. I have great respect for this website and it's purpose here on the web, and there should consistency throughout. Careful measures should be in place and followed. but all this invalidates Wikipedia itself. Anastasia the Innocent 04:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS But I did quickly run through the SCA article's sources and seen enough third-party reliable sources to establish the notability of the organization. I also know that there has been plenty of press coverage that are not listed as sources to know that SCA is notable. I can't say the same for KoH. As for overturning the results of a deletion discussion, there is deletion review. But you have to explain why the closing did not reflect consensus, there were serious procedural errors, or present new sources that would have changed the outcome of the discussion if the deletion was based on a lack of notability. But beyond that there is no "higher authority". --Farix (Talk) 21:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative Solution I am unsure of how many days are left on this discussion, but it's been mentioned by one or two individuals to merge this article with the parent organization, LUTES. I am in full agreement, but the Hightower organization existed a year longer than LUTES. The Hightower page can still be edited for improvement, but if it's decided by admin to be merged, according to the criteria for WP:ORG WP:CORP, then it is going to take a very long time to edit. Editors have lives too! :) Discussion on this would appreciated. Thanks. Anastasia the Innocent 05:01, 7 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 keep. Cool Hand Luke 00:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies of the Polish-Soviet War[edit]

Controversies of the Polish-Soviet War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was created specifically to spin-off the referenced content one side in the content dispute did not like to see in the main Polish-Soviet War article. There is no reason the Wikipedia should have such an obvious fork. The atrocities are a part of the war and should be mentioned in the war article as they are mentioned in the sources. If there is too much detail, the solution is obvious. All important controversies should have their own encyclopedic articles. But this not really an article but an obvious backburner created to be a dump for an information rather than the source of the information only harms the Wikipedia's integrity. Since the article contains some material and references, I propose to preserve this in history and have it instead blanked by a redirect to a war article. --Irpen 06:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the nominator. --Irpen 06:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be clear: do you propose to merge it back to the PWS or just to delete it?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  11:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I was clear in my proposal. I do not propose to merge everything to PSW, only the events crucial enough. Besides, most of the events of the crucial importance are already in the main article and not in an artificial extra section but properly integrated in the text flow, like this should have been done in the first place. Other events of lesser significance can be merged to narrower articles such as the articles on specific operations, the articles on specific objects, cities, etc. Some atrocities deserve to be covered in their own articles and some of such articles already exist, like Pinsk massacre, Vilna offensive#Atrocities, article on Polish interment camps, etc.) To be able to easily do this and take all the time needed for that, I propose to actually blank this article with a redirect to PSW, so that all the material is preserved in history. Most of it is already duplicated in those other articles. Links to those articles properly integrated in the text of the main one is enough and, in fact, much better than the current monstrosity. This article is nothing but an artificial creation, a pasted section from another article that should have not be there in the first place. No, I do not "DONTLIKEIT", as far as the facts in the articles go. All I am saying is that they are covered unencyclopedically, and we should do better. Additionally, this artificial article serves to some POV pushers as an excuse to remove facts from where they are relevant on the whim claiming that there is a "dedicated article" for those. The article, thus, serves as an artificially created backburner to make frivolous arguments in a host of content disputes. To summarize, I do not want to suppress any info. Moreover, this info is already covered elsewhere. All i want is to have the material covered properly. --Irpen 16:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It all sounds good, until one remembers that this article has not grown significantly since it was split from the PSW and before it was split, several users strongly objected to "deletion of sourced information", despite arguments that many belong in specific subartiles; and on which events are "crucial enough". I don't see the point in restarting those old discussions. This article is no less encyclopedic then Soviet war crimes or Nazi war crimes.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • "It all sounds good" is a good start. Maybe we'll get somewhere from, here. I take it from your first argument above, that the article was indeed created (not actually created but merely pasted from an existing section, the unfortunate section, I must admit) purely to limit the "damage" from the editing disagreement to the Main article. This only confirms my view, that this is an artificial backburner. What info belongs where is a totally separate debate. Let's continue it at the talk pages of those articles but without invoking this dump as the "place for everything". Finally, there is a huge difference between this article and the Nazi war crimes. The latter took place not just in a single local war but Europe-wide. The latter are the subject of the numerous scholarly research in their own right. The latter became the subject of a series of dedicated trials that produced and abundance of archival and historic literature. In our case here, all we have is the war which is just as bad as all the wars. Atrocities are a part of the war. That Polish troops slaughtered Jews in their advances is notable enough to be mentioned in the main article (with details about each massacre covered in dedicated articles, as they are already.) That Reds looted and killed at their advances is notable too, while the details belong elsewhere. That both sides starved to death/killed POW's is also notable in its own right and needs to be mentioned. These examples of what happened have to be covered properly rather than arbitrarily dumped together in an artificial article on the subject that has no integral scholarly value, unlike the Nazi war crimes. I have no intention whatsoever to strike out any info. All I want is to have it covered properly. As you admit that the article was a workaround against bickering about what is of what significance, I say that this is a bad workaround. Let's build an encyclopedia, not an artificial creation aimed at solving the problems you and I have with each others' POV. --Irpen 17:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should we write Controversy in Polish history or Controversies in Eastern European history? The only common between those events in the article is that they are based on the sourced challenged or rejected, it is not the way to build articles Alex Bakharev 11:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Eastern European history or Polish history articles grew a disproportionately large section on some controversies, then of course, yes. Large or weakly related sections are often split into separate articles; this is how Wikipedia grows.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article could use some minor cleanup (mostly restructuring, but also prose is a bit hard to read). Well referenced and follows WP:NPOV guideline, not favoring one side over the other. Topic is certainly noteworthy and should be included to Wikipedia. I am unfamiliar with the content dispute in question (link, please?), but the main Polish-Soviet War article is too long (98KB text, file size 240KB), so splitting seems necessary. I recommend the other side to improve the article, not attempt to delete it. Sander Säde 07:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sander. Seems this AfD is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Martintg 09:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually you are wrong. The article includes a lot of Polish atrocities. So it is not a POV conflict. Also, your assumption is offensive. Please avoid making such. --Irpen 09:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Polish-Soviet War is FA; the controversies/atrocities section was added afterwards, included some less then reliable sources and grew too large - hence, was split off (just as many other articles in Category:Polish-Soviet War). The article includes both mniscule details that are not relevant to the main article, and claims referenced with sources that are below FA-standards. It should not be deleted, nor merged back as this would destabilize a good (and already very large - 97 kilobytes!) article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  10:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is notable subject and refferences are provided. I agree with Marting, this AFD was done based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--MariusM 11:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator Irpen claims above: "No one is claiming that the article is unbalanced" and "The article includes a lot of Polish atrocities. So it is not a POV conflict". So it's either a POV fork, or it isn't. Which is it? Martintg 11:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no compelling rationale to delete this article, it's sourced and factual. Ghirla might note that this article refers to the Soviet Union rather than Russia. Nick mallory 11:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You might note that the Soviet Union was created in 1922, while the Polish-Russian War was over by March 1921. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your expertise on the Soviet Union is indeed striking Ghirla. A labour of love no doubt. Presumably you'd like to change all the references in the article to 'Russian' rather than 'Soviet' then? Nick mallory 12:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the correct term would be Bolshevik, but somewhere in the archives of the PSW is the decision to use Soviet (which I personally disagree with, but its another matter entirely).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I always was told in school that Soviet Union was created in October of 1917, but they got different calendar there, so there is a chance I got those dates wrong. greg park avenue 02:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While this article is well-sourced and balanced, it needs more wikilinks and some editing for clarity. It can certainly be confusing for English-speakers as it's torn out of the war's context and reads like a translation at times. I would tentatively propose to merge it back into the main article. I know, it's long, but it provides the necessary background (especially maps). Besides, given that there is no such thing as a war without controversy, I'm generally wary of even well-intentioned forks like this. --Targeman 12:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per User:Piotrus as a useful fork to the main article, because it shows both sides. Suggest to omit the word "controversy" in the article title. This way only the facts will be allowed into the article, not the rumours or politician's statements. Suggested title: Atrocities of the Polish-Soviet war. There is an ongoing discussion concerning the term "allegations of apartheid" in a series of articles on Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Apartheid, which I think wil make a precedence and shall show, why using such words as "allegations" or "controversy" in the titles may be misleading and invite any kind of propaganda. greg park avenue 15:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added section headings. I am not sure if atrocities imply to the property distruction or POW situation, both which are significantly covered in the article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Move the smaller stuff to the Aftermath of the Polish-Soviet War then. That's the textbook area. greg park avenue 03:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, take a look at German page. They claim up to 300,000 murdered Jews, in references. But that's small potatoes, one Ukrainian once tried to sell me that Polish murdered 800,000 people around Lviv. I waged ten bucks that in Lviv there live maybe 100,000 souls, no more, so how come so many casualties could be claimed? But I lost ten bucks, he broght me the day after the printed copy from some encyclopedia, that Lviv currently counts over one million inhabitants, and even got the tram system running. But in Polish maps it always looked very small place like Radom or Częstochowa. greg park avenue 02:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree with the proposition that this is simply a "backburner" article, or that this harms the integrity of Wikipedia in some way. I'll advance the opposite theory, which is that, by making a spinoff from an article that is getting edited and counter-edited, this helps prevent the integrity of Wikipedia from being harmed. From what I can tell, the original Polish-Soviet War article is on a subject where the emotions run high, and the article has a history of retaliatory edits, degenerating into that childish exchange where one person puts something up, and another takes it back down, then the first one strikes back, and so on. While edit/counteredit makes for a bad encylopedia article, it's the price that we pay for the higher concept of a "free encylopedia that anyone can edit". If the integrity of "Polish-Soviet War" has been compromised by the fact that it changes about as often as an electric billboard, then it makes sense to acknowledge the controversies and present both sides in less emotionally charged separate article. Backburner? This one belongs on the front burner. Mandsford 16:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this what summary style is for. When a section that is notable and well sourced gets too long you spin it off into its own article - leaving a summary on the parent page. This article does need a clean-up, but I see no reason to merge, delete or redirect - its too long for a merge and deletion/redirect is pointless--Cailil talk 17:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Sufficiently notable and encyclopedic. — RJH (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In all honesty, I'm not really seeing a POV fork here. I despise POV forks with a passion, but this does not appear to be one of them in that it appears to be (reasonably) balanced. This is exactly the sort of stuff we don't want in main articles (because such things, like trivia sections, tend to get rather long), but here a separate article would appear to be appropriate. Yes, it's probably something else to fight over, but that's just inevitable. Moreschi Talk 19:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into the original article - Slapping together facts and making a "controversy" out of it is bordering WP:OR territory Corpx 04:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid way of dealing with information too detailed for the main article. --Folantin 07:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the article fails to deliver its promises. There's no information how the Polish-Soviet war influenced politics and propaganda and relation between the countries later, after the war. Information about the atrocities of a war belongs naturally to the main article (in form of overview and statistics rather than individual cases that usually fall bellow scope of encyclopedia). The Aftermath of the Polish-Soviet War looks as a good place to place this kind of information (btw, the lion share of speculations there should be reduced somewhat). Pavel Vozenilek 11:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per several reasons described above. Too much detail given to propaganda would cloud the article, so seperate one is be better solution. Attempts to create propaganda for political means regarding this subject deserve seperate article.--Molobo 23:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and others, no need to create forks. --Kuban Cossack 21:33, 9 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 for deletion.. Navou banter 04:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chic Cicero[edit]

