Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 19: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Toasty! (talk | contribs)
167 edits
No edit summary
Line 53: Line 53:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank and vinny}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank and vinny}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreamtone}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreamtone}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Def Jam 3}}

Revision as of 08:11, 19 March 2007

< March 18
March 20 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 14:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Light Project

  1. delete Dark Ermac 13:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of most successful aircraft

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

A vague list with no criteria for inclusion or exclusion. There is no definition of success and the article seems to have an English speaking county / US bias. It's basically uncited and probably unverifiable for the aircraft listed. As a side note, it was prod'd but de-prod'd by an anon user and the initial contributor of the article is now indef blocked. Dual Freq 03:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I think that this is the beginning of a good encyclopedia article, but I think it needs to be expanded beyond a list and moved to title such as Historically successful aircraft. - Richard Cavell 03:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It could be improved Crested Penguin 03:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I neglected to mention that the list is very subjective. For example, the Harrier jump jet is listed as successful while the History Channel also includes it in its Modern Marvels: Engineering Disasters 6 episode decrying its design flaws.[1] A user on the talk page also questions inclusion of the C-130 based on its accident history. Additionally, due to the lack of a definable, concrete definition of successful, almost every aircraft could probably be considered successful in one respect or another or the aircraft would not have reached production. --Dual Freq 03:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Inherently subjective list. Pjbflynn 03:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. COMPLETELY subjective list. --Calton | Talk 05:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsalvageably subjective. --RaiderAspect 06:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No salvation, inherently POV. /Blaxthos 06:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mind-bogglingly subjective. Also, if this list is the MOST successful aircraft rather than just VERY successful aircraft, shouldn't it only have one entry? ;) FiggyBee 08:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subjective; no attribution for definition of "successful" (do they mean most popular? Safest? Easiest to fly? Cheapest to run? What?) or for inclusion of aircraft. Also extremely biased towards American aircraft. --Charlene 09:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - incredibly subjective and POV. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 09:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsalvageably POV. --Mmx1 11:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is inherently subjective and not NPOV. --Kyoko 13:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I believe a major problem with the current article is that instead of using a single measure of "success" and clearly defining it, it uses varying criteria that seem to have been arbitrarily chosen. The list would be better if it used a single criterion, such as "List of aircraft with the longest production runs" or something like that. Of course, lists like that run the risk of going against the idea that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but that's for another time. --Kyoko 13:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although weakly. Yes, there is a problem with the criteria for "success"; AFAIAC any aircraft that flies is "successful", since man will never fly. Were it moved to a list of aircraft produced in largest numbers I'd be inclined to keep it. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. How is this "mind-bogglingly subjective"? There are perfectly good criteria for "success" (albeit several different ones), and some are used here: most ordered and produced commercial airliner sounds successful to me. Clearly in need of cleanup, but a reasonable list. I see no problem at all with having several different criteria used; for example, "most manufactured", "longest in use", and "most profit" could all reasonably be thought of as criteria for success. bikeable (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for insurmountable NPOV and OR issues. No objective definition of "successful" is possible. Otto4711 16:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename because of the above comment suggest that a type of POV may be perceived in the term "most successfull". I suggest the new list be called: "List of sucessfull and poppular aircrafts". Also, remove any information which is not properly sourced. ie.: If "airplane A is very successful/popular" (which means it is in the list) then there should be a quote/reference to who said so. This avoids a violation of WP:A. If we say, according to, a survey from ABC inc., Airplane A is very popular, then Keep that information. Prior to any deletion the relevant sourced information should be verified and transfered to the new list. Finally, even though popularity is subjective it is less a contreversial theme than successfullness. Nevertheless, popularity is sometimes harder to evaluate and is subjective. Ironically many wikipedians believe popularity is a reason for inclussion or exclussion. Water fuel cell is not that popular but it is an article. Also, sucessfullness and popularity can both be measured and hence are empirical. Empirical data is not subjective. It can be measured by a specific amount and devided by a common denominator to give specific stats. These stats should be utilised if possible in this list. I may be correct to assume that those who vote because they believe the issue is subjectivity that perhaps it was your way of saying "that there is a lack of emperical data or referencing?". --FR Soliloquy 18:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Carlossuarez46 18:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment:Objective criteria for inclusion is cited at wikipedia's rules here at WP:A. Properly sourced information should be suficient enough for inclusion. If Howard Stern says "I cut my pubes last night. My hairs were getting longer than my penis."[2] Or the fact that "The world scares me." said Howard. Then I think, considering the good source I provided, it should be included in the appropriate article. Similarly, if the information is well sourced... ie.: Toy's R Us offers or did offer a helicopter and it is documented (note: this link is not a UH-61 helicopter) then it should be included. --CyclePat 19:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 10:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extended Aftermath Entertainment family

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is no proof that any real relationship, a side from being signed to the same label, exists to be considred an "extended family". Ted87 00:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coment - Where is the proof that this is such an "extended family" worth mentioning more then any multiple labels signed under one parent comapny? --Ted87 10:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete to the various labels listed in the article; you could, with equal justification, list every bluelink employed by Time Warner. And it's certainly appropriate to file an AfD on an article where the criteria for deletion have little to do with sourcing. RGTraynor 15:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I mean come on. Where is the relationship there between Lil' Murda and Aftermath Entertainment? Lil' Murda is signed to Young Bucks label, who is signed to 50 Cent's label who is signed to Dr. Dre's label (Aftermath). And this is a so called extended family? Nevermind that Dre will probably never meet Lil' Murda (we are never definite about the future), but this article is nothing but a bunch of loose affiliates. No family is ever applied. Why? Because it doesn't exsit. --Ted87 07:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is too fancrufty. There is no point in having an article about "extended Aftermath Entertainment family," or whatever. It's convoluted, serves no real purpose, and has the potential to spiral out of control. If an artist is signed directly to Aftermath, then they can be cited on the Aftermath article. If they aren't signed directly to Aftermath, then there's no point in drawing a correlation simply because they're merely associated with someone who is.Enotiva 06:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No point of having this article, as Ted87 said, I don't see how guys like C-Bo, Lil' Murda, or Awesome Two are related to Dr. Dre's Aftermath Entertainment label. Maybe we should just add a list of artists who are signed to Aftermath, Shady, and G-Unit, but nothing else, no "Fyre Dapartment" or whatever, and just add that list to the Aftermath, Shady, and G-Unit articles as a section such as "Record labels affiliated with Aftermath". So then only add the artists that are ON Aftermath, such as Eminem, Busta Rhymes, Dr. Dre, etc. Or G-Unit, 50 Cent, Young Buck, Tony Yayo, Lloyd Banks, Olivia, and so on. --- Efil4tselaer 01:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Wizardman 00:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lenny diko

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

New, up-and-coming hip-hop artist. No albums released, though there's assertion from the fact that there are participation credits for some numbers as well as working on a new hip-hop group. Still, issues with WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. Possible WP:COI, but I find this doubtful. Dennisthe2 00:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bold texterror have been Corrected. Lenny Diko has released an LP that was fully pressed. And the Violative Cause LP's barcode is 7553100167. He has worked with artists such as LuckyIam, Moka Only, Josh Martinez, DJ Moves, etc.... I think that with the notables up there removed his article is now ok (UTC)

  • Comment. Is the release on a major record label, as is required per WP:MUSIC? Just getting a record deal with any ol' body isn't sufficient. As for the "worked with" claim, leaving aside the issue of the perhaps dubious notability of at least some of those names themselves, the fact of that matter is that plenty of currently non-notable artists can truthfully claim that they've "worked with" big names. I don't care if he "worked with" Snoop Dogg, Diddy, and Jay-Z all last week. The fact remains that right now he's got nothing released that's notable, and no media coverage that's notable, so right now . . . he is not notable. But I do sincerely wish him the best of luck in changing that situation in the future. Mwelch 23:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bold textthere seem be a lot of artists on here that have released on an Independent label? I will forward him your message of luck though thanks!

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lex (rapper)

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

New, up-and-coming hip-hop artist. No albums released, though there's assertion from the fact that there are participation credits for some numbers as well as working on a new hip-hop group. Still, issues with WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. Possible WP:COI, but I find this doubtful. Dennisthe2 00:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phosphor (game)

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

This game is still in beta and I don't believe it has any reliable sources in order to meet attribution. Google brings up no reliable independent non-trivial sources. Wafulz 00:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UH-60 Black Hawk in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Violates WP:NOR, and indiscriminate information. Just a list of alleged appearances of a particular helicopter in films, TV, etc. No more significant than having a list of unrelated films that just happen to feature Porsche 928.

I am also nominating :AH-64 Apache in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for the same reasons. Ironically there is some hidden text in the article quoting the "indiscriminate collection" policy, just before the list proceeds to be just that.

If there are any films or video games that are specifically about these helicopters, they can be merged into the helicopters' own articles. Saikokira 00:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify the reasons for deletion, in case anyone is under the impression this article only violates WP:NOR;

  • Original research, unsourced and mostly unverifiable
  • Indiscriminate information, just because a film happens to include a type of helicopter is not a significant enough feature to justify listing otherwise unrelated films together.
  • Non-notable, "films featuring UH-60 Black Hawks" is not a notable enough topic in itself to warrant keeping an article about it.