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

There are no third-party references here, only self-reference and websites. This is a non-notable page and looks like an attempt for advertisment and bias for an organization's president. Kephera975 06:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More third party citations have been added. - Hogd120 Aug 5, 2007
Comment These citations are not third party as all of them are from references who were or are members of Chic Cicero's organization. Hogd120 is also a new user here and may be a sock puppet of IPSOS. Kephera975 18:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Appears to be a known expert in his field. But we do need verifiable sources, otherwise delete it. Faithlessthewonderboy 10:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete (which I think is what Faithless is actually voting). The article fails WP:RS as there is too much of a WP:COI between the Ciceros and Regardie. There is nothing on him in Google News Archive, but there are other books which at least mention him (as well as the Cicero and Regardie books) on Google Books, but few are really objective or substantial coverage, e.g. "Sandra Cicero, with her partner Chic Cicero, designed a new tarot deck ... but this other deck remained the standard". --Dhartung | Talk 12:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand "too much of a WP:COI between the Ciceros and Regardie". I am not aware of any conflict between the late Regardie and the Ciceros. Could you elaborate? IPSOS (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If they were "close personal friends" and edited Regardie's work, using him as a reference is suspect. I see now that his works are only cited as indications of their work, though. In any case, self-references is the biggest problem this article has. --Dhartung | Talk 16:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • True enough. Though Cicero is certainly notable and belongs among Category:American occult writers. Some personal info based solely on autobiographical sources could certainly be removed, but simply the fact of being Regardie's editor who has also written his own books and continues Regardie's order is enough to establish notability. With several third-party mentions which also take this view, I fail to see how Cicero would fail to meet WP:BIO, which is the only possible reason for deletion here. IPSOS (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - nomination is retaliatory. See Talk:Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega. Also, this is a published author with works published by one of the major publishers in the occult field. He is the sucessor of the previous "name" in the field, Israel Regardie. Also the nomination is incorrect, the article has third-party references which establish notability, such as the mentions in Gilbert, Greer, Suster, and Wasserman. Please read the article and don't just assume the nomination is accurate. IPSOS (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keepThird party cited material is as follows:
    Suster quotation (1990) p 150: “By the end of the 1970’s, it appeared as though the only groups working as Golden Dawn Orders were located in New Zealand and in Georgia, USA.”
    Wasserman quotation (2005) p 81: “The temple pictured here was constructed by Chic Cicero and consecrated by Israel Regardie in Columbus, Georgia in 1982.”
    Greer and Kuntz quotation (1999) p. 50-51: “1977: Frater s (Chic Cicero) and his wife establish an autonomous Golden Dawn Temple in Columbus Georgia called the Isis-Urania Temple, No. 18. 1978: Frater S (Chic Cicero) begins construction of the Second Order Vault of the Adepti. Year-end: The Isis-Urania Temple, No. 18 reaches seventeen members. 1980: Frater S. (Chic Cicero) begins correspondence with Regardie. 1982: Frater S (Chic Cicero) completes construction on the Second Order Vault of the Adepti. 24 June A.MA.G. (Regardie) performs the Ceremony of the Consecration of the Vault of the Adepti. This event marks the re-establishment of a valid initiating Second Order in the United States. 25 June: A.M.A.G. (Regardie) lectures to the members of the Isis-Urania Temple, No 18 on the “Hebrew Alphabet” and “Crowley’s Relationship with Mathers.” …Year-end: Two members are initiated in the 5=6 Grade of Adeptus Minor.”
    Greer (2003) quotation p. 205: “Several of these new Golden Dawn orders were created by friends and students of Regardie in the United States. Among these were Chic Cicero and Sandra Tabatha Cicero…” User:Hogd120
  • Strong deleteUser IPSOS is not working in good faith or within neutraility guidelines by making accusations of retaliation. User IPSOS has already made it clear that he is a supporter of Chic Cicero and his organization. See: Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega which is an article in which User IPSOS is currently violating copyright/trademark issues. The Wasserman quotation is incidental and does not go into the subject at any great length as well as the Suster quote. Suster was also a member of Chic's organization. The quotes from Regardie are from the annotated parts of those books that the Ciceros authored. The Greer and Kuntz source is biased as these are members of Chic Cicero's magickal organization. This article seems to be 95% advertisement. The biggest problems with this advertisement, with its self serving self promotion and self-reference have not been sufficiently addressed. Kephera975 17:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because of the reasons given above:
Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)Kephera975 18:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wasserman is a leading member of the OTO not a GD member. He knew Israel Regardie. The Suster book pre-dates any of Cicero’s books or writings. Suster knew Israel Regardie. I don’t believe the Greers have ever stated that they are members of HOGD. And I am not IPSOS. User:Hogd120Aug.5, 2007
    • Yeah, I think it is pretty clearly a "sour grapes" nomination. It bears really looking into the sources, because things are not as the nominator claims. IPSOS (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please work in good faith. The Wasserman citation is the only one that stands then. That is not enough. As the other book was authored by Greer and Kuntz; Kuntz being a member of the organization. Suster, too, is a member. The Wasserman citation is trivial as it is only an incidental commentary on an illustration. Kephera975 20:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this person's written some well-respected books in the field [36][37] and is noteable.Merkinsmum 20:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Suster. Was. He’s dead now. He was a member of Cris Monnastre’s temple. Never knew Cicero. But Cris Monnastre knew Israel Regardie. User:Hogd120Aug.5, 2007
So he was a member of Cicero's organization and knew him personally. A friend even. Not very third party then, is he? You can't do all self-referencing in an article. That doesn't establish notability. Not that Cicero isn't notable in the occult community, but not in Wikipedia's standards. Kephera975 21:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, Cris Monnastre ran an independent temple, both before the incorporation of HOGD, Inc. and after she either resigned or was expelled from HOGD, Inc. around 1993. Please don't try to confuse the issue with false assumptions. Association with one person cannot be used to "prove" association with another. IPSOS (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment the noteability of Chic Cicero can rest on his books/verifiable stuff rather than whether he knew someone.Merkinsmum 21:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
False. In order for an article to establish notability and verifiability, it must be sourced with secondary sources and third party material. Kephera975 21:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Books published by 'proper' publishers count quite a lot, I think.Merkinsmum 21:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not when it comes to bibliographies. This article is not objective. If you were to write a bibliography about yourself do you think you would be objective about it or would you paint a pretty picture of yourself? Kephera975 21:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Read my comment again. Suster never knew Cicero. Never met the man. Never communicated with him. Suster got all his info from Regardie and Monnastre. I don’t think that Mary Greer is in the HOGD or any other GD group. John Michael Greer has his own GD style group unrelated to HOGD.User:Hogd120Aug.5, 2007
So you may have one incidental mention by someone related to the organization in some second person way. That doesn't establish notability per Wikipedia guidelines. Kephera975 21:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems like the first argument was: “Most of these sources are members of Chic Cicero’s group so their comments can’t be relied upon.” Now the argument is: “Most of these sources are incidental and second hand, they didn’t know Chic Cicero, so their comments can’t be relied upon.” User:Hogd120Aug.5, 2007
One last thing and then I will be out of here. Others, I'm sure, can make their own minds. This article is inappropriate as an encyclopedic article by the fact that it is Cicero writing about himself along with mostly buddies. This isn't an objective bibliography. Additionally, it seems that what is being argued for here is to keep the Cicero and H.O.G.D.,Incorporated(the organization of which he is the president) pages at the expense of all the rest. This is simply not in line with Wikipedia standards of NPOV and neutraility. In other words, if these two articles are kept Wikipedia would be representing one POV and one POV only. Kephera975 22:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply not true. If one person or group is notable and another is not, Wikipedia is not at all obligated to keep an article on one that this non-notable. NPOV is a policy that applies to a single article at a time. It doesn't apply across a group of articles like this. It is clear that you are so desperate to get certain ones delete that you hope that we will throw the baby out with the bathwater. This is simply not how it works. Each article stands or falls on its own merits. IPSOS (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't believe for a moment that Cicero wrote this article. What evidence do you have to support that? IPSOS (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the notability of this article is tied with that of Israel Regardie and The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. Regardie is notable for his published works on the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and his work to promote the continuation of that Order. Cicero was encouraged by and received Regardie's blessing to continue the work of the Order under the banner of The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. This recognition extended to Cicero being chosen to edit Regardie's works by Regardie's publisher, Llewellyn Publications. Regardless of the notability of other G.D. type orders, this one is notable by virtue of these facts. IPSOS (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this org's primacy as the successors of regardie is not believed by everyone. As I understand it no org has definite succession, and dozens claim it. Just so any readers who don't know anything about the GD know:) I've not heard of any org being irrefutably able to claim succession over the others. This is irrelevant to Chic Cicero being noteable though, which he is through his books etc.Merkinsmum 23:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, the fact that Llewellyn Publications continues to follow Regardie's choice with respect to editors of his works is very strong evidence in my opinion. The disputes generated by other organizations are simply designed to get attention. Their arguments all fall apart on close examination. IPSOS (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment hi Ippy just to say that I don't particularly know cicero from him being an editor of regardie's work- I knew him for his book http://www.amazon.com/Self-Initiation-Into-Golden-Dawn-Tradition/dp/1567181368 which to me is more noteable than him being an editor for other's work. To be noteable I think he needs to have made a mark for himself a bit independently from his just editing works of Israel Regardie. And to me with that book he did, because while it was based on the G.D. it was his own work. It was a bit controversial and noteable at the time due to encouraging magickians to self-initiate (which not everyone agreed with) and I knew of magickians knowing it and using it. I know you think it noteable that he has edited some editions of regardie's books- but he is also an author in his own right and that makes him more noteable to those who aren't into the politics of the orgs. This AfD is about whether he's noteable in his own right, independent of his order (which has it's own article) and of Regardie (who has one too.) I think he's written his own ideas himself and they've been published by a publisher independent from him (not self published) and that's grounds for noteability if he's had quite a few books published. These sources may be too flakey for most wiki articles though similar ones are sometimes used to back up lesser known topics [38]- (sorry if this is comment is not pertinent for other editors reading:)) I just meant to say that he has written his own works too.Merkinsmum 16:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to explain my source posted- was not about him being described in a 3rd party source, but to show that at that point there was a bit of controversy about the book's ideas too which makes his works slightly more noteworthy.Merkinsmum 16:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment oh, I completely agree with you that he has independently established himself as a writer. My point was that both Cicero and his Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. are notable. Really more apropos on the other AfD, I guess. IPSOS (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Flunks WP:BIO. THF 23:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - this article is much more well-referenced than most articles that show up at AfD. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've said delete on all the related articles mentioned above. It is appropriate however to keep one, and the one about the person would seem to be the best. it is at least free from the ambiguity and POV problems about the various interlinked and often hostile organisations. DGG (talk) 05:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AllGloryToTheHypnotoad and DGG. GlassFET 17:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously a notable author. If someone has a problem with a particular fact within an article, that's no reason to delete the entire article. Improve it or leave it alone. Rosencomet 16:41, 8 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 per the information found by DanMS; no one has disputed its relevance or sufficiency. Please incorporate into the article. — TKD::Talk 07:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hanee-o-Shay Mureed[edit]