Saikokira 04:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - That's absurd! Please quote the line that you're referring to. You might want to re-read the very first paragraph in WP:A, which says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source". Movies are published, and certainly are reliable insofar as what appears in them! So how in the world is stating what's in a movie is OR? Does that mean that plot synopses is OR? Not at all. A movie appearance is completely verifiable. I think you need to re-read the policy, and actually apply it properly. Akradecki 04:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment - Oh, and you might want to re-check your policies - WP:NOR has been superceded by WP:A, so you really shouldn't be citing it as "policy" anymore.Akradecki 05:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOR is not applicable here as there is no "new" interpretation involved. Films are "primary sources", but their use to provide descriptive information does not constitute OR. OR would only be applicable if there was unique and/or personal interpretation of the film, rather than mere description. As for a "patronising tone", your comments at User talk:Otto4711 about those who disagree with your position are not too friendly either. -- Black Falcon 06:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I use WP:NOR as a short-cut to WP:ATT, neverless, I still see this as violating WP:NOR, which states "Original research refers to material that is not attributable to a reliable, published source. This includes unpublished facts" If somebody is making a claim that they spotted a particular type of helicopter in a particular film, then that claim has to be "attributable to a reliable, published source". A film is not a published source. Saikokira 06:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How is a film "not a published source"? Is it because it's a fictional film? Are you saying that any film is not considered a published source? If it were a documentary film, is it still not a published source? You're applying standards that simply aren't in the guidelines. Akradecki 19:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does this imply that no discussion of what occurs in a film can be had unless a major source has a complete synopsis of everything that happened? I think it'd be hard to justify applying this to Star Wars had nobody mentioned anything about lightsabers outside the film, etc. --Auto(talk / contribs) 19:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Both articles mentioned were created because the pop culture sections were getting too long in the main articles. As long as Wiki policy prevents repetitive deleting of cruft (WP:3RR]], allows concensus by to determine what stays in an article (when crufters outnumber serious aircraft editors), and admins interfere with efforts to remove the cruft by 3RRing those who take it out, then Wiki in effect approves of cruft. SO if cruft is allowed to exist, then why not in its own article? Makes just as much sense as anything else Wiki does. And while you're on the OR bandwagon, swing on over to every article on every movie or TV show ever made. About 98% of them are totally unsourced. So as far as entertainment goes, the OR rule is not enforced on Wiki. So it's kinda silly for you to use that argument here. I'm all for banning unsourced cruft totally (assuming the admins would actually enforce it), but until that happens, this stuff is going to be somewhere. It has just as much right here as in a serious article on an aircraft. - - BillCJ 02:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. "So as far as entertainment goes, the OR rule is not enforced on Wiki. So it's kinda silly for you to use that argument here." Articles violating the WP:NOR rule are frequently deleted, as anyone here at AfD will tell you. And it's not an "argument", it's a policy. Saikokira 03:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - But this doesn't violate NOR. When you refer to something in a movie, or in a book, the movie itself is a reference, and the fact that there's a wikiarticle on the movie shows that it's recognized as a notable reference as well. I also think it's rather ironic that you referred Bill to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as the second paragraph in that essay says, "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged." Akradecki 04:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentYes, it does violate WP:NOR. Films are a primary source and cannot be referenced on Wikipedia. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.
Regarding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I couldn't be bothered to go into detail about why someone's argument is redundant, when that section (titled What about article x?) deals with the issue so specifically. No irony at all. Saikokira 05:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Again, you mis-quote policy (and the outdated one at that). Regarding primary sources, they can be referenced on Wikipedia, the policy WP:A specifically says "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." Saying a Black hawk appears in a film can easily be checked by someone watching the film. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Akradecki (talk • contribs) 05:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment. This is getting ridiculous. Of course this list requires specialist knowledge. It requires a knowledge of what a UH-60 Black Hawk looks like for a start. It also requires somebody to have a copy over EVERY SINGLE film and video game on the list. And don't place your replies in the middle of my comments in this AfD. If you want to reply, add your comment below this previous one, I have just had to fix your previous reply. Saikokira 06:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: This is an example of what we do take out every day from [[WP:AIR} articles. It was added to the F-22 Raptor article, and deleted by another editor:

In the game Command and Conquer Generals, the F-22 can be buyed at the USA Airbase, it weponary is, Four homing Air to Air Misiles or 4 Air to Ground Misiles, In Zero Hour it can carry Countermeasures in case of SAM misiles and can be upgraded with America Laser Misiles and Antibunker Misiles, also if you play as General Ganger, You wil gain the King Raptor, Which had six misiles instead of four,also it has an laser defence divise on its tail which permited misiles exploted on midair and don't reach the target, but it still vulnerable to Quad Canons and Gatlling Cannons.
In Command And Conquer Generals, RAH-66 Comanche can be buyed at the American Airbase, it weponery is: one machine gun, four Homing Missiles and can be upgraded with rocket pods to get the ability of lunching a barrage of rockets. In Zero Hour, General Ganger can buy the ability to make all of his Comanches become stealth.
  • The first example was posted at lest 6 hours after I removed the second example. Please notice that there are no paragraphs like this in the UH-60 pop-culture article, because we have removed them (probably while still part of the main article). We do keep the article fairly trim, otherwise there would be many paragraphs detailing all sorts of stuff about the games, movies, etc.
  • Regarding the "indiscriminate listings" comment, we remove the RAH-66's "Incredible Hulk" appearence about once a month, and there is a lengthy discussion on that talk page regarding why the appearance is non-notable. While I have not personally vetted the list on the UH-60, I have vetted other lists, and it looks as if this list has been vetted too. THe Blackhawk is a popular icon, as has made many appearences. COuld a few onf the ones in that list be removed? Probably, but I've not seen all the movies on that list, so I don't know how significant their apperances are. - BillCJ 05:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's obvious you guys have a vendetta against pop-culture lists, but you don't care a wit if the same items are listed in the main aircraft articles, even though, according to you, the items themselves are OR and indiscriminate. It bothers you more that there's a list of the items on a separate page than the fact the items exists at all. For whatever reasons, you just don't want pop-culture in list articles. That's fine, but at least admit that's your real issue. Stop PRETENDING the real reason is OR, because it's obvious us to those of us who deal with the issues everday that it's not! If it did bother you, then we'd see you in the edit histories of aircraft pages, fighting the good fight against OR! Meanwhile, serious aircraft editors fight against it every day without your help. A fight that will become even harder if you succeed in taking away the only real compromise we have with the crufters - the only semblance of peace in this never-ending war against cruft. But that doesn't matter to you guys, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. - BillCJ 07:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because people will persist in trying to include extraneous information is not a reason to sanction it. These lists are inherently OR because they require looking at primary sources, in the abscence of anyone REPORTING or STUDYING these things. Another issue is the fact these lists can NEVER be complete, a list of every game, movie, show and book that includes a given aircraft is not only interminable, but utterly useless. The other problem is determining what is, or is not, a reference, a problem I've addressed other places, but one I feel is a serious issue. A quick look through these various lists will turn up the idignation of many editors; either 'that's not a reference!' or 'they missed ...' Nothing will ever convince me these lists are proper encyclopedic material unless they begin to take WP:OR WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection and WP:V seriously. Strong delete Wintermut3 07:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If anything on these pages was actually significant (and sourced), then I'd say keep, but it isn't. Then again, anything that was actually significant would be in the main UH-60 article rather than being split off. FiggyBee 08:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - this kind of crufty, indiscriminate list is exactly what Wikipedia doesn't need. These things could theoretically go on forever, with no guidelines for what should be included and what shouldn't. In addition, who actually would ever find this useful. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 09:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all instances of appearances where the appearance is so frakking important to the plot/storyline/event that the work/movie/game could not exist in its entirety without the helicopter in question back into the main article(s). Delete the article and the rest of the references... I believe a mention and a wikilink in its own article is sufficient. -- saberwyn 11:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wintermut et al. Aside from the numerous other considerations cited, I'm militantly disinterested in the assertion by BillCJ and others that it's necessary to create these crufty, unencyclopedic, unsourced, POV lists because otherwise main articles would be cluttered with the "information." Who says? If you think a series of articles you monitor are being deluged with crap, revert the edits. It's no different from any other WikiProject subject to trivial bombardment of one fashion or another. Nothing in Wikipedia policy requires us to accept every single unsourced hunk of crap triviality. This is the moral equivalent of we over in WP:HOCKEY complaining that we needed to make a List of NHL players wearing CCM brand ice skates just because some folks decided they just had to identify CCM wearers. RGTraynor 15:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as per several of the arguments above. Strongly concur with RGTraynor in saying that "The main article would be too cluttered" is not an explicit reason for the creation of new garbage articles. When your home becomes cluttered with junk, do you build a new room to contain the junk? No, you clean up the mess. The notion that subsections of an article ought to be forked out in to their own articles is valid when the information is encyclopedic in its own right. Just because it is there in the parent article does not mean it belongs in its own article, however, and an otherwise pointless "List of appearences of X in popular culture" have absolutely no encyclopedic value! If any of these "appearances" are somehow significant to the development of X's article then they can be merged back in under a heavily trimmed section, but a laundry list of "Hey I saw it in this movie!" is a waste. Arkyan 15:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • AGAIN - I have NO problem deleting genuine cruft from main articles - I do it EVERY day. THe problem is that repeatedly deleitng the same information that a user keeps putting back in leads to revert wars. I don't want ANY pop culture items in ANY aircraft articles at all, on purist grounds, but that does not mean that genuinely notable appearences are not encyclopedic, and should not be mentioned somewhere. But if I keep removing any pop culture items from aircraft articles, eventually some stupid admin with his head up is rear is going to think I'm revert warring, and you morons won't be around to back me up. Yes, the list here is too long; someone dropped the ball in watching it. However, the PROPER soulution is to trim it back as far as possible, and add cite tags. THat is the PROPER way to deal with unsourced material, if thet were GENUINELY what you guys were interested in. But again, you just DO NOT LIKE pop culture list articles, no matter how well-kept they are! Air Force One in popular culture‎ is a vetted, trimmed, well-kept article, but one of you still AfDed it! SO DO NOT GIVE ME THIS GARBAGE ABOUT absolutely no encyclopedic value! - JUST BE MEN AND ADMIT YOU JUST DON'T LIKE THE LISTS! PERIOD! But please get of your stinking policy high-horse, stop harrassing GENUINE EDITORS who actually want to make decent articles. If the page is OR, TAG IT! But you are WRONG to AfD it without allowing editors a chance to improve the article FIRST. - BillCJ 16:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to step in at this point, BillCJ, and suggest you read WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:CONSENSUS. Challenging the masculinity of other editors, and general incivility is inappropriate behavior that doesn't advance your cause. I also point out that the PROPER solution (to quote you) is the consensus reached by AfD discussion. /Blaxthos 16:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By "men" I meant "adults", as that was my intention. I wansn't challenging there maasculinity, but challenging them to act like adults. SHEESH! - BillCJ 16:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Am I to assume then we are all supposed to kowtow to the editors who revert changes intended to restore an article to meet policy and guidelines? A small subset of editors who persist in adding content that does not belong does not constitute consensus. If you remove material from an article and they put it back, then take it out again. If you're worried about WP:3RR then try to resolve the issue with the "warring" editor. If that doesn't work then bring it up on WP:RFC and try to get a consensus there. If they persist in disrupting the article by adding content in spite of the consensus reached there then escalate the issue further. I don't see how "giving up" and allowing these editors to add content that fails to meet Wikipedia standards is the right answer. Arkyan 16:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We do ALL of that! THese pages are the aftermath of removing material that should not be here already. While the UH-60 page does look like it has not been vetted in awhile, no chance to vett or cite sources has been given. None of you are "assuming good faith" on the creation of these pages. They were not made by the crufters, but by serious aviation editors. But WP:OR is not the real issue here! If it were, then the page would not have been AfDed FIRST - an OR notice would have been added to the page instead. The real issue is that you don't like pop-culture list pages! - BillCJ 16:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I'm confused - first you admit that this is the aftermath of removing material that should not be here yet argue for including it in its own article? Then you accuse us of violating "assume good faith" and then call in to question our motivations? Regardless, none of what you are doing here is helping to make your point. The article either belongs or does not, denigrating the rest of us doesn't change that. Arkyan 16:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, no, the aftermath is the good material, we delete the bad. please, give us some credit! this uh-60 page has not been edited in a while, that is apprarent. i didnt even know it was heare till an article i work on got AfDed too, and i saw this was listed also. - BillCJ 17:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Darn, you beat me to it, Arkyan. That being said, I'm bemused at the notion that standing up against material we feel violates policy and otherwise does not belong here, as opposed to meekly surrendering to a single rogue user who insists on unencyclopedic edits, is the behavior being characterized as unmasculine. And that being said, BillCJ, do you really think it's constructive to scream at us because you think we don't like pop culture articles, when you admit yourself you don't want pop culture references in the articles about which you yourself care? Never mind WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA, if you're creating articles for no better reason than to keep junk out of your own line of sight, that's a WP:POINT violation. Moreover, the policies we cite make no reference as to the credentials of the creators. An unsourced, unreferenced article filled with unencyclopedic cruft isn't alright just because it was created by a so-called "serious aviation editor." Were that the case, we'd certainly be guilty of the caprice of which you accuse us. RGTraynor 16:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • i'm EMPHASISING, not SCREAMING :) i won't use caps anymore just to be sure i'm not misunderstood again. my point is, if you think it's unsourced, tag it! that's the usual way of handling OR issues on Wiki. but again, that's not the issue here, as you have agenda against pop-culture list articles. i don't mind cited, notable pop-culture references in aircraft articles; i can point you to many such pages. but many of these pages are very long, and when you deal with a popular aircraft, such as the uh-1 or uh-60, those lists begin to overwhlm the rest of the article. we split off other sections that become too long. why should pop-culture lists be handled any differently? should we keep a long pop-culture list in the article just because some people don't like the lists on their own page? that doesn't make sense either.
all i ask if that you give us the "courtesy" of having a chance to address the issues first. you have the right to AfD an article, but i'm just asking that you "assume good faith" and talk to the editors first, to give us the chance to address the issues. i'm not accusing you all of deceit, but of singlemindedness. you want to get rid of unsourced pop culture cruft. that's great! i do too! but the question is where do we put a long list of notable pop culture references? it seems you want to get rid of those pages too! if you keep challenging thess pages, we'll soon have to have separate articles for the specs, the history, the users, the variants, and all that will be on the main aircraft page will be the intro and the pop-culture list. that doesnt make sense either. again, i'm not ever talking about keeping the bad cruft, but notable items. had a noticed bewen placed on the page, i might have spent yesterday and today addressing those problems, rather than trying to defend the page's existence. - BillCJ 17:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply not content worthy of an encyclopedia article... any notable information can be inculded in other places -- we don't need a crufty article like this (as this AfD is illustrating) -- WP:ATT/WP:OR are just the finer points (no need debating them when the whole topic is cruft!). /Blaxthos 19:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is automatically sourced by mentionning the films (primary source). (Though this could be improved by adding a reference section and following WP:CITE and using easybiblio maker.
The information is a good collection of information pertaining to the UH-60.
Films using UH-60 is a notable enough subject to have an article. What is interesting is I could probably add a .ogg video conference of a discussion we've had with the one of the producers which answers some of the questions regarding the Cost of renting? How the filming was done? How to rent? You will also notice that the article mentions popular culture. So that includes radio, games, toys (toy manufacturers), shops, etc... --CyclePat 18:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are presuming, absent any ... well, err, attribution, that all those movies which supposedly have UH-60s in them actually do. RGTraynor 22:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that kindof circular logic? If it's listcruft then by definition it has no place on wikipedia. /Blaxthos 15:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or Option (3) - edit it out of the article. I still await a reason for keeping this article better than "It's too much trouble." RGTraynor 16:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, here's a reason: Despite what some call "cruft", the fact that a type of helicopter has an impact on popular culture is significant. The Blackhawk isn't quite the icon that they Huey is, but it's getting there. Face it, how military objects impact society and culture can't be ignored (hey, there's whole sciences, ie "sociology" and "cultural anthropology" about this stuff). Akradecki 20:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, if this helecopter actually " has an impact on popular culture" there would surely be documentation in sociological journals. The fact of the matter is that this is just a list of pop culture references -- not a demonstration that it has any sort of impact on popular culture (which it does not). /Blaxthos 20:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I disagree with you, as do, I believe, some other editors. I think the real point is that this should be debated on the article's talk page, not at AfD. Before bringing this to AfD, things should have been discussed there, first. Akradecki 20:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 2

comment to above: The above sub-paragraph is to help divide this AfD for perusal and editing reasons. I couldn't find my comment in this long debate so here is my comment to my previous statement and reply to the above question from RGTraynor. I am not presuming, absent any attribution, that all those movies which supposedly have UH-60s in them actually do. Those movies are documents in of themself and generally, for those people that stay to the end of a movie at the cinema, you can see the credits. Those credits will indicate what type of vehicles where used in a given movie. Perhaps you are confusing original research a synthesis of because A (image of UH-60) and B(image of UH-60 in movie) then movie has UH-60. I don't know but, according to me such a synthesis would and should be pretty obvious and no different than the commonly accept idea "the sky is blue." Perhaps there is a mix up here on the interpretation of what wikipedia is and is not. A movie is a generally considered a reliable source of information, in fact it is the primary source. Nevertheless here is a link to a secondary source which states which movies use a helicopter. And here is a published comments, which has been peer reviewed, that state that there was a black hawk in this movie. --CyclePat 21:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CP, besides your misunderstanding about WP:ATTribution and primary vs. secondary sources (which tends to indicate notability), this is simply unencyclopaedic content. If it were truely notable (and actually impacts popular culture) there would be true reliable secondary sources (peer-reviewed sociological journals, in this case) talking about all the impacts of thus-and-so helicopter on popular culture. Obviously there are no such articles because it has no relevance in popular culture -- this is, as most have pointed out, list cruft and is not appropriate for wikipedia. Hope this helps clear this up. /Blaxthos 22:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those links are, frankly, a waste of our time. All along the keep-proponents have been pushing the notion that this article is necessary because it lists (in theory, accurately) the movies in which this particular model of helicopter appears. Now your purported attribution is a simple linksearch on IMDB for "helicopter?" This is just painful. RGTraynor 04:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical list of notable science fiction films

Alphabetical list of notable science fiction films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Violates WP:NOR. Article states the "criteria used for this list are, in order of importance: box office, awards, reference on other "best-of" lists, widely acknowledged influence", etc. That's "in order of importance" according to the opinion User:Avt tor, the creator and only contributor to this list. Avt tor has compiled it based on his own mysterious formula, while referring to such "reliable" sources as IMDb users' ratings.