Hanee-o-Shay Mureed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It is not notable appears to be a story. Pharaoh of the Wizards 05:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, some sort of personal essay. JIP | Talk 09:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per above. Nonsensical essay of some kind. Faithlessthewonderboy 10:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This story apparently is one of the most well-known and beloved stories of Balochi folklore. See [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]. However, this article should be moved to the English title Hani and Sheh Mureed, should have the introduction expanded somewhat, and should be trimmed down to just a synopsis of the story. If the article is kept, I will make an attempt at cleaning it up somewhat. ●DanMS • Talk 16:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DanMS. Bearian 20:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs retitling and wikification - and a clear statement of notability (per DanMS). Askari Mark (Talk) 18:22, 11 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 23:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minus18[edit]

Minus18 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Possible WP:COI the only entry of the Person who created this article.It is there only edit.It is unreferenced and lacks notabilty Pharaoh of the Wizards 05:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - I would think you should easily be able to find third-party coverage of this, but the article right now is completely unsupported and reads like a promo pack. No verifiability, no reliable sources. I would say "stubbify", except I'd personally feel there has to be coverage of Minus-18 beyond Melbourne itself, as well as beyond the gay community of Australia, and I'm doubtful that we'll find that. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 04:22, 6 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 as redirect to Deadsy - Nabla 14:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashburn Miller[edit]

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

Does not meet notablity and not referenced at all .Article created in March 2007. Pharaoh of the Wizards 05:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Deadsy, and then consider deleting Deadsy for being non-notable. –SESmith 09:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but definitely do NOT delete Deadsy. They pass WP:MUSIC with flying colours. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - no content to merge, really. Person not notable on his own, thus he doesn't get his own article. I agree about Deadsy being notable - they were on Sire and Dreamworks, so even a hardcore deletionist like me can vote to keep them. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect without merge. Nothing really to merge. The content here that is not at the band's article is unsourced. --- RockMFR 03:16, 6 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephano Guilireti[edit]

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

Apparently about a 16th century book publisher. Google yields nothing for either the book, the publisher, and not much about the author. No assertion of notability. i said 05:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete base on the text of the article, it seems unlikely that anything showing notability will ever be found. CitiCat ♫ 05:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not enough for a stub, even. One reference in Google Books, but no preview of that material is available. There is a smidgen of notability in being a 16th century publisher, but not a whole lot. --Dhartung | Talk 12:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Harlowraman 14:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep This is precisely the kind of obscure but referenced entry that makes WP uniquely valuable. The subject's association with the Durer Rhinoceros is itself manifestly sufficient for notability (and then some). There is no doubt that this publisher existed and that he contributed to a very important cultural/historical subject, and the fact that the only description of his notability is on WP is something to be proud of. This article should not be deleted. --Greatest hits 06:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was the publisher for the first of many books, pamphlets and poems of the Durer Rhinoceros, by far the most well known woodcut in the history of the arts.

Some critics, me included consider that, without the contribution of this publisher the Giovanni Giacomo Penni “poemetto” would never been edited and the impact of the Lisbon Rhinoceros on Europe, and on the Court of Pope Leon X (the Medici pope) would not been as great. Perhaps even the interest of Dürer on drawing this beast at the time could be enhanced by these poems. This was a very important that changed the course of the art from the 16th century and until nowadays. The author of the poems and it’s publisher should be considered on the wikipedia. Besides, this information, as scarce as it may be, is the only available information to historians worldwide on the present day. - Dr. Nuno Carvalho de Sousa - Author of the brief resumé on Stephano Guilireti---- Ncsresearch 20:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Notability not evident from poorly written article.--Mantanmoreland 16:09, 11 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, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Machine Trilogy[edit]

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

The term itself is spurious. Numan only ever referred to the "Numan/Machine section" of his career, not a "machine trilogy", nor is the term widely used by his biographers or the music press in general. IntheNews.co.uk is one reference using the phrase 'machine' trilogy but even if the article were renamed to this it doesn't justify the same weight being given to it as say Bowie's "Berlin Trilogy". Google shows only a couple of non-WP (or derivative) hits on the phrase, employed by fans. In terms of content, the main facts already appear in the Gary Numan article and the relevant album pages. Ian Rose 04:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree. While the material is well-written, I'm unconvinced that it's justified as a separate article. The Drainpipe 06:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - it's sad that so much work has gone into this article, and that the article creator has put in a lot of effort elsewhere in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, and so on: we can't keep an article without external sources that looks like original research. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's absolutely no reason for a separate article for the "trilogy". -- Kjet 05:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with all the above. The article would make a nice fanzine piece, but simply does not belong on wikipedia.--feline1 10:27, 6 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. --Coredesat 08:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apartment Festival[edit]

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

A "festival" that has only one source of information, as well as very few (if any) links or sources to be found elsewhere. Jmlk17 04:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep well i'm obviously biased since i started the page, but i've added some more references and i'll add more when i get time Paki.tv 23:26, 9 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 rdirect to Heroes (Beavis and Butt-head episode), fairly logical move seeing as articles were duplicates (both had exactly the same content). Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 03:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes (Beavis and Butthead)[edit]

Heroes (Beavis and Butthead) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article already exists at Heroes (Beavis and Butt-head episode). Oli Filth 03:23, 5 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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EasyCruiseOne[edit]

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

Non-notable ship (and no assertion of notability). Oli Filth 03:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The information here in this article can be easily verified. For example, this webpage has a review about this ship. Moreover, a google search shows up quite a number of hits for this ship as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've enough salt water in my veins to think any ship of 4,077 gross tons is going to be notable. It has sources now. Nick mallory 04:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to easyCruise. This ship isn't notable apart from the idea and company it is intimately connected to. It looks as though #2 is coming or has come online, but the only differences that I can see between the two are their routes, which can be covered in the main article.--Chaser - T 07:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to easyCruise especially if there are going to be multiple ships. Looking at List of cruise ships it's very hard to find examples under 10,000 tons, and consider that ships over 100,000 tons are now common. --Dhartung | Talk 12:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Chaser and Dhartung. --Targeman 13:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable ship with an amount of history prior to easyCruise, which is why I don't think it should be merged there. It's also the star of a documentary TV series. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a fair point. I also see some news sources for the ship's middle name. I suggest that if the AFD ends in keep we stick some merge tags on the article and wait a couple of weeks to allow interested parties to add information about Neptune II and Renaissance II (the ship's previous names. If nothing is forthcoming, we can merge and retarget the redirects to the appropriate section in the easyCruise article. Then leave a note on the talk page with instructions to de-merge if anyone wants to add lots of information about history under the other two names.--Chaser - T 17:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems notable enough --PEAR (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the ship can be easily found on google. WikiEK 14:17, 9 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, nomination made in error. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 03:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bluegrass Student Union[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:MUSIC. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)This was an erroneous nomination, could someone please close it? Videmus Omnia Talk 03:18, 5 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, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Zionism[edit]

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

This term is not in common usage, and the only links provided are to nn blog and internet sites. Seems to be a violation of WP:NOR. CJCurrie 03:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A google search brings up only about 60 hits for this term. It is also impossible to verify this term from relaible sources. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --19:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep My google seach for "Revolutionary Zionism" brings 252 results. The term is used and should be included in Wikipedia even if the article should be edited.--Benny K 20:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. -- Shuki 20:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - don't know all the shortcuts, but the article reads like an essay, OR, COI, NN as well as the other articles in this series. Seems like an up and coming movement, but should be merged to somewhere else perhaps to Magshimey Herut (from which it seems to have come) in the meantime to see if it becomes N. --Shuki 20:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "according to some thinkers, is a philosophical offshoot of..." - who; "term Revolutionary Zionism is often employed to describe..." - employed by who; "who some argue transformed " - who; "The term Revolutionary Zionist has also been used to describe " - used by who; "Today the term Revolutionary Zionism is generally ascribed to Jews who " - ascribed by who; "Elie Yossef is recognized as one of Revolutionary Zionism’s leading living ideologues." - recognized by who; Where are all these people that are talking about revolutionary zionism? I suspect they don't exist and this is a big case of original research. Jon513 21:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Just like all the Yehuda HaKohen, Elie Yossef , Zionist Freedom Alliance etc. series created by Naama and Benny K, this is not notable and (due to their incredible detail on unheard of organisations/people) I strongly suspect written by an insider, thus WP:COI. Number 57 09:16, 7 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, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karan Mann-Bowers[edit]

Karan Mann-Bowers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable candidate for elective office; only 150 Google hits. The article does not contain third-party sources. Shalom Hello 02:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete In fact, this subject has only about 13 google hits. Moreover, it is impossible to verify the contents of this subject from third-party reliable sources. It also fails WP:BIO as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, well below notability minimums. --Dhartung | Talk 12:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not even make claims for notability Corpx 04:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above as NN activist. Don't salt, in case she gets elected. Bearian 20:18, 9 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 (small organisation w/o any sourced achievements) - blanket "keep-everything" votes by and per Frijole were ignored. Nabla 14:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Concord[edit]

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

Non-notable summer camp. The only mention I could find is an evacuation due to a wildfire. Clarityfiend 02:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Article makes no claim of notability for the camp.--Danaman5 04:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly merge a mention to Concord, California. It's a little unusual for a city to operate a sleepaway camp outside its borders, but I don't see any reason it's notable. --Dhartung | Talk 12:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the can of worms that is deleting for non-notability is a messy one. let's just say I thought it was notable enough to write the article, and others through it was notable enough to contribute to. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 16:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per lack of sources attesting to its notability. Just because others have contributed to it does not mean that it is notable Corpx 04:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Frijole. --PEAR (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, I saw this: [44] Well, if the city has a page of its history that is an excellent start. Plus plenty of info from that to improve the article (and as it currently stands it needs a lot of improvement!!). Only making this a weak keep because I haven't bothered to dig any deeper than the first couple of google results.... lol, yeah is lazy! But anyway, the point holds that it should be a treated as a stronger keep if any more sources pop up. Mathmo Talk 21:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was searching for information on Camp Concord and happened upon the Wikipedia entry. If anything it needs a minor cleanup, but other a definite keep. Jgw 21:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I second Frijole. Killsound 22:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'weak keep' Obviously Frijole's comment should be disregarded since it amounts to saying that because notability is sometimes difficult to discern we should keep everything. That's obviously wrong. However, the source given by Mathmo is a decent source. On the other hand, it is from the city itself, so I'm not sure it is an independent source for WP:N/WP:V purposes. JoshuaZ 01:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC) Changing opinion to delete Corpx is correct. Comment above about Frijole's opinion still stands. JoshuaZ 02:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • City of concord is not an independent source since they're involved with the camp Corpx 02:04, 11 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. Navou banter 23:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Queen of Heaven Primary School Georges Hall[edit]