WP:NOR states that unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material... (including) interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication.

Also, a pointless duplication of a topic fairly well covered in List of notable science fiction films. Saikokira 00:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The chrnonological list is too large, cluttered to the point of not being very readable, includes a lot of not-very-noteworthy films. It's not a substitute for this list. Avt tor 20:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete in popular culture, to borrow a familiar line. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Indiscriminate information. It's not immediately clear what this article is specifically about. It seems to be 4 seperate articles about 4 unrelated species, from 4 different and unrelated films: The Descent, The Cave, an unspecifified film featuring "The Grue" (the Riddick films), and the Mimic films. Article needs to sent back to Subterranea. Saikokira 00:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salsa shark

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

I prodded this, but quickly discovered it had already been prodded. Anyway, I think it's unencyclopedic and has little potential for improvement. It is also an orphan, with no pages at all linking to it. - furrykef (Talk at me) 01:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 11:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Media and Development Communication

Media and Development Communication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Only a couple of Bangladeshi private universities of dubious academic credibility offer the course, and only a couple of books written by non-notable Bangladeshi authors are available on the subject. Not good enough for a Wikipedia entry. Aditya Kabir 16:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: How do you know that couple of Universities in Bangladesh, offer the course? And How do you know it's only written by Bnagladeshi authors? It's not the topic of some authors. It's related to Mass media and Mass communication as well as other media related topic. --NAHID 10:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Attacking me does not increase any value of the article entry. Anything written on any media related subject doesn't increase its value either. Aditya Kabir 15:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 01:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs more info, but it notable enough and it salvageable. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, NN, fails WP:ATT. A directed Google search (minus Wiki mirrors and the single university in Bangladesh offering this as a major) shows exactly 39 hits. Despite Nahid's assertion, it is not up to us to prove that the article isn't notable or to provide sources. It's up to the creator and interested editors to prove that it is. RGTraynor 15:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even reputable academic institutions make up vogue department or major names, and only few of them become standard. This is not yet one of them.DGG 00:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yeah ... I bet it looks a lot cooler on the letterhead to be a "Professor of Media and Development Communication Sciences" than a mere journalism professor. RGTraynor 01:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would you try searching for my name with Google? "Aditya Kabir" (quote included) returns 1,010 finds, as opposed to 109 finds for "Media and Development Communication". And, I am cited on Websites from US, UK, Australia, India and Bangladesh (not including the hits returned from Wikipedia, Uncyclopedia or mirror sites), and that excludes the sites in vernacular scripts (i.e. Bengali and Hindi scripts). So, what would you suggest? May be I am notable enough have my own Wikipedia stub. Or, may be you shall rethink that an academic discipline worth an encyclopedic entry would have more presence in this world. The subject is question is hardly a discipline, but a rather fancy name for a journalism or media course. Not worth the entry. Aditya Kabir 07:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astranimu

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

Seems to be OR and NEO, only ghits are article creators forum posts, no references killing sparrows 01:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete without redirect per Starblind. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 11:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Model United Nations

Singapore Model United Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable Model United Nations of around only 300 students. There are dozens of Model UNs listed at Regional organizers and events of Model United Nations, some with thousands of participants for many decades, and none with an article. Delete worst case, redirect, best case. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Model United Nations. Merge content if it's useful. YechielMan 02:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trent Model United Nations, individual model-UN student groups aren't notable. While I don't object to a redirect, I also don't see the point, as the main article won't have any info on this particular one, and it's only one of many. So redirect as distant second choice only. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable Model United Nations. Wooyi 04:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per Andrew Lenahan, I don't really think a redirect is appropriate. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 09:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I do not think notability is an issue with SIMUN. Notability is different from the number of actual participants. The host (French School of Singapore) tries to keep the SIMUN professional by giving out strict criteria in choosing the delegates and the chairpersons are all hand-picked plus voted. That's why it only has around 350 delegates. Please note that there are not many inter-school MUNs in Singapore, and almost all private, independent and international schools on this island-state are participating in the Singapore Model United Nations. For high school students of Singapore it is an honor to join SIMUN and the notability is across all schools and many notable media, as stated in the article. Also, many Model United Nations conferences that do not have an article does not mean that this article shouldn't exist. --Jingshen 10:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, or as a remote second choice redirect to Model United Nations. This is a Model United Nations that happens to be held in Singapore; the general article about MUN is sufficient to cover this topic. --Metropolitan90 15:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Model UNs, model legislatures, model city councils, they all proliferate like weeds and none have any real notability. We don't have articles for other minor LARPs, although there are many LARPs with many more players and which meet far more often. RGTraynor 15:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepIagree that models of organisations do not have impact on the world but they are notable and should be respected. There are reliable secondary sources as said in article. With all the respect and my inexperience with Wikipedia egnlish, I do not really know what LARPS are, but I believe meeting often does not automatically qualify for notability. Singapore Model United Nations should exist by itself because of its uniqueness in location/venue, the participants, organisation, and the audience. It is significant as I have said many times in SIMUN publications that Singapore is an inward looking nation. It is important, especially for teenagers who are the future of our world, to understand what is going on outside. Singaporeans esp the young have only theoritical knowledge about UN and all educators want them to have practical knowledge and that's why schools recommend SIMUN and that's why SIMUN is so notable and highly regarded. SIMUN, being the only inter-school conference coordinated by Singapore gives the valuable chance for schools to work together. singapore has many difference educational systems such as GCSE and IB, etc. Students of SIMUN learn interactively with these people from different systems. The SIMUN discusses wider issues and more issues in depth than many more of them with thousands of participants. And more current issues are well. The issues for THIMUN and other big MUNs are usually set a year ago. SIMUN is more up-to-date with problems to debate such as Iran and the day-to-day management of the real UN such as the 2007 resolution of the UN charter. SIMUN is definitely unique and has its own value. The general MUN article certainly cannot cover that. Therefore I should urge Wikipedia to keep this article. There are not many articles about Singapore and none about MUNs in Singapore. Wikipedia, as an International encyclopedia, should include general issues as well as those that fit both international and locally, such as SIMUN. This article will do all good and no harm. If I were to make a big encyclopedia I would definitely include it. Strongly Keep. excuse my spelling mistakes svp I am not English native speaker. Dr. Cornu --Francois Cornu 13:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You've made an eloquent case for why this program is important to Singapore high school students. You have yet to make an argument for how this article meets Wikipedia guidelines and policy for the inclusion of articles. We do not dispute -- nor is it our place to do so -- whether there is a need for Singapore's youth to understand the greater world around them. What we dispute is that this program meets Wikipedia's standards for an article listing. RGTraynor 14:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think Dr Cornu had made very much of a point here. He answered why this program is notable; why SIMUN is unique and the article should exist by itself - why Model United Nations cannot cover the topic; and why this article should be kept on Wikipedia. Please list any other guidelines and policies that this article does NOT comply with and we will see. --Jingshen 23:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you asked. Take a look at WP:ORG. First off, "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." All the sources given in the article come from the organization itself. "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found." RGTraynor 01:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hellio as the coordinator of Singapore Model United Nations, I say this is an organzation, nor a company, product, etc. It is notable annual event with significant meanings as it combines the locality of Singapore with International schools and international concepts (i.e. the UN) to achieve alternative learning through experience and nationwide communication of international matters.--Francois Cornu 12:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — MalcolmUse the schwartz! 17:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roy C. Strickland