AfDs for this article:
St. Mary's Queen of Heaven Primary School Georges Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. Oli Filth 02:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

..note this afd has been listed at Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive Gnangarra 06:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Twenty, or maybe it is time to unveil the speedy merge option. Burntsauce 18:00, 9 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 06:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Headmasters' Conference of the Independent Schools of Australia[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Headmasters' Conference of the Independent Schools of Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organization. Was nominated for PROD, speedied under A7, and contested, thus listed for AFD. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No notable Conference wikipedia is not for listing some random clubs that people start up. ExtraDry 02:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Far from being a random club the Headmasters' Conference was the peak body representing the independent schools of Australia for 50 years. It was modeled on the English Conference and was founded by four of the most influential Headmasters in Austrlia's history (Sir Francis Rolland CMG OBE [45], Sir James Darling [46], Lenard Robson CBE MC [47] and the Rev Julian Bickersteth MC [48]. The involvement of many members of the Conference on the executive committee is refered to in their biographies in the Australian Dictionary of Biography e.g., Sir Brian hone [49],Charles Fisher [50] and Denys Hake [51]. A major history of the Conference outlining its activities and influence, Our Proper Concerns, was written by James Wilson Hogg OBE. The Journal of the Conference is held by the National Library of Australia [52]. Clearly the introduction needs to be improved to assert notablilty and to clarify that this wasn't an occasional "conference" in the more commonly held sense of the word but a major force in Australian education. Archifile 03:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be worth looking at Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference before forming an opinion on the Australian Conference. An article on the Association of Heads of Independent Schools of Australia [53], which replaced the Australian Conference, is also required to make sense of all this and to bring it into line with the English article. Archifile 04:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Archifile. It's not some kind of table tennis playing youth club as the nominator seems to imply. Nick mallory 05:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some work will obviously be needed, and I think it will include moving the article to the current name. But it's notable; to help things along, Archifile should add the references listed above right now. DGG (talk) 05:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 05:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is amazing how something that is very notable can sometimes be written up in a way that makes it seems so non-notable. Archifile is spot on. This is a very notable organisation in Australia. --Bduke 05:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added some of the information given above by Archifile, but it needs perhaps to be put in a better way. --Bduke 08:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article doesnt assert notability, but is certainly is. Twenty Years 05:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is just part of the ongoing attack on anyone who has contributed or commented on Newington College. Tallum, who created this page, must have fallen foul of a ExtraDry. Is it time for a snow job? Archifile 06:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal attacks are not welcome. I did not speedy this page or put it up for AFD. ExtraDry 07:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ExtraDry appears to be the first person to edit this article after the page was created and called for its deletion based on being a dated product or concern. This may not be a speedy or an AFD but it seems to have been the basis upon which the article was removed. I am not as well versed in the management of Wikipedia as DXRAW/ExtraDry so it is hard for me to be sure but I suspect that the above comment is at best only half true. Archifile 07:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needless to say, as the creator of this page I believe it should be kept and doubt that I need to say more than Archifile has already said. If it survives I will be happy to expand the introduction and over time create pages for the many major educational figures who for a period where Chairman of this august body. Sorry I didn't make it clear enough in the first place. Tallum 08:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I notice that that ExtraDry is now calling for the deletion of all articles on Headmasters of Newington. Where will this end. Tallum 08:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed all of them and nominated two. ExtraDry 09:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's ridiculous to call this "some random club". RegRCN 15:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You know, I think the best thing people could do is show the notability of this organization through the use of third-party reliable sources, not claiming notability or making attacks on the nomination. Please read WP:ORG for more of an explanation. FrozenPurpleCube 19:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article already has a number of sources establishing notability. Capitalistroadster 02:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any. There's one that indicates they published their own journal. Not a third-party source. There's some mention in biographies of various people involved. Not significant coverage. Then there's a book. Written by one of the chairmen. Not very much independent there. It may well even be self-published. I would suggest looking for more independent sources that do a better job of establishing notability. FrozenPurpleCube 15:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Headmasters publish a peer reviewed journal, Independence - doctors publish a peer reviewed Journal, The Lancet. It may not be a third party source but it is held by the National Library of Australia and is still published by the merged group of Heads so it is hardly a rag. You are quite right, the Hogg history is self-published in a narrow sense (he held the copyright and there isn't a publishing house involved) but it is hardly vanity publishing. James Wilson Hogg was an officer of the Order of the British Empire, a graduate of New Zealand University and Balliol College, Oxford, where he read history, a published novelist and the author of numerous broadcast radio plays. At the moment it seems the best third-party source is the Australian Dictionary of Biography which has frequent references to the Conference and which at the present time seems to be a slighty better reference source than Wikipedia. So lets get a grip of our own self importance here and end this ridiculous time wasting debate and start writing some entries rather than ditching them. After all, we aren't short of space! Tallum 21:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAX isn't applicable here since the Lancet is a different magazine, with a different scope. And well [54] shows me plenty of cases of third-party sources noting articles in the Lancet. Several times as "Landmark study" which may be fluff, but it still tells me that others consider the publication reputable enough for an article on it. (Note by the way, I don't consider the articles on the Lancet, Reed Elsevier or Elsevier to be particularly good, but that's another matter). I don't know that there's anything close to that level of notability here for their journal. If you can produce some similar results, that might mean something though. The same with producing some results for James Wilson Hogg that meet WP:BIO. The OBE and his graduations don't make it. Published books might, depending on who published them, the same with who broadcast those radio plays. Which you'll need to provide with reliable sources, not just your personal assertions. And your attitude of wasting time with this discussion is missing the point. The best way to convince folks is not to tell them to do something else, or that this discussion is a waste of time, but rather to make assertions of notability through recognition in third-party sources. That should be your goal. FrozenPurpleCube 22:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources given establish notability for mine. It needs more work but that is true of many articles. Capitalistroadster 02:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notability obvious to any discerning reader, sources growing as we speak, keep it and expand it. What more needs to be said. Waterdanks 08:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note that on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. Consider reading about the deletion policy for a brief overview for the deletion process, and how we decide what to keep and what to delete. ExtraDry 07:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have no knowledge of this organisation, but in Britian, the Headmasters' conference is the umbrola organisation representing all "public schools", the usual term for independent fee-paying secondary schools. That is certainly notable. I presume that the subject of the article is its Austrialian equivalent, but I am not voting as I do not know. Peterkingiron 23:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is clearly one of the most important educational bodies in Australian history and when linked to the current amalgamated body is without doubt a keep. Mitchplusone 11:40, 9 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 00:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury Mall[edit]

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

Non-notable mall, fails WP:RS and WP:V. Only non-trivial reference found was a blog. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 02:25, 5 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 00:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whitehall Mall[edit]

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

Non-notable mall, fails WP:RS and WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 02:18, 5 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 00:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astrological associations[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Expired {{prod}} but comment on talk page contests the deletion. I abstain. Pascal.Tesson 02:18, 5 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 00:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Wynn[edit]

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

The article says it all; she basically appeared on the cover of two magazines and didn't do much else. Fails WP:BIO. Furthermore, this is completely unsourced. Crystallina 02:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Crystallina 02:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, entertaining little biography but altogether unencyclopedic. Nyttend 02:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Harlowraman 16:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Utterly non-notable, borders on a {{db-bio}}. I can't find any proof the magazines cited even exist. Closing admin should also take a good long look at the contrib history of the author, Dbzsamuele (talk · contribs)--his/her talk page is crowded with complaints about image uploads, vandalism, etc. Blueboy96 20:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The author removed the AfD tag--and in the process of reverting it back, I noticed that some time ago, he removed a speedy tag from another article he created [55]. IMO, good faith can no longer be assumed. Blueboy96 19:00, 6 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 to Compassion International. Pascal.Tesson 02:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compassion Canada[edit]

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

Basically a copy of the main article Compassion International which itself is 90% spam. CitiCat ♫ 02:01, 5 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 (A7, db-bio, db-band). ELIMINATORJR 02:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kreace[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced article about a rapper, no proof of notability. Nyttend 01:56, 5 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, given strong arguments for deletion and the way in which this article was created. --Coredesat 08:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of hotels in Hong Kong[edit]

List of hotels in Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The similar List of hotels in Singapore recently failed AfD after I had nominated it. My rationale there was Spam magnet. 90% redlinks and most of these articles, if created, would be deleted as non-notable or spam. Also, Wikipedia is not the Lonely Planet. Wikipedia is not a directory and such listings without context are useless. See hotels in London for an article that has some value. I believe that the same holds true of this article except for the redlinks part of it which is probably due mainly to the article being 24 hours old. Moreover, the creation of the list itself is somewhat disruptive: it was created by Kappa who strongly opposed the deletion of the Singaporean list. Pascal.Tesson 01:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Pascal.Tesson 01:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be philosophical, I'm just stating a piece of Wikipedia policy. Useight 17:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't the existence of categories contradict your interpretation of that policy? Or should things like Category:Hotels in Hong Kong be deleted too? Kappa 04:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its creation was partly an experiment to see if a list without red links would fare better than a list which included them. Kappa 07:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's starting to look like WP:NOT is being spammed here, but please note that WP is not a battle ground. WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND is very specific in this: "do not create or modify articles just to prove a point". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about if I can improve the encyclopedia and find something out at the same time? Kappa 07:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per TenPoundHammer. Cheers, Ian Rose 14:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm getting sick of these lies actually. Kappa 16:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep your shirt on, mate, and leave your insults out of it. Cheers, Ian Rose 23:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you are actually trying to follow this discussion, why aren't you bothering to participate? Kappa 00:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While I'm not advocating keeping this article (or deleting it), I do feel I must point out that Kappa is correct; the article does add benefit over and above a category by being sorted by area. Subcategories could be used, but they then would not be all on one page. SamBC 16:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Iianq 16:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. As per Wikipedia is not the Lonely Planet. To User:Kappa A category accomplishes pretty much the same thing. If you want to arrange them by Location, probably sub cats would help. It has the added benefit of having taxonomy to which newly created articles can be added. Shabda 18:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So the category tree would look something like 3 categories (0 articles); some more empty subcats; and finally 7 sub(sub)categories, 4 of which would contain 1 article and 1 of which would have 2. That sounds really really helpful. Kappa 23:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This list can easily be expanded to include date of establishment as well as ownership information, etc etc. If it gets expanded, would editors who voted for deletion be willing to change their votes to keep? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#DIR - This is a yellow pages level list Corpx 04:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Does the yellow pages tell you when things were established? And closed? Kappa 04:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Does that mean that we can create yellow page type entries, as long as we add the date on which the business opened? Corpx 05:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yay a response, not an exactly but that's something. Anyway as we know the answer to "does yellow pages tell you when things were established?" is no. Let's try "does the yellow pages tell you that its entries are notable things"? Kappa 05:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure if WP:NOT#DIR applies here, because for a list of hotels to fall under WP:NOT#DIR, I would imagine the article would list addresses, phone numbers, pricing, etc. There's potential for this list to be expanded to include non-directory-like information. For example, Chinese names, establishment dates, ownership (many of the hotels are owned by international hotel corporations). I would like to know if editors voting for deletion would change their minds though, if the article was expanded with such information (preferably using a table format). Because if the article is going to be deleted anyway, I don't want to waste my time working on it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I advise you to wait till Pascal.Tesson forgets, then recreate it. Name the page Hotels in Hong Kong, have an intro at the beginning, make it sortable by date and location and include blurbs. Kappa 06:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, I'm really not that interested in this subject matter, especially not enough to create an article like Hotels in Hong Kong. This existing list I'm willing to expand and make look nicer if I know it's going to survive this AfD. And no, if the article gets deleted, I won't be the one re-creating it only to have it get listed for AfD again. It's stuff like that that makes your editing on WP basically a big waste of time. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#DIR; agree with Ten Pound Hammer, would be best served by a cat. – Dreadstar † 09:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are all these "category" votes in the conditional mode? "would"? THERE ALREADY IS A CAT. It just sucks compared to this list. Kappa 23:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dreadstar. --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kappa - or anybody else for that matter - if you are interested in cleaning up this article and possible saving it from deletion, I recommend you copy and paste what I've started in my scratchpad. Use it to re-write and expand the list. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Hong Qi Gong. Mathmo Talk 21:39, 7 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. RFerreira 18:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