Roy C. Strickland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject is not notable per WP:BIO Mwelch 01:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Subject seems to have two primary claims to notability. Firstly, he ran for Congress as a Republican nominee in 1972. However, he did so in a distict in which it didn't even matter who the Republican nominee was, because the district was drawn so strongly in favor of the Democrat. The Democrat won with almost 70%. Not only did Strickland not win, but he didn't even come in second. So seems to fall short of the politician guidelines in WP:BIO. Secondly, there is this article in BusinessWeek about him. Definitely a quality secondary source. But per WP:BIO, if coverage in a single secondary source is not "substantial", then multiple secondary sources are required. Does the coverage in this article meet the standard of "substantial"? (Note: Strickland is quoted extensively in the Wikipedia entry, but judging by the listed sources, those quotes may simply be from personal e-mail exchanges between Strickland and the creator of the article.) Mwelch 01:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the subject has only a marginal claim to notability and fails WP:BIO. This article is another production of Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs), who cites himself as a source in the article[3], creating a conflict of interest. The editor has created numerous articles on persons of local notability and some have been deleted, others taken to AFD. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO /Blaxthos 06:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, needs more than running a business and failing to get into Congress to meet WP:BIO. FiggyBee 09:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Wikipedia is one of the premier places where a lot of people go for elections data and to learn about political figures. Even if this guy didn't win, this was still an important step when talking about how the Republican Party performed in Louisiana and specifically in this seat which would go for the Republican candidate a few years later. Also, the larger page for Gillis Long doesn't include all of the information about his challengers, something which would appear to be very useful to anybody who wanted to know about his actions during campaigning, given that he was a major politial figure in Louisiana's history. [[User:Tommyduva|Tommyduva]
  • Comment. Even if the article is kept, wouldn't most of the info it provides about his actions during campaigning need to be removed as original research? There is no published source for his quotes, just the article creator saying "He said this to me in e-mail." Mwelch 23:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Mr. Strickland was an early pioneer in the Louisiana GOP resurgence though he later moved to Texas. The article is well-written and has political information about the 1972 congressional election.It shows how Republicans did poorly in many of those races even though Nixon was winning 49 states at the top of the ballot.

````` —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billy Hathorn (talk • contribs) 16:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • Keep It has been generally accepted that major party candidates for election to the national legislative body are N. This may sometimes been problematic in the case of nations with multi-party systems, but in the US it is clear that there are two generally accepted ones. (Whether candidates from other parties are N might depend on the votes). That makes only about 500 defeated candidates every two years (actually fewer, many people run more than once) ; it also means that the people who do get that far are among the 1,000 most prominent politicians in the country. I think that is clear and undoubtable notability. Quibbling about the details of a career or how many votes someone got is irrelevant/That's for the election campaign, not for use. WP is indeed one of the places people go to for general information, and this includes politics--certainly it includes national politics. DGG 00:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If that line of reasoning (WP:N is satisfied by being a major party candidate for national legislature) is going to be followed — and, at first consideration, I actually would not have a huge problem with that idea — then the politician guidelines laid out in WP:BIO should reflect that. It shouldn't have to be a matter of you (nor me nor anyone else) in a delete discussion claiming that it's "generally accepted". It should be in the guidelines. I'll see how this debate comes out and if that argument is accepted, I'll bring up the issue on the WP:BIO talk page for a possible change there. Mwelch 20:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In researching the archives of the WP:BIO talk page I found three different occasions on which the issue of whether a losing candidate should automatically qualify for notability was discussed. Two of those three times, it being specifically identified as the losing candidate in a congressional election. All three times, the sentiment expressed was that the losing candidate should not automatically be considered notable. So I'd challenge your assertion that it's "generally accepted that major party candidates for election to the national legislative body are N". That statement does not appear to be true at all. If anything, it appears to be "generally accepted" that if the only claim to notability is being the losing candidate in a congressional election, then they are not N. See also the current deletion nominations of Doug Roulstone and Richard Wright. Mwelch 23:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, to be discussed. and there is better, for we don't need this particular criterion here. DGG 03:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If such sources are found and cited, then fine. But no one has done so (besides the BusinessWeek article, which isn't even about his congressional election) to this point, and I'm not sure I believe there is "no doubt" that multiple, reliable, non-trivial, secondary sources (something about Roy C. Strickland, not just something that shows there was a name of "Roy C. Strickland" on the congressional ballot in 1972) and retrievable for someone who came in third in a virtually uncontested 1972 congressional election. And according to WP:ATT, the burden of proof, with regard to whether there are adequate sources, falls on those who wish to add or retain the article. So far, I don't see any proof of such sources besides that one article. So it still seems to me that as things stand right now, this guy would satisfy WP:N only if we accept the proposition, per DGG, that losing congressional candidates are inherently notable, even in the absence of the availability of those such sources about them. Mwelch 22:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Williams_Hearn -- Here is a defeated congressional candidate with a Wikipedia story, but it is only a stub. The Strickland story is detailed. Does Gloria Williams Hearn have notability other than her losing campaigns for office? Are full articles on Wikipedia judge more strictly than stubs?

Billy Hathorn 00:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. As far as her notability, you're correct. If there isn't any more to her than what that article says now, and no other WP:ATT-acceptable referneces to be found for her, then she's even less notable than Strickland. No argument there. But that doesn't necessarily make Strickland a keep (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS); I'd say it makes hers a candidate for deletion. The discussion as to whether losing congressional candidates should be automatically notable or not is still on-going on the WP:BIO talk page, so I'd hold off on nominating her for deletion pending that outcome. But if the outcome of that is "no, they are not", and if no one can demonstrate further notability for her article either, I'd absolutely say that one should go too. As for judging of full articles vs. stubs, everything that's presented as factual and could be challenged must be so judged. A full article, by its nature, though, has a lot more info in it that needs to be verified by WP:ATT standards. Since a stub doesn't say much, there's not much that might be challenged. A couple of pointers to official election results would provide adequate verification of almost everyting that's in the Hearn stub right now. In Strickland's article, however, there is a great deal of info who's only verification we have is either primary source and/or original research. That's why, even if we decide Strickland's notability as a Republican congressional nominee is sufficent for a keep, I still think the retained article would then need to be significantly gutted unless other independent, secondary sources about Strickland can be found. Mwelch 01:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Above the special notes about politicians at WP:BIO is the suggested inclusion criterion "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." Strickland would appear to be borderline with respect to this criterion. In fact, the statement in the opening sentence of the article "who was a pioneer in the development of the Republican Party in Louisiana" would seem to be in conflict with Strickland's repeated failure to achieve elected office. If some citation could be found that either indicated that Strickland's "struggle" helped to shape the state party (currently lacking) or if some citation could be found that could insert Strickland into the paragraph at History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party#Realignment:_The_South_becomes_Republican, that would suffice to support retention of the article, I think. Regards, --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitball

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

Prod contested by Teppix (talk · contribs) whose first 3 edits here have consisted of removing prod tags I put up... Content is utterly unverifiable. Non-notable game invented in 1998 and played solely in the hometown of inventor. No third-party coverage whatsoever. Pascal.Tesson 01:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru 08:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Reformed Church of Newtown

The Reformed Church of Newtown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability Chronos567 18:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 01:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep the chinese section of the website is sufficiently expansive (and has some enlgish material) to demonstrate that this denomination is at least real. based on the fact that the website is not functioning in a language i can read, it's difficult to determine whether this has anything notable to it or not. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable enough for an article. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteVote changed, see below. --Dennisthe2 17:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC) The article reads as if it's advertising a church, and also rambles about what Newtown is at one point. It fails to assert any reason as to why it's notable. WP:CORP may apply, but WP:N definitely applies. I don't see anything that makes this church notable. --Dennisthe2 02:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to Keep, based on the references added. Thanks for changing my mind. =^_^= The article is still spammy and needs a cleanup, so if somebody can get that, great. This does add one fact, though - the articles are subscription only. Is it possible to get a bugmenot on those? If so, so much the better. Also consider WP:LOCAL when cleaning up, by the way. --Dennisthe2 17:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Found several sources, haven't had time to add to the article, but Added four article about the church from the New York Times which show it has been the subject of substantial coverage. in numerous reliable independent sources in the past 275 years or so.They substantiate the age of the church, its special historic note of having abruptly changed to a primarily Chinese congregation, and the landmark status of the building. One of the nation's oldest congregations. Editing is a more appropriate response to arguments about phraseology than deletion of an article about a congregation/building which satisfies WP:N and WP:ATT. Notability is not a subjective matter or"ILIKEIT" versus "IDONTLIKEIT" voting. Multiple nontrivial coverage in reliable sources proves notability. This satisfies as well WP:CONG which is tagged as rejected. Edison 03:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While I'm not !voting one way or another, there are several hundred religious congregations over 200 years old in New England, and I would very much hesitate to call them de facto notable on that ground alone. RGTraynor 15:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Historic church of particular historical note to the immigrant communities, as is now beginning to be shown with the references. Yes, it's possible that the article itself reads like spam, and this needs to be remedied, but that is not a reason to delete, that is a reason to improve the article. Robotforaday 16:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep historical churches of note, so long as they can be properly referenced. RFerreira 03:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an historic church; however, I think this article should be cut by 1/3 and improved in writing style.

Billy Hathorn 02:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - fulfils WP:CHURCH, which, despite its apparent rejection, is still helpful to guide us in a decision. It is an historic church that has prominent role in history of local immigrant communities. JRG 09:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This does meet church, but as the person above me stated, WP:CHURCH has not been accepted by the community as a whole. Even so, it still meets what I believe are our notability standards and satisfies non-trivial sourcing requirements as well. Burntsauce 17:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas in Dharfur