W.J. Bryan Elementary School[edit]

AfDs for this article:
W.J. Bryan Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable elementary school. Elementary schools do not generally have inherent notability, and this one only has light assertions of notability (otherwise it would be speedied). ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The school building is almost 80 years old, with very unusual architecture for a school (see the photo on the website http://wjbryan.dadeschools.net/ ). It's apparently not on the National Register of Historic Places, but it's definitely interesting architecturally and probably should be considered notable on that basis alone. I'd like to see a photo and more information about the architecture. I did a minimal Google search that did not turn up any architectural info, but I did find and add some information about the school's relationship with Johnson and Wales University, which I added to the article.--orlady 13:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is it a coincidence that it's almost time for school to start up again? Stop worrying, it'll be fun and you'll make new friends. Mandsford 16:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 80 years is really not that old for a building, and I fail to see notability for a school based on its architecture Corpx 04:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree orlady. Skillz187 05:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unusually large and unusually old for an elementary school, particularly old for a building in North Miami (one of a few there that is older, in fact, than the city itself). bd2412 T 19:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • By the way, I went to their website (linked by orlady above) and they have a link titled William Jennings Bryan. Guess where that link leads? bd2412 T 19:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 22:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notably large elementary school (are there any that are larger?) with interesting architectural features. TerriersFan 22:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per bd2412, no convincing arguments have been presented for the deletion of this article. Burntsauce 18:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability. Most of the buildings in my street are +200 years old and that doesn't make them any notable.--Húsönd 01:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you don't live in Florida. When it comes to "historical landmarks", context is everything. In some parts of Florida, almost everything is very new. In that context a building need not be very old to be a unique reminder of a vanished past.--orlady 03:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What vanished past is there in an 80-year-old school? Wikipedia doesn't revolve around Florida, things don't become notable or encyclopedic just because they are unusual in that particular part of the globe.--Húsönd 03:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a European, you probably cannot understand how profoundly many parts of the United States landscape have been altered in the last 80 years. When this school was built, it was in a small farming village that had been recently carved out of forest and wetlands. Now that natural setting is destroyed, people and concrete are everywhere, and the school may be the only element in the landscape that is recognizable from 80 years ago. Europe has also experienced tremendous change, but there is more respect for heritage.--orlady 05:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See The Barnacle Historic State Park - the oldest standing house in the entire country was built in 1891. bd2412 T 18:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
80 years is really not that old for a school in the United States. [citation needed] If they move buildings, but retain the name, would it still be notable? Corpx 05:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any information suggesting that they have moved buildings? I drive by there every once in a while, and although they've added new buildings, the original structures are still there and clearly in use. bd2412 T 18:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per orlady and bd2412, notable eighty year old educational institution worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Silensor 17:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. --Myles Long 17:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the fact its a historic landmark, that implies some validity to an elementary school article.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is a notable school it makes no sense to erase yuckfoo 16:49, 12 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. Wizardman 22:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry S. West Laboratory School[edit]

Henry S. West Laboratory School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable elementary school. Elementary schools do not generally have inherent notability, and this one only has light assertions of notability (otherwise it would be speedied). ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the creator of this article. I actually created it a long time ago when I was making up the whole district and was planning on making an article for every school, that died quickly and so, I'm abstaining from voting, but have a positive lean towards this and the other nominations related to this one. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 01:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this school is situated on the University of Miami campus and collaborates with the University on projects with a 'Professor in Residence'; certainly a notable arrangement for an elementary school if not unique. TerriersFan 01:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 02:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for this one on the basis of the lab school. SmithManly, why not withdraw the other articles are merge the contents into an article for the district, a you originally planned. It would save a good deal of trouble here.DGG (talk) 06:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge- Why not create an article about the district itself, and have sections for each school, including this one. Neranei T/C 16:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
..note this afd has been listed at Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive Gnangarra 06:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficiently notable to warrant an article per my views on the subject. Could be happily merged to a comprehensive article on the school district if anyone cares enough. Eusebeus 15:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ordinarily I would suppose this should be merged, but there is sufficient third party sources to sustain an article on its own. Burntsauce 18:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The school offers a unique program and curriculum, and the article makes explicit claims of notability supported by multiple independent reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. User:Eusebeus/School Notability makes the baseless claims that "A school is notable only if it has attained some distinction for something other than its normal operation as a school." [emphasis in original] and that the notability standard does not apply to schools. Consensus is clear that schools are notable specifically for their achievements as schools, and the consensus seems clear here that this school satisfies the notability standard, and that all other articles that provide similar backup for a school's accomplishments as a school -- including notable alumni, awards and honors, offering of different degrees (such as the International Baccalaureate) or achievements in sports -- are notable, as well. Alansohn 06:16, 9 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 00:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scholar360[edit]

Scholar360 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Was tagged speedy as blatant advertising. Doesn't seem to meet that criteria (at least not blatantly) but when trying to make it less spamish I wasn't able to find much, so I'm going to go with not notable. CitiCat ♫ 01:39, 5 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 trainwreck. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Hawkins Elementary School[edit]

Barbara Hawkins Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Also nominating the following schools (others in the district have already been nominated separately):

Bay Harbor Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bel-Aire Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ben Sheppard Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bowman Foster Ashe Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dr. Carlos J. Finlay Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hialeah Gardens Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Leewood Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Madie Ives Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ojus Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
South Miami Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sunset Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sunset Park Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Twin Lakes Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Van E. Blanton Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Village Green Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vineland Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Note:Coral Gables Elementary School has been removed due to nominator's request to withdraw the article from the afd.--JForget 15:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short stubs (except for the apparently copyvio Sunset Elementary, from here) of schools in the Miami-Dade county schools. Elementary schools don't inherently have notability, and these ones are average schools, not notable ones. Nyttend 01:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as non-notable schools. Sunset has been tagged as copyvio. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 01:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These articles are not all the same-- I have checked each one of them and specifically, if it is not decided to relist, Delete, except:
Keep for "The Coral Gables Elementary School added to the U.S. National Register of Historic Places." Placement on the Register is always a keep, though the article needs to be expanded to discuss the building.
Keep for Dr. Carlos J. Finlay Elementary School, which is a laboratory school operated by the e FIU College of Education Episodes of the Disney Channel series Life With Derek have been filmed there.
Keep after rewriting to remove the copyvio for Sunset, which is notable for its exchange program,
I think the nom might not have carefully examined the individual articles--or else did not realise the Register of Historical places was notable. DGG (talk) 02:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close too many articles in one bundle, any of which may merit individual consideration, as demonstrated above. Suggest relisting individually. FrozenPurpleCube 02:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close articles should be considered individually for deletion, not all the same -Ebyabe 02:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator's Comment: this is the first time I've ever bundled nominations. I guess this is the newbie in me :-) I'm quite aware of the notability of Register properties; I simply didn't notice. As far as Sunset: I didn't know what to think, but the obvious copyvio induced me to list it here. As far as Finlay: I'm not familiar with the Disney Channel thing, so that wouldn't have affected my original nomination even if it didn't have a {{fact}} tag on it. Nyttend`
  • comment the copyvio would ordinarily be a speedy, unless someone wants to rewrite it quickly instead. I'll do one of those a day & I already did one on something else; the fact tag on Finlay I take to mean it needs a reference, not that the truth is disputed.

I am a little reluctant to say it, but I think it may be just as easy scanning a group of these as going through the same number of individual ones as for the middle schools below. The difficulty is mainly if many of them need discussions, for it's hard to keep that straight. DGG (talk) 04:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above comment made me laugh. As far as this nom, I have no opinion. :) --Midnightdreary 23:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
lol, me too! Mathmo Talk 21:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except the Bowman Foster Ashe School (weak keep) as there's seems to be some historical importance (although that can be merged with the person's article). Maybe a slight mention of them in the public school board's article if necessary.--JForget 01:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Some of them have "unique" features, but I dont think they're enough to grant notability. As for the one managed by FIU, I dont see any special notability in that case Corpx 04:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. No assertion of notability. Eusebeus 10:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator's comment, I'd like to withdraw Coral Gables because of it being National Register. Nyttend 12:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and relist all as keep and allow immediate individual relisting - this is heading for a train crash; each article merits individual consideration which they are plainly not getting. This was an unreasonable multi-nomination. As a fail safe, if not relist closed as recommended:
    • Keep Bowman Foster Ashe School
    • Keep Dr. Carlos J. Finlay Elementary School
    • Keep Leewood Elementary School (Florida grades A-F; an A grading for 7 consecutive years is hugely notable)
    • Keep Sunset Park
    • Keep Madie Ives Elementary School (meets WP:N with notable controversy) TerriersFan 02:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 02:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All, massive listings like this deprive the individual articles from getting the proper attention they deserve to decide if they should be kept. (or in other words, similar views to those who expressed close) Mathmo Talk 21:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and re-list separately if you want any hope of obtaining a reasonable consensus for fucks sake. Burntsauce 18:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and relist individually. The nominator just made too much work for the rest of us, although I'd be willing to consider merging most of these, just as I supported it for the middle schools from the same district. There are roughly 200 elementary schools in the Miami-Dade district, and I have no idea how a "List of elementary schools in ____" article would be organized if one were created as an alternative. Perhaps one list for now, with information from the articles we now have on individual elementary schools and then someone with more knowledge about the district and county could organize more narrowly focused lists if the initial one becomes too long. Noroton 23:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, on the basis that this combined listing is unmanageable. No implication is intended by this "keep" in the event that any of the schools are individually listed. -- DS1953 talk 22:24, 10 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 16:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arvida Middle School[edit]