Christmas in Dharfur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod contested by Teppix (talk · contribs) whose sole contributions to date have been the removal of three proposed deletions I had put up. Per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we should not have stubs about planned documentaries unless they are so widely anticipated that they already have received non-trivial third-party coverage. Pascal.Tesson 01:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:CRYSTAL, at this point, this film is not notable, and the article doesn't even make any assertions that it is. Mwelch 01:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not only is the proposed documentary not notable, but, none of the three collaborators mentioned seems to be either. Keesiewonder talk 01:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Teppix about this on his/her talk page. Keesiewonder talk 11:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Branding Iron

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

Stub article from April 2006 on a fairly low circulation student rag. No assertion of notability, and advertisement in tone. Prod contested because "the article is not harming anyone. Students from this school may begin to like Wikipedia and even consider editing Wikipedia more if they see their newspaper has an article of its own" Ohconfucius 01:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That means you will start liking Wikipedia because it does not arbitrarily delete things which you think are worth mentioning in the biggest encyclopedia in the world and which don´t harm absolutely no one. You will start liking Wikipedia because you are free to make articles about topics which so far could not be part of a encyclopedia because they were made of paper and their writers didn´t have the time to write about it. A.Z. 05:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by that? That those students could not help Wikipedia? That you don´t wish them to become users? A.Z. 05:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "advertisement"? The reasons anyone had to creating this article don´t matter at all. It can very well have been created as advertisement, but it is just some useful information about a topic people may or may not be interested in. A.Z. 05:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment with regard to A.Z's comments above. Firstly, I do not see the rationale behind A.Z. picking holes in the above arguments without stating his/her own position. Indeed, I would call such a stance vexatious - in that it adds nothing to the debate. Secondly, looking at A.Z's contribution history it would appear that he/she has a strong interest in LBGT matters and comments on the Reference Desk, but has largely stayed away from AFD discussions. Thirdly, the above comments all reference this article wrt to Wiki policies and/or standards yet A.Z. appears to take the position that all contributors to this AFD discussion are, thus far, in error. So, what gives, A.Z? Are you for or against this nomination and on what grounds? Let's see your colours. Eddie.willers 05:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It adds to the debate the fact that the arguments had holes. Users debating may find it interesting. I do. My contribution history has nothing to do with this discussion, so talking about it is really just chatting about another subject. Let´s chat: you got it right that I have strong interest in LGBT matters and that I stayed away from AFD discussions. That doesn´t really say anything about the deletion of the article on the Branding Iron. I am against the deletion because of the students of the University of Wyoming who may be offended by this deletion and really should be. A.Z. 07:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete WP:N /Blaxthos 06:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Due to lack of notablity. --RaiderAspect 06:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because of the students. A.Z. 07:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A.Z. I strongly suggest you review Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Wikipedia has no intention to become the source of all knowledge. --RaiderAspect 07:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can see that. But letting this one article exist doesn´t imply the contrary. It´s just that one person bothered to create it and a few people may bother to edit it in the future and to make it better. And it is good that new users are allowed to start editing Wikipedia by creating and editing an article which pleases them and does not harm anyone whatsoever. A.Z. 08:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable group; article not properly attributed. Fails WP:ATT and WP:NOTE. Wikipedia is for things that have already been noticed by multiple reliable sources; it's not for getting notice in the first place. --Charlene 09:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN, fails WP:ATT. Like many other student newspapers, this one is worthy at best of a sentence or two in the main article. As per AZ's assertions, I somehow find Wikipedia a worthwhile place to visit despite its callous rejection of my own college newspaper, one from a university with much larger enrollment than UWYO and for which I was an editor back in the day. Wikipedia's policies do not, in so far as I have been able to find, make any reference to "U Wyoming students might be offended" as grounds to keep an article. Ravenswing 17:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletions. -- CosmicPenguin (Talk) 00:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with ((University of Wyoming)) this information is worthy of a short paragraph in the university of Wyoming article but not an article of its own Irate velociraptor 06:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of documentary films about the Korean War

List of documentary films about the Korean War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Redundant list that doesn't actually link to any articles. Even if it did contain links, still not a notable enough topic (documentary films about the Korean War, not the Korean War itself) to deserve a list.

Also nominating :List of documentary films about the Japanese American internment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for the same reasons, although that list manages to have one link in it. Saikokira 01:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it may be short now, but has the potential to grow and be a valuable resource. Akradecki 04:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this ever came to actually have possible content (doubtful), it should be categorized, not an article with a list. I believe one can speedy empty / orphaned articles like this. /Blaxthos 06:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If these could be expanded with information adding to the context (information about the films), then a weak case for keeping could be made. If this is not the case by the end of the discussion, delete, with secondary option towards categorisation. -- saberwyn 11:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless expanded per Saberwyn. Carlossuarez46 19:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm this article's creator, and I do intend to expand this article (certainly there were more than three documentaries made about the Korean War). I don't feel that each of these films will deserve their own article (hence categorization would not work) and I think adding such a list to the Korean War article would cause clutter. If these concerns not reasonable for some reason, then I'll support deletion.--Daveswagon 03:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru 08:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Solomon

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

This is a reposted page, originally at Jay M Solomon. I speedied this as a repost, but was denied because the original page had been speedy deleted and not subject to an AfD. The subject is utterly non-notable and is one of countless advocates for countless issues worldwide. Wikipedia is not a place to store your personal resume, and this article certainly looks like an advertisement. A G search for "Jay Solomon" bully (since the name is fairly common) yields less than 200 results. I can think of no reason why this page should be kept. Chabuk [ T • C ] 20:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

last time i checked, wikipedia is a place where people search for, and find information on a wide range of people, places and issues. this article certainly falls into wikipedia's raison d'etre. search wiki and you will find COUNTLESS other articles like this one. if you're going to delete one, you better delete them all. i think that would be a tragety for wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.103.161.175 (talk • contribs).

Articles are subject to general notability guidelines. Luke! 03:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is valuable and should not be deleted. There is no reason for it's deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.103.161.175 (talk • contribs).

what is with wiki all over the news these days? they're going nuts for accuracy... in the end, this just leads to useful information being deleted. there is nothing in the wikipedia deletion policy that justifies removing this article. the subject is relevant and noteworthy.

Notability not accuracy justifies deleting articles. Luke! 03:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nothing. but you are not claiming that this article is inaccurate, are you? you're claiming that it has no relevance. that is simply not the case. check through wikipedia. you will see countless similar enteries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.103.161.175 (talk • contribs).

  • Comment - Many of which should be deleted as well. Plus, yes, I am arguing that the article uses weasel words and boosterism, a form of inaccuracy. Regardless, this page is not the place for a back-and-forth. Please make your statement/argument and allow others to do so without cluttering up the page. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 02:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too agree that this page should not be deleted. Wikipedia is a form for information - all information; not just the information that certain editors wish to promote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.103.161.175 (talk • contribs)

It has to be notably verifiable information. Luke! 03:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not certain if this is particularly relevant to the discussion, but the Toronto Star featured an article about Solomon in 2002. (Caroline Mulroney, "A former victim speaks out about bullying", 30 September 2002, E06.) I've found three other passing references in the "respectable press". CJCurrie 02:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Curious, do you have this paper? Cause the Star's online search feature only has the last seven days worth of publications. I couldn't find it via Google either (Keyword "Toronto Star" "Jay Solomon"). Luke! 03:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Search the archives - it's there. I don't think this is sufficient to qualify for an article though. Mindmatrix 22:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Filling in some of the holes would be a start. There are just too many statements claiming notability without sources ("lectured to thousands", "more well known anti-bullying experts", "respected freelancer", etc). It needs to be re-written for tone, and it needs to lose the resume attitude. But it passes WP:V and the letter of WP:N thats all thats needed. Keep - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 04:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 01:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by me. This article's author has a conflict of interest. There are insurmountable notability concerns. Also, the author states that he created this page to allow developers to work on the project. - Richard Cavell 03:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quickimmigrant

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

Non notable software. No sign of any third-party reliable coverage. The creator of the page is the creator of the software and claims on the article's talk page "My goal is to make this CRM system open-source. This page is a step forward toward that goal. If this page be deleted it will be very difficult to make this great CRM system open-source." To put it mildly I find that claim to have little credibility. Pascal.Tesson 02:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mike 7. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 02:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beaner

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

Dictionary definition at best. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Kearns

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

No notability can be deduced from the article, no references are given (nor did I manage to find anything on the subject). —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Fertel

Rodney Fertel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Fertel}}]])

Other than running for mayor of a large city, he doesn't seem to meet the notability requirements per WP:NOTE Delete Editing Maniac 02:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for being a thoroughly non-notable gorilla-lover. Eddie.willers 04:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & rewrite The mayorial campaigns, along with his wife's legacy makes this notable (if only B-class) and I'm sure we can get more proper sourcing. He was covered in the press over spans of decades. /Blaxthos 06:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:BIO in spades. Only sixteen Google hits on a directed search [6]. A single NY Times article referencing some crazy fellow doesn't represent "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." RGTraynor 17:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Major party candidates for the mayor of New Orleans would be notable--an outsider with 0.2% of the vote is not. DGG 00:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games involving China

List of video games involving China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list: any video game "involving" China. First on the list is Civilization II, which has the Statue of Liberty on the cover, and according to Civilization_II#Civilizations China is just one of 21 different civilizations in the game, which shows how indiscriminate this list is. Saikokira 02:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mallee Football League 2007 Season

Mallee Football League 2007 Season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

While the league as a whole may be notable, the individual seasons are not. Mattinbgn/ talk 02:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages as they are subsets of the above article and as such non notable:

Mallee Football League 2007 "A" Grade season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mallee Football League 2007 "B" Grade season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) —Ocatecir Talk 07:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mallee Football League 2007 Colts Grade season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mallee Football League 2007 Mini Colts Grade season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--Mattinbgn/ talk 02:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Choice

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

De-proded. An album yet to be released by a non-notable artist, signed by a non-notable label. Fails WP:A, WP:MUSIC & Wikipedia is not a crytal ball. -- Scientizzle 02:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBB (album)

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

De-proded. An album yet to be released by a non-notable artist, signed by a non-notable label. Fails WP:A, WP:MUSIC & Wikipedia is not a crytal ball. -- Scientizzle 02:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was CSD A7 by Deiz (talk · contribs); page protected. Scientizzle 03:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Hunna Presents: Nickal Lachey

Big Hunna Presents: Nickal Lachey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

De-proded. An album yet to be released by a non-notable artist, signed by a non-notable label. Fails WP:A, WP:MUSIC & Wikipedia is not a crytal ball. -- Scientizzle 02:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was CSD A7 by Deiz (talk · contribs); page protected. Scientizzle 03:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B (album)

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

De-prodded. An album yet to be released by a non-notable artist, signed by a non-notable label. Fails WP:A, WP:MUSIC & Wikipedia is not a crytal ball. Scientizzle 02:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ray-Ray (album)

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

An album yet to be released by a non-notable artist, signed by a non-notable label. Fails WP:A, WP:MUSIC & Wikipedia is not a crytal ball. Scientizzle 02:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no context or assertion of notability. --Coredesat 07:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Artprocess

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

Reprod. Rationale was "non-notable site - forum has less than 50 posts on each topic". Procedural, abstain. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 02:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion by me. The article is unsourced, unverifiable, and likely a hoax. Its subject is not notable and the parts mentioned by Dennisthe2 indicate that it might well be original research and borders on things-made-up-in-school-one-day. Best just to rub it out. - Richard Cavell 04:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huntological Determinism

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

This article is entirely unreferenced, and might be a hoax. John254 02:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan Airlines flight 3026

Azerbaijan Airlines flight 3026 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sources, no proof that such an incident occurred, no Google hits outside of Wikipedia, likely hoax. Khoikhoi 03:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 20:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Ballarat Rebels

North Ballarat Rebels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Sportsteam competing in the under 18's age group of the TAC Cup Garrie 03:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of television shows set in Las Vegas

List of television shows set in Las Vegas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is what categories are for, Category:Television shows set in Nevada already covers this subject adequately. A sub-caegory can be created if necessary, though it doesn't appear to be needed. Saikokira 03:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Avi 03:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Background history of the September 11, 2001 attacks

Background history of the September 11, 2001 attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article contains a lot of POV, unsourced nonsense. Furthermore, many of the bullet points have little to do with the attacks on September 11, 2001. The page is in need of some serious editing after which I do not believe the article will have enough information to stand alone. For these reasons, I have nominated the article for deletion. Pablothegreat85 03:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect to September 11, 2001 attacks or Al-Quida. The problem with these background information is that they are quite ambigious. If we have to strip out all the assumptions, then these backgrounds would actually be Al-Quida's info. George Leung 03:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is speculative original research. --Ezeu 04:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. As-is the article is an unsourced mess. However, it could be cleaned up by adding proper sources and weeding out irrelevant info. — Krimpet (talk/review) 05:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Never mind, looking it over again, September 11, 2001 attacks#Motive already covers the motives of the attackers in a more accurate and succinct fashion. Delete. — Krimpet (talk/review) 13:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsalvagable POV mess. I don't see how it can be cleaned up now...maybe later it can be recreated, but this is unencyclopedic, has almost no sources, makes some spurious connections and not in keeping with WP:ATT.--MONGO 06:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Huge subjective element in working out which incidents are relevant background and which are not. Where reliable sources have claimed event X to be a factor, that would be worth mentioning in the article about the attacks. But this is simply the wrong way to present this information- the article is composed predominantly of OR and synthesis. WjBscribe 06:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia has a rule against an article such as this, informally called "connecting the dots". It amounts to synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and is codified at WP:SYNT.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 06:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per MONGO, Morton_devonshire, Tom HarrisonStrike as Tom has not voted. and NuclearUmpf. background history of the Sept 11 attacks is contained in other articles such as Al Qaeda and the September 11 attacks. The unsourced opening paragraph seems to conclude that the background of the attack is "US foreign policy with regard to predominantly Muslim countries and Israel in the latter part of the Cold War, the growth of radical Islamism, and prior terrorist attacks on the United States" and as such is original research. This narrow conclusion of the causes then becomes a POV fork to be critical of these presumptuous, unsourced "background" events. --Tbeatty 07:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV essay. WP:OR, fails WP:RS. --Folantin 08:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV and WP:OR synthesis. FiggyBee 09:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 09:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia rules are not suitable for articles like this, where deciding what to include controls the message the article delivers (by showing readers a bunch of dots they can connect, per Morton). Unless we create new (article-specific?) rules, editors have to make decisions about what to mention or omit based on their own POV. No wonder the result is less than satisfactory. This is not a suitable topic for an article in any encyclopedia, and is an invitation to POV-warring in this encyclopedia. CWC(talk) 12:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inherently pov essay Tom Harrison Talk 12:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided I'm undecided on this. Chapters 2-8 of the 9/11 commission report deal with "background' history, as well as some material that can go in the "planning" article. The 9/11 commission report also has extensive footnotes, which lead one to more good, reliable sources. Of course, such an article could be attractive to POV pushers, but at the same time if it can be made to work, with good sources and comply with policies, then it might be useful. I suggest maybe stubbing the article and even moving to userspace, until time if/when if can be brought up to acceptable quality and compliance with policies. I'm of the opinion that it's better we try making something acceptable out of this, so people have something neutral to look at when they search "9/11 + background" on google, as opposed to some of the other material that turns up in searches. As the article stands now, though it's no better than the other things that turn up in a google search. That's why I suggest stubbing it, and if after some effort it can't be made to work then delete it. --Aude (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Anything of use in this article has been merged into the main article. Nothing in the subarticle of any use. --Aude (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as largely unsourced and WP:OR. I doubt there is anything here worth merging, as this touches on one of the most well-covered subjects on the encyclopedia. Arkyan 16:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominated. Wow, I don’t know which slams this article worse, this AfD or the article’s talk page. Yep, not worth the time to even attempt to clean this mess up. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 22:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge We can merge it into September 11, 2001 attacks--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 11:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. utcursch | talk 11:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Wolchek

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

Previously PRODded for lack of notability or sources; untagged without addressing either of these concerns; besides one instance of vandalism has not been improved for three months. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 03:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - by research sheds no light on the notability of this news reporter. Note: the creation of this article is the only edit contribution made by the editor since registering. Luke! 18:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Wizardman 00:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helium.com

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

Promotional substub on new website. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An extra source is added + Alexa information Kalvitz 16:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Street Fighter Nationalities

Street Fighter Nationalities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Pretty much a list of indiscriminate information. Most of this information one can already find on either an individual character or game's article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 11:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Callan

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

Incomplete nomination by 69.244.98.171 (talk · contribs). His comment on Talk:Jonathan Callan was: "the comment by the author of the article above is signed Roboliberal. A quick google search of the keyword Roboliberal reveals this site, which tends to indicate that Roboliberal is Jonathan Callan, the subject of this article, and is attempting to write an autobiographical article while fooling the Wiki community into thinking he's just a fanboy." Procedural nomination, no opinion yet. cab 05:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete I would say that the information contained within the article does not sufficiently show notability. Additionally, the page is self-advertisement and therefore makes it an obvious candidate for speedy deletion. Pablothegreat85 07:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, fails WP:BIO, WP:ATT, NN, possible WP:COI. This bit of inflated puffery talks big about his award-winning TV series (in other words, the pilot put on his college's in-house TV station), his award-winning screenplay (in other words, the award given out by the community theater that hosted the play), and his second award-winning screenplay (5th place in a competition that has ten Google hits [19]). Roboliberal seems to have a skewed notion of what constitutes "significant body of well-known work," "notable awards" or "regarded as important figure by peers." Wikipedia policy has in mind a slightly larger field than the theater community in Ithaca, NY. When Mr. Callan's acclaim comes from the New York Times theater reviewer instead of from his college newspaper, and his awards from the Tony nominators rather than the local theater, that will merit notice. RGTraynor 17:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Delete Respectfully, I disagree on both counts for proposed deletion. Mr. Callan is a writer whom I work with on several IC-TV shows and is of extreme notability in the areas in which he writes. Certainly, the accusation that it is somehow self-advertisement is baseless and without proof. I have worked with the author but am not even a close friend, so in neither case does the article fit the criteria for auto-biography as laid out in the wiikipedia guidelines. After all, IC-TV itself (our campus TV station) has a wiki entry, so why not an entry on one of its more popular writers?
The case comes down to one of notability. I have fufilled at least three out of five of the notability criteria: recieved notable awards (cited), regarded as an important figure by peers (cited), has created a significant body of well-known work (cited). I would welcome suggestions on how to demonstrate the other two criteria, but there are honestly few authors that have statues or monuements of them built, anyway. And no one cites a problem with *their* wiki entries. The lack of a secondary source (such as a non-fiction book about the author's work) is one that I could find numerous wiki-entries on authors to support in contrary. Many articles on semi-popular modern authors fail to meet this requirement. I would like to remove the tag for speedy deletion, honestly. I welcome other opinions however.

-Roboliberal

  • Delete, but I'm going on WP:N and a side order of WP:LOCAL. It's my opinion that Roboliberal needs to also assert why Mr. Callan is notable beyond local theater stuff. In short, can we get more sources that assert better notability? If so, I will change my mind. --Dennisthe2 18:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A wee bit of digging. I've no beef with the notability of the ICTV site, seeing as it has won numerous awards [20] and serves 26,000 homes on Time Warner basic cable in the county in which Ithaca is located. By the bye, that awards list? Callan does not appear. The broadest possible search of ICTV's website [21] has only four hits for Callan, one as being on staff in the spring of last year, three pertaining to the one episode that he wrote. A search on the Cornell Daily Sun's website doesn't turn up any hits, despite the citation of an article purportedly about the subject [22]. RGTraynor 20:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, although I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of ICTV's website. He's listed as a generic "staff" person in the spring semester of '06. RGTraynor 17:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Object to DeletionI object to the notion that the subject in question is not notable because he hasn't had a write up in the New York Times. There are plenty of television and comics writers who have never once had a write-up by either the New York Times or any other national paper who warrant (and have) wikipedia pages. Likewise, I will point everyone to the "notability page" for Wikipedia requirements which clearly spells out that fame IS NOT equivalent to notability. Mr. Callan is a well-known author in the Ithaca and Priceton communities and I believe I have established notability in this regard through numerous citations and articles. An inability to find a few of these clearly cited articles doing cursory google searches is not the fault of the subject. The world exists beyond the internet. And I'm not at all sure The Cornell Daily Sun makes an archive of even a majority of its articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roboliberal (talk • contribs) 21:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC).— username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [Only edits by this user are on the article in question and this AfD.] (UTC). RGTraynor 22:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Delete Jon Callan holds a certain recognizable status above the typical college writer; he has several verifiable credits to his name. Callan has obviously just started his career, as evidenced by his works in progress, and I forsee this article being expanded in the next few months. At Ithaca College and the larger Ithaca area, Callan holds notability for his personality and writing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.135.76.93 (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC). — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [This post is user's first Wikipedia activity.] (UTC).RGTraynor 22:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete These objections make no sense. I have worked as an actress on several IC-TV productions, and can safely say that Jon Callan is a highly respected and established writer at Ithaca College. He has also received awards and acclaim outside the college for his work. How does he not qualify as "notable"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vmayne (talk • contribs) 22:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC). — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [This post is user's first Wikipedia activity.] (UTC). RGTraynor 22:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Given the rather clumsy sequential nature of all these first-time users, perhaps Roboliberal would find the provisions of WP:SOCK useful reading. RGTraynor 22:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Delete This will be my last post here. I find this entire argument ridiculous. Accusations of "sock-puppeting" most of all. You asked for proof of the subject's notabality, I have, in my mind, more than supplied it. Others agree with my positions, and wikipedia is meant to be a community foremost based on strength of argument in terms of inclusion, not percieved social standing. Whether or not those featured here are first time users are irrelevant. They have continued in making the case that the subject of the article is *INDEED* quite notable. Certainly, I have enough respect for wikipedia to know its not a vote. But I have registered my opinion. The facts and the citations more than speak for themselves. To disclude a writer of medium popularity who speaks to a large audience from an internet encyclopedia that has a substantially huge entry on LEGENDS OF THE HIDDEN TEMPLE is indeed insane. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roboliberal (talk • contribs) 00:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment What you don't seem to understand is that we need proof. Real proof - not comments from people who may or may not exist and who may or may not of heard of the subject. We simply cannot take your word for it. If he is really a household name, if he is held in high regard by those in the know, then that proof would exist. Bring it- real sources that anybody in the world can examine and say "yep - this guy is notable", and this argument will disappear. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 02:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looks like we have another NUGGET Posse --Ron Ritzman 02:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete schoolboy and "writer of local acclaim". Nothing but LOCAL media coverage and LOCAL student awards, thus fails to pass WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 08:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards delete because the article appeasr to describe someone notable within the SF-media field, yet it is a name I have never seen (TtBoMR) in the media material I "watch", here in the UK. I suspect that a writer "famous" in a small village in England (but not known in the US or Guam) would earn the same disdain, if I wrote him/her up for Wiki. -- 62.25.109.196 08:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spacio-cide

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

Neologism, only example of use is POV, gsearch show no use outside of refs to neo creator killing sparrows 04:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

AIDS conspiracy theories

Honestly, do we need every crackpot conspiracy theory recorded for posterity? I don't even think this stuff is notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:45, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. (Crackpot? I agree. However...) A well documented article that expounds on a section covered in Conspiracy theory. A well-enough known conspiracy theory that it probably deserves an article. Anyone searching on this theory will find more information presented in our one article than they would in a dozen random web pages on the topic. SWAdair | Talk 11:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, crackpot I agree (refer to the page's talk..). However, an issue that has taken hold in South Africa as a significant problem (note Mbeki's remarks) needs to be comprehensively discussed and rebutted in the open. There are a vast number of significant AIDS conspiracy theories and they are verfiable and encyclopedic. This is not to say that the article is currently a good one. It is not. In fact, in my eyes, it is currently a competitor for the worst Wikipedia article ever. A new article must rebut every conspiracy theory and it must not contain ridculous statements about the military-industrial complex... - Aaron Hill 14:36, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Definite keep. But I dislike the use of the term "conspiracy theory" because it has acquired a connotation that I think is disparaging and POV, so I'd like to see it moved to a better title. Everyking 15:21, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep it. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 15:58, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. A notable enough conspiracy theory, and people need NPOV sources of information on these kinds of things. I think Wikipedia is just the place for that. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 16:23, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Any chance this thing could be cleaned up a bit while we're at it? It hurt my eyes to read! Is there any way we could combine this with AIDS myths and urban legends, perhaps have them all thrown into the actual AIDS article? -- BDD
  • Keep. Even incorrect beliefs can be notable. However, as part of the cleanup BDD suggests, I recommend removing most of the red links, especially to individuals whose only fame is that they originated one of these crackpot theories. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:26, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nutcakes, yes. But nutcakes with some currency in some populations. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:01, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but possibly merge with AIDS myths and urban legends. -Sean Curtin 00:52, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Merge with AIDS myths and urban legends into a Controversy surrounding AIDS article. Eric Urban 01:07, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, remove PoV. Widespread paranoid or crank conspiracy theories are best neutralized by objective reporting. Wyss 23:55, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Widespread theory deserving of its own page. --Librarian Brent 02:52, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Regardless of "validity", this is a notable theory worthy of documentation on Wikipedia in a NPOV matter. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 20:19, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Spinboy 08:43, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. --L33tminion | (talk) 21:44, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and merge with AIDS myths and urban legends. --MPerel 19:59, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Where else can you find about conspiracy theories, where they are presented as such, and not presented as the truth by some nutter? -- --PoleyDee 23:13, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • "'Keep'" I disagree with the article completely but it needs to be here -- Wwahammy's vote. Wwahammy, you can insert your signature and a time stamp by typing four tildes: ~~~~ . It's especially important to do it when voting. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:44, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 00:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Physical economics

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

Original research. No secondary sources are cited and the ideas discussed do not appear in standard secondary sources on Economics. A Google search for "Physical Economics" mostly turns up references to the single paper cited in the article and to the Wikipedia article itself. Jyotirmoyb 06:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are two papers cited in the article. Uncle G 18:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google Scholar comes up with various uses of the term, a couple of which seem appropriate [23]. The article has been the subject of some edit warring in the past, per talk. Perhaps there is an older version that is less scarred from these edits? Smmurphy(Talk) 23:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although the standard database on the subject , RePEc, lists 0 articles or working papers with the phrase in title or abstract, some of the GS hits are indeed real & I suggest the supporters of the article add them. The material in the article, as is obvious, is so undocumented and so close to OR that it is easy to see why it could have been taken as fringe social science--especially considering the reported but undocumented origin of the phrase. I removed the most obvious OR portion. DGG 01:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, I'm not sure the GS hits are talking about the same thing. Physical economics in the article seems to be talking at times about emphasizing physical/material capital and de-emphasizing financial market capital, while some of these articles talk about the relationship between physics and economics models.
On the other hand, van Lierop, Wal and Braat, Leon. Multi-objective modelling of economic-ecological interactions and conflicts The Annals of Regional Science Volume 20, Number 3 / November, 1986 p 114-129 mentions that the term is also known as Materials balance models and is used with some success in environmental economics in the 1960s and 1970s. Searching googling and GS'ing for that comes up with quite a bit of stuff, much of it fairly mainstream (this article right now is about a recent left-wing derivative of the idea). I don't know what people who have been editing the article think of that scholarship, but it seems to me that the bulk of the article could easily focus there. That would bring up the question of a change in title("Materials based models in economics"?), which might actually lead to this article being recreated as a discussion of the more recent, radical assessment of the subject. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, there is a relevant ArbCom ruling on one of the major proponents of the radical version of this theory, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche. Again, I haven't been active in the article, and don't want to change it fundamentally, but the LaRouche issue makes me want to completely rewrite the article, depending on the outcome of this AFD and the comments of those active in the articles talk page. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. Physical economics is real. LaRouche is nutty enough to ruin ideas by association, but he didn't invent physical economics. Why the desire to delete a decent article on a topic of intellectual interest when wikipedia has thousands of pages of trivia on every cartoon character ever? Openman 09:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rewrite completely The article as it currently stands is not what physical economics is. It is on applying scientific methods to economics, which is a different topic RogueNinja 15:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be confusion between econophysics and physical