Arvida Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable middle school. middle schools do not generally have inherent notability, and this one only has light assertions of notability (otherwise it would be speedied). ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - WP is not a directory (of middle schools) Corpx 04:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my view of school notability. Eusebeus 10:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - the above !votes are pro forma comments unrelated to the merits of the school. This is a Blue Ribbon school, the highest award that can be given to a US school. TerriersFan 20:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 20:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nowhere does it say that blue ribbon schools are inherently notable Corpx 20:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This article looks fine, thanks to TerriersFan's great work. The school is notable and the article is worth keeping. Noroton 22:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The article makes explcit claims of notability, including recognition by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program, backed up by multiple reliable and verifiable sources that clearly meet and exceed the requirements of the Wikipedia:Notability standard. User:Eusebeus/School Notability makes the baseless claims that "A school is notable only if it has attained some distinction for something other than its normal operation as a school." [emphasis in original] and that the notability standard does not apply to schools. Consensus is clear that schools are notable specifically for their achievements as schools, and that articles for schools such as this one that provide similar backup for a school's accomplishments as a school -- including notable alumni, awards and honors, offering of different degrees (such as the International Baccalaureate) or achievements in sports -- are notable, as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alansohn (talk • contribs).
  • Keep - Establishes notability and is well referenced with further potential; I do not see anything significantly wrong with it that makes deletion necessary. Camaron1 | Chris 16:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Series of disruptive nominations have been made on poor or borderline false claims about notable schools. Burntsauce 17:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasons described at User:Silensor/Schools, this school is notable. Silensor 07:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Little assertion of notability, if any. Blue ribbon distinction not more encyclopedic than the beaches with the blue flag distinction for good quality water (this blue flag for quality beaches is an actual award btw).--Húsönd 01:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Blue Ribbon Schools Program is a prestigious award given to a relatively small number of schools that supports notability. The dismissive comment about this award comparing it to a basic standard in the comment above is ridiculous. Dhaluza 10:55, 11 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 00:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ammons Middle School[edit]

Ammons Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable middle school. middle schools do not generally have inherent notability, and this one only has light assertions of notability (otherwise it would be speedied). ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Asserts some notability, it is a International_Baccalaureate school, and there are a number of awards. Needs more sources. --Hdt83 Chat 07:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP is not a directory (of middle schools) Corpx 04:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Florida grades its schools A-F and this has been A for six consecutive years, is a magnet school and has a whole bunch of other awards to attest to notability. The two delete !votes so far are proforma comments that do not consider the circumstances at this school. TerriersFan 22:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 22:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hdt83 since a strong assertion of notability is made, otherwise I would not object to a merge. Burntsauce 18:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a fine article, if too short, and the school's awards indicate notability. Noroton 00:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: although I still favor keeping this article, I just created List of middle schools in Miami-Dade County and put information from this article and other middle schools into it. Noroton 01:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article makes strong claims of notability supported by reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 07:25, 9 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/redirect to List of middle schools in Miami-Dade County. MastCell Talk 05:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Highland Oaks Middle School[edit]

Highland Oaks Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable middle school. middle schools do not generally have inherent notability, and this one only has light assertions of notability (otherwise it would be speedied). ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:35, 5 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 keep arguments were more convincing than the merge ones. Wizardman 22:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Kennedy Middle School[edit]

John F. Kennedy Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable middle school. middle schools do not generally have inherent notability, and this one only has light assertions of notability (otherwise it would be speedied). ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge along with the other schools into an article about the school district.--JForget 02:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my view of school notability. Eusebeus 10:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article makes explicit claims of notability in terms of alumni and achievements. User:Eusebeus/School Notability not only fails to address any required Wikipedia policy, but makes the false claim that the Wikipedia:Notability standard does not apply to schools, a claim that has been repeatedly rejected. The argument that "A school is notable only if it has attained some distinction for something other than its normal operation as a school." is in direct opposition to any reasonable interpretation of Wikipedia policy on notability: athletes are notable for their athletic achievements; doctors are notable for their distinction in the medical field; Schools are notable specifically for their achievements as a school, a standard that this article satisfies. Alansohn 01:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - two notable alumni and No.1 magnet school are sufficient claims of notability. TerriersFan 02:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 02:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect into new article: I created List of middle schools in Miami-Dade County and put information from this article into it. Noroton 01:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Miami-Dade County Public Schools or the list of middle schools in Miami Dade. Burntsauce 17:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Silensor/Schools very explicit claims to notability are made here worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Silensor 07:59, 10 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 List of middle schools in Miami-Dade County. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ponce de Leon Middle School[edit]

Ponce de Leon Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable middle school. middle schools do not generally have inherent notability, and this one only has light assertions of notability (otherwise it would be speedied). Also completely unsourced ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. Onnaghar tl | co | @ 13:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see that virtually all Miami-Dade County schools below secondary level are submitted for Afd, I would suggest to merge all these into a single article for the school district. --JForget 01:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP is not a directory (of middle schools) Corpx 04:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my view of school notability. Eusebeus 10:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From the article: "It was originally a high school and later became a middle school." Perfect for a school named after Ponce de Leon, I think, and further investigation might establish notability. Coming in 2009: Ponce de Leon Elementary. Mandsford 22:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further proof of notability, seems to me... Noroton 22:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into *school district. List of middle schools in Miami-Dade County a new article for elementary schools in Coral Gables, Florida. See my Update/Comment below No, you can't merge into the school district. A look at the school district article reveals a list of 195 elementary schools in the school district and they can't all have descriptions in the article. Possibly new articles could be created for the district's schools in certain areas (this one's in Coral Gables, Fla., for instance, and that only has a population of about 40,000 people, so it can't have too many elementary schools). An alternative would be to merge these elementary schools into an article -- essentially a list -- of all Miami-Dade School District elementary schools and later calve it off into regional articles as more information is added (I think there are about 20 articles for elementary schools in the district now). In fact, unless I get some strong objections to it, I'll do it myself. Noroton 22:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC) (amended Noroton 23:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  • Merge and redirect per bastardized schools and locality guidelines. Silensor 07:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Silensor, et al. --Myles Long 17:14, 11 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/redirect to List of middle schools in Miami-Dade County. MastCell Talk 06:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rockway Middle School[edit]

Rockway Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable middle school. middle schools do not generally have inherent notability, and this one only has light assertions of notability (otherwise it would be speedied). Also completely unsourced ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep as they have a state championship chess team. i note that there is no provision in WP:SPEEDY for using speedy for non notable schools. If anyone thinks there should be, the attention can be discussed there. i will oppose it, as these nominations are rarely uncontroversial. DGG (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They're still achievements at the middle school level though. I'd say its notable if this was a HS, but not for a middle school Corpx 04:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable chess team; not only state champions but 9th nationally which is very good in the US which has a high quality and competitive student chess scene. Together with notable academic related achievements adds up to easy notability. TerriersFan 22:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 22:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into new article: I created List of middle schools in Miami-Dade County and put information from this article into it. I suggest redirecting this article into the new one. Noroton 01:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Miami-Dade County Public Schools or the list of middle schools within the county. Burntsauce 17:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge if there is anything to merge. After this discussion, them template should be modified to not link to the school, probably why all of these schools were nominated. Vegaswikian 04:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per bastardized schools and locality guidelines. Silensor 07:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Noroton and Burntsause. Harlowraman 00:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as suggested above. Yamaguchi先生 04:58, 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/redirect to List of middle schools in Miami-Dade County. MastCell Talk 06:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shenandoah Middle School[edit]

Shenandoah Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable middle school. middle schools do not generally have inherent notability, and this one only has light assertions of notability (otherwise it would be speedied). ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:28, 5 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 List of middle schools in Miami-Dade County. Pascal.Tesson 09:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Miami Middle School[edit]

South Miami Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable middle school. middle schools do not generally have inherent notability, and this one only has light assertions of notability (otherwise it would be speedied). ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:27, 5 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 00:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southwood Middle School[edit]

Southwood Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable middle school. middle schools do not generally have inherent notability, and this one only has light assertions of notability (otherwise it would be speedied). ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - WP is not a directory (of middle schools) Corpx 04:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge into school district per established precedent. TerriersFan 21:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 21:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the fact that a student was murdered there (which made the news, The Miami Herald, and so forth) makes it notable. Stop trying to cause trouble and just leave the article be. And whoever deleted the information about the stabbing should put it back and actually go and see that there are multiple sources (like I said, The Miami Herald is a main one) covering the incident. Tamajared 23:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - thanks for spotting this. The controversy was deleted by the AfD nominator which is very bad form. I have put it back since it is readily sourceable here. I don't have time to source it tonight but will tomorrow. TerriersFan 23:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the murder makes it notable. Under very, very strong Wikipedia policy, the article CANNOT mention the person accused of the murder without full citations and there are none that I can see in the article, so I'm deleting it. I think this article shold be kept, but I've also just created List of middle schools in Miami-Dade County and put information from this article into it. Noroton 01:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The school received widespread national (and international) news coverage both for the murder and for the school's efforts in the aftermath of the incident to focus on the issue of school violence. All of this is supported with multiple reliable and verifiable sources (no need to bother TerriersFan, I was up very late) to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 06:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn and similar comments above, WP:NOTE is met and exceeded here. Burntsauce 17:55, 9 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. I'll note the discussion seems to lean toward a need for sourcing. I don't see a consensus to delete here, but more rather, the discussion seems to lean toward a consensus to keep and source.. Navou banter 17:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M. A. Milam K-8 Center[edit]

M. A. Milam K-8 Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable elementary school/k-8 center. Elementary schools and middle schools (what this would be considered) do not generally have inherent notability, and this one only has light assertions of notability (otherwise it would be speedied). This one is not sourced at all, and is highly pov. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think this one has enough awards and the like as to be notable, but sourcing is necessary, and should be possible.DGG (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP is not a directory (of elementary schools) Corpx 04:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the reason that most elementary schools get merged or deleted is that there is nothing to say. Here, there is plenty that is encyclopaedic backed up by enough awards to establish notability. Sure it needs sourcing but we don't delete for lack of sources; we delete when it cannot be sourced which is not the case here. TerriersFan 02:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 02:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's a lot to say in the article, as TerriersFan notes, and the several awards make the school look notable. The article lacks sourcing, but I believe it can get sources, so that should not be a reason for deletion. Noroton 15:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The POV problems I mostly dealt with by rewriting just now. That's not a reason for deletion.Noroton 15:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Article makes claims of notability, as described above. Sources and other additional material should be added to expand the breadth and scope of the article. Alansohn 07:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Multiple awards and honors easily satisfy our notability requirements. Burntsauce 17:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having material for the article is not a reason to keep. Lacks notability and sources. Vegaswikian 04:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep per Terriers and Burntsauce. Seems to have some awards that assert notability. The unsourced traditions sections should probably just be removed though. JoshuaZ 01:48, 11 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 Miami-Dade County Public Schools. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avocado Elementary School[edit]

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

non notable elementary school. Elementary schools do not generally have inherent notability, and this one only has light assertions of notability (otherwise it would be speedied). ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete I see nothing at all to indicate notability, but it still couldn't have been speedied. The solution to dealing with these article here might be to simply merge them into the districts, which does not take going to AfD. It's not more work than the nomination, & one person can do it. DGG (talk) 04:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP is not a directory (of elementary schools) Corpx 04:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would it make a difference if Guacamole Middle School was in the same district?
  • Keep as a notable magnet school, but would not be opposed to a merge with Miami-Dade County Public Schools either. Burntsauce 17:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and fix the template that includes this school. Vegaswikian 04:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Miami-Dade County Public Schools per bastardized schools and locality guidelines. Silensor 07:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge Nothing notable about the school and a minimal of independent reliable coverage. Merging in this case may consist of redirecting. JoshuaZ 01:46, 11 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 16:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air Base Elementary School[edit]

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

non notable elementary school. Elementary schools do not generally have inherent notability, and this one only has light assertions of notability (otherwise it would be speedied). ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable as a magnet school and one of the first schools in the district to be desegregated.--orlady 14:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the fact that it lost much of its enrollment after Hurricane Andrew (and was converted to a magnet school to maintain enrollment) seems "noteworthy," even if it is not an item that appears on a standard Wikipedia list of features that make a school "notable."--orlady 12:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being one of the first schools in the district does not make it notable Corpx - WP is not a directory of elementary schools 04:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Miami-Dade County school district is not exactly small. --orlady 12:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability per my view of school notability. Eusebeus 10:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Status as a magnet school of excellence for ten consecutive years, with ample reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate the school's achievements and unique program, satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 07:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That magnet school of excellence recognition that Alansohn documented goes to a very short list of schools nationally. That's a significantly notable aspect. --orlady 13:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and censure nominator for disruptive nominations. The school is notable as a magnet school and for being one of the first within the district to be desegregated. Burntsauce 17:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Silensor/Schools no compelling reason has been given for deletion herein this second nomination. Silensor 07:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per having many reliable sources and per having an award given to a small number of schools. I still think that Silensor's essay should be completely disregarded, but in this case we have a heck a of lot (ok, so I'm becoming an inclusionist. Everyone changes). JoshuaZ 01:45, 11 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 00:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NaoFM[edit]

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

Non-notable file manager. No reputable third party sources to establish notability. --Hdt83 Chat 01:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Nonnotable free software, no external sources. Shalom Hello 02:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Cheers, Ian Rose 14:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only "reliable" source I could find was from the site itself. Spellcast 18:12, 5 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 00:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tramp nightclub[edit]

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

Absolutely no sources to verify that all these celebrities have passed through their doors. Search reveals a Tramps nightclub but no tramp nightclub. --Hdt83 Chat 00:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It makes some assertions at notability with the celebrity weddings, but it provides no reliable sources to back them up. If sources are located, I'm open to reconsidering. —C.Fred (talk) 01:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I have to admit that I'm surprised that this has come up for AfD. Tramp nightclub in Jermyn Street, frequently referred to as Tramps, is, as the article says, one of the most exclusive nightclubs in London, very much the preserve of the rich and famous, and I would not be at all surprised if every single celebrity mentioned and many more beside have visited the place. The source for the article is presumably the book mentioned in the article (available from Amazon[56] and Blackwell[57]) so there's the means of verification and here is some reading[58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67]. --Malcolmxl5 05:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in light of the sources found above by Malcolmxl5, which should be added to the article ASAP. Krimpet 07:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's long been one of the most famous nightclubs in London. Nick mallory 08:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep extremely notable club, although definitely needs some better sourcing integrated into the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per new sources. Onnaghar tl | co | @ 13:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources, but should probably be renamed to Tramp (London nightclub). --ZimZalaBim talk 15:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - club is notable, despite poor sourcing StephP 15:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a very famous club in one of the world's greatest cities. I have no doubt that people with no connection with the place will want to look it up. RegRCN 15:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above contra nom. Even a boring law professor has heard of it. :-) Bearian 20:28, 9 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. John254 02:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandy Talore[edit]

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

This article has been speedy deleted several times as CSD A7. DRV determined that the FAME Award constituted an assertion of notability, so this matter is submitted to AfD for full consideration. I say weak delete until better sources arise, pending other opinions. Xoloz 00:39, 5 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 00:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charts History of Celine Dion's Music[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Charts History of Celine Dion's Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Redundant, information covered in Celine Dion. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:35, 5 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 00:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Season of Nightmares[edit]

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

Non-notable band. No external sources, not verifiable. Article does assert that they played a regional tour, but provides no sources. Article created by single purpose account. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:27, 5 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 Merged into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Screaming Mechanical Brain. Didn't realize nom was making separate AfD's for the albums, which are already listed in the main band article. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 00:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There Is No God in Space[edit]

There Is No God in Space (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable album by a non-notable band, no external sources, non-verifiable. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:22, 5 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 all for want of WP:N. Cool Hand Luke 00:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Screaming Mechanical Brain[edit]

Screaming Mechanical Brain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Also listing the albums just in case. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 00:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fun with Poop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Process of Assimilation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
SMB's Museum of Barnyard Oddities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There Is No God in Space (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable band, except that they used to be called Screaming Monkey Boner. No independent sources outside of things like a Myspace page; No verifiability. I assume it must even fail WP:BAND. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gdansk for merging, by the way. I haven't yet learned how to multiple-nom, and as it was so close to 24:00UTC I didn't want to mess something up. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There almost as big as Psychostick, if not bigger. The only difference is that Psychostick has had one song on the radio and you can find their album in stores, but that's only because they're on a slightly bigger label. FallenWings47 21:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying, then, that Screaming Mechanical Brain has had no songs on the radio and you can't find their album in stores? Anyway, if you can provide these article with non-trivial verifiable mentions in independent third-party sources, I'm sure people will change their votes. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per noms. WP:NN and no WP:RS, until they get some air play and press coverage. Fails to meet WP:BAND. --Evb-wiki 16:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're one of the most well known bands in Minnesota. And they fucking rock! Tragedy_Bound_to_Happen 12:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They've toured with national acts such as Psychostick, Dog Fashion Disco and (həd) p.e.. Bobthegreat47 12:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Touring with another band doesn't make you notable. You're notable when you get non-trivial mention in independent third-party sources which can be verified by Wikipedia editors. Right now, this band's article fails WP:V and WP:RS, and it therefore also fails WP:N. Those are the rules we all abide by at Wikipedia. If you can find some non-trivial mentions in press (preferably something better than a record review in your local paper: a feature article in Spin would be nice), and properly footnote the unsupported statements in the article using those references, then this article could pass AfD, because you would have probably demonstrated some level of notability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not entirely sure they've had a song on the radio, but they have been mentioned on it. Their CDs can't be found in stores, but that's only because they're not on a very big label. The notability factor really depends on where you come from. Like the bands, Slow Motion Reign or Kittens for Christian aren't very famous and I don't believe they've had any songs on the radio either. But in the area they're from they're probably pretty famous. But the most likely reason they are most well known is because they are signed to System of a Down frontman Serj Tankian's record label, Serjical Strike Records. I'm just trying to make the point that SMB (Screaming Mechanical Brain) is a pretty famous band throughout the United States, but most of all in Minnesota. FallenWings47 12:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS FallenWings47: asking your friends Bobthegreat47 and Tragedy_Bound_to_Happen to vote along with you doesn't help your case much. Attributing this article from verifiable independent secondary sources does. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any particular suggestions on how I should do that? FallenWings47 21:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best place to learn how to add citations to articles is WP:CITE. Use footnoting, don't put links at the bottom of the page: with footnotes it's easy for an editor to check your sourcing. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, no reliable sources so the entire articles are not verifiable, and the band appears to not meet the notability requirements of WP:BAND. It would be great if some secondary sources were found. The articles look nice though. --Pixelface 07:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I can really say is use the band's official site or myspace for anything possible, otherwise I don't know what to tell you other than possibly going up to them and getting an interview or something like that. I mean I know most, if not all, that's on the main article is true. But that probably doesn't account for much without sources. And I made the articles for the albums (excluding There Is No God in Space) being I have a copy of each (including There Is No God in Space). I expect these articles are to be deleted, I hope however that you change your mind and leave it be. I mean, if someone went to all the trouble creating the article (yes, there may be no sources but at least it's all very possible information), that's at least got to mean something. FallenWings47 9:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It does look like alot of work was put into the articles, but I suggest you save them until some secondary sources can be found. You should go to each article and click "edit" and copy and paste the text into a new file and save it on your hard drive for safe keeping until there are multiple newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, or television documentaries about the band and their albums. For a band to be notable enough for Wikipedia, it needs to meet the criteria for musicians. All information on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable and attributed to a reliable source. Personal websites and sites like MySpace count as self published sources and don't really count as reliable sources. Try to find a newspaper or magazine in Minnesota that has written about the band (on the Internet or in their print edition). There needs to be multiple articles that have been written by people unrelated to the band before the band is are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. --Pixelface 21:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I guess I understand. I copied them all already so yeah...FallenWings47 18:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC

  • Delete. At this point, the band seems to fail notability and verifiability. --Moonriddengirl 16:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My effort to find sources has not borne much fruit. Their 40K Ghits indicate that they have been relatively successful at promoting themselves online, but finding sources amid the Myspacing, blogs, and lyrics sites has been tough. DynamicZine has an interview[69] and a short review of one album[70], but they don't appear to be a major site. Maximum Ink includes them a capsule review roundup[71] and a micro review roundup[72], as well as miscellaneous club listings. From Google News, I found them mentioned in a Citypages article[73] as a group that "play[s] all-ages dates across the country, with MySpace their effective radio station," but as a reference to SMB itself it is trivial. The St. Paul Pioneer Press had an article, "Kickin' It -- In The 'Burbs: Live, Original Music And Social Networking Web Sites Like Myspace Are Turning Suburban Twin Cities Clubs Into Entertainment Destinations For Restless Urbanites, Young And Old," which unfortunately has already expired from their site, that described them as "one of the Garage's most popular regulars," but apparently was focused more on the club than the band. News Archive mostly turned up club dates, but the Wisconsin State Journal included them in some briefs ("Violent Femmes Get It On the Kisser"). These are probably not enough to save the article. --Groggy Dice T | C 14:52, 8 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 wasDelete - POV and BLP concerns reinforce the strong consensus.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged 1991 drug business involvement of Álvaro Uribe[edit]

Alleged 1991 drug business involvement of Álvaro Uribe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article was created in March 2005 to remove content from the main article: Álvaro Uribe. Although it is not entirely a "quotefarm", about half of the article consists of quotes, which goes against the spirit of the "Wikipedia is not a directory" provision of WP:NOT. In addition, I feel that the article places undue weight on one particular aspect of Uribe's presidency, in violation of the NPOV and biographies of living persons policies. These allegations (of involvement in the Colombian drug trade) are already mentioned in the main article in the section titled ""Early political controversy". Thus, I do not feel that a merge is necessary or warranted. Black Falcon (Talk) 00:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This article is a content fork, and I trust Black Falcon that it's already covered in the main article. The details of reactions of everyone involved are beyond the scope of Wikipedia. Shalom Hello 02:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and edit. Black Falcon said they were mentioned, which is about the size of it--they are not really covered beyond that, for the main article just refers here for the story. A good deal would need to be merged in, and the article is already quite long. The present article is not about his early activities in general--it is about a specific accusation by a specific US journalist, with the implications being not just that he was involved in drugs, but that the US government was deliberately covering it up. I think it remains unsettled to this day, and, though it may not be worth the detail of the present article, its appropriate for a long section or a shorter article. Read both articles for yourself, don't go by what I say about them. DGG (talk) 04:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - or definitely rename to shorter title. Onnaghar tl | co | @ 13:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I dont think any claims that are alleged and not proven, should be included in an encyclopedia, but rather should be in a newspaper Corpx 04:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that were the case, we wouldn't have any mention of U.S. claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction prior to the 2003 invasion. Though I certainly appreciate the need to keep out sensationalist gossip, I think your position is much too extreme, even to the point of going against WP:NPOV. Allegations, at times more so than facts, can be significant. Claims and beliefs often are more influential than verifiable facts. If these claims are presented in reliable sources, I think NPOV requires that we include them. — Black Falcon (Talk) 05:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep part of history, part of the story!! I would say rename it and put an NPOV tag --F3rn4nd0 (Roger - Out) 13:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: WP:BLP --Ecemaml 13:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, maybe not a quote farm, but a WP:BLP minefield to be sure. Burntsauce 18:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per DGG. Mathmo Talk 23:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Black Falcon a clear violation of NPOV and clearly places Undue Weight.Harlowraman 00:40, 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, done by myself a minute ago. Daniel Case 00:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Line Lokr[edit]

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

Non notable band, unreferenced and original research, fails WP:MUSIC (and slightly spammy to boot). Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 00:16, 5 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 00:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Life resume[edit]

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

Neologism to jokingly refer to your colorful life accomplishments, purportedly in wide usage among select groups. Lack of verifiable sources indicates this is a non notable term. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 00:10, 5 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 00:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Doubt's sixth studio album[edit]

No Doubt's sixth studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There's so little information available about the album. If the band has worked with anyone else, they haven't said so. It's unlikely considering Stefani's still touring. No song names have been released. There's minimal coverage from third-party sources; most of it just states that they're in the studio again, and the information is already covered in the No Doubt article. 17Drew 00:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Wait until we have a track listing already, people. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 00:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I don't know how to work this thing so i'm just typing here, anyway I just wanted to set up a wikipedia page for the album, you don't have to like it. It's just for some other fans to have A LITTLE information about it. feel free to add stuff you want about it.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anfay188 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 4 August 2007
    Saying that they've recorded lots of material that's "unlike anything else [they] ever made" doesn't tell anyone anything about how the album will sound. No Doubt fans should go to the No Doubt article if they want information about what the band's doing. 17Drew 00:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well Mr. Mexicano, can't you just leave it. It isn't harming you is it? You greasy haired nasty ass wetback with no life but to edit Gwen Stefani, GO BACK TO FUCKING PUERTO RICO YOU ILLEGAL SACK OF SHIT!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anfay188 (talk • contribs).
    Please be civil and avoid personal attacks, especially those involving ethnic slurs. (You will be formally warned on your talk page). Daniel Case 00:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Anfay188 has been indefinitely blocked. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 01:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per WP:CRYSTAL and precedent Will (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as crystallballery Iain99 10:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:CRYTSAL. Onnaghar tl | co | @ 13:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too crystal-bally. An artist simply saying they are going to make songs doesn't make the cut. Spellcast 18:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pure crystalballery. Come back when there's at least a track listing--and preferably a title. Blueboy96 20:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No list of tracks confirmed, no release date conformed, pure crystalballing.--JForget 01:52, 6 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 Sourcing is given so the argument that it is OR seems to have been handled. A merger may be advisable. JoshuaZ 17:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precolombian goldworking of the Chibchan Area[edit]

Precolombian goldworking of the Chibchan Area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged for speedy as an essay, which is not a valid criterion. Can this be made into an encyclopedic article? Or should it go to data heaven? YOU decide on tonight's episode of the top-rated hit "WIKIPEDIA ... Articles For Deletion". Daniel Case 00:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete per nom. Essay, OR, you name it. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 01:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not OR because, despite it being tagged as unsourced, the book "Gold and Power in Ancient Costa Rica, Panama, and Colombia" edited by Jeffery Quilter and John W. Hoopes is clearly and repeatedly referenced. I would think that many articles on Wikipedia could be termed an 'essay' but that's not a valid deletion criteria, as the nom points out. With some more editing there is perfectly reasonable article here, and collectively refining and improving articles is what wikipedia is all about. Nick mallory 05:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • very weak delete very weak keep - Argh! I'd actually like to see more of this in Wikipedia: not OR, but rather scholarly writing. You know, instead of articles on indie bands and characters from cartoons. Unfortunately, it seems it was created by a SPA who's since disappeared. If anyone can simply make the first few steps towards fixing this up, consider my vote changed to keep. Someone's graciously made the first steps towards cleaning this article up, and it's really not a lot worse than many other scholarly articles from early-decade Wikipedia (very little is actually sourced around here), and as it's on a very useful yet minor topic, I just have to vote keep. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wikified it, made the source clear and tidied it up a bit. Nick mallory 05:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're awesome for doing so. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, copyvio. This text was almost certainly either scanned from a book or retyped by hand. Although the subject is valid and this article is not a hoax or OR, this is blatant and unacceptable copy/pasting. Properly wikified and sourced, this could have made a good article, though. --Targeman 02:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What evidence do you have for saying it's a copyvio exactly apart from a hunch? If it had been scanned from a book I doubt the 'Bering land bridge' would have been called the 'bearing land bridge' as it is here. I also doubt that an academic book would term Columbus one of the "conquistadores" or use the phraseology often employed in this piece or written 'Precolombian' in the title instead of Pre-Columbian. Nick mallory 05:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None, that's why I said "or retyped by hand". I should have made myself clearer on "book" though - I was thinking of somebody's college dissertation. I've reviewed enough of those to recognize the style. It is wholly possible that the author inserted a chunk of his or her own college dissertation in this article. (I don't know if that's technically a copyvio for WP). The spelling mistakes, the imprecise terminology and the style of the in-sentence quotations point to that. It would be enough to launch a plagiarism investigation at my alma mater - but I'll rely on your better knowledge of WP policies to determine whether it's a problem here. As I said, I have no issue with the article's content, especially now that you've wikified it (BTW, nice job). If you say no copyvio, I'll change my vote to keep. --Targeman 11:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An easy way to determine copyvio (from an internet source) is to take an idiomatic phrase from the article and do an "exact phrase match" search on Google. If you don't find anything, at least it proves it's not copyvio from the intenet. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did that, and I didn't find anything- that's why I didn't mention the internet in my comment. --Targeman 14:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as essay. Onnaghar tl | co | @ 13:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Sourced, albeit to one source; not really an "essay" though the writing style might strike people that way; this should probably be merged into another article about Pre-Columbian goldworking, since the content is just fine. Mandsford 17:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OR. James Luftan contribs 23:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Being a poorly written article is not a criterion for deletion. The article is already tagged for clean up and that is all it needs. It cites a source, so it cannot be WP:OR unless the source does not exist or the content does not reflect what the source says. No one has alleged that. Many WP articles are summaries of published work - but a legitimate one in an encyclopaedia (not illicit plagiarism or COPY-VIO). Unless some one can produce a valid reason for deletion, this article should be kept. I know nothing of the subject myself, but it looks credible to me. Peterkingiron 23:25, 7 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.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, even when disregarding all SPA arguments. --Coredesat 08:15, 10 August 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. I'll also note, that even though the article was created by a sockpuppet of a banned user, it has also been contributed too by editors in good standing. This may be a strech of speedy deletion criteria. In addition, the article may require some sourcing. There is no consensus here for deletion.. Navou banter 16:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of island countries by population density[edit]

List of island countries by population density (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

List of X by Y article that we do not need. Completely unsourced. Created by sockpuppet of banned user as a place to get in edit fights. SchmuckyTheCat

  • Speedy Delete per nom.--JForget 01:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful comparitive geographic article. Could easily be sourced with reference to standard political geographical texts (e.g. CIA world fact book), or, as User:Qaka pointed out in a now-deleted comment, references from the articles on the countries in question could be copied into the list. Identity of original author is irrelevant. JulesH 08:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC) (updated JulesH 21:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC) to account for deleted comments)[reply]
  • Complete the list (many island countries are missing) and merge into Island country. Useful geographic information.--orlady 15:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Article was created in bad faith just to promote a political viewpoint. Statistically tables cannot be allowed to stay for long withour any appropriate referencing.--Huaiwei 16:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, may very well have been created for the wrong reasons.... but that doesn't mean the article can't be kept and improved. Mathmo Talk 21:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Mathmo. This article can improve. Satomi Kataoka 23:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but merge with the article nominated next. There is no need for separate lists for island nations and islands; one article will be enough, possibly with the addition of a separate column for status, where those that are nations can be identified. Peterkingiron 23:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge right into list of island countries. When it's done it can replace the section which says "Alphabetical list of island countries" since it sorts alphabetically as well as by the other columns. Kappa 05:51, 8 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 contribution of Qaka, sockpuppet of banned user Instantnood. — TKD::Talk 21:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of islands by population density[edit]

List of islands by population density (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(1), creation by sockpuppet of banned user (2), entirely unsourced (someone added a non-reliable source to the external links, that is not a source) (3) sockpuppet created it as a battleground to engage old foes. (4) it's non-notable trivia, list of X by criteria Y. there are good X by Y articles, this isn't ever going to be one. SchmuckyTheCat

Speedy Delete per nom.--JForget 01:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Population density of geographical regions is a strange definition of trivia. Who created the article is irrelevant; if they are editing it disruptively, they should be blocked and/or banned. As Qaka points out in a comment that has been repeatedly deleted from this discussion by User:SchmuckyTheCat, the information used on the list is well sourced in the articles on the respective islands, and the sources can simply be copied from there. Article really needs expanding, as at the moment the selection of islands included is rather peculiar, but that's the only hard-to-solve problem I see with it. JulesH 17:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Article was created in bad faith just to promote a political viewpoint. Contents are also practically unsourced except for the first entry, the same source of which does not provide information on the other entries. A list of items by population density must preferably come from one source, because population figures form multiple sources can be taken via wildly different timeframes, and can differ from source to source depending on whether it is based on a census, or mere estimation.--Huaiwei 17:08, 7 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_August_5&oldid=1081098765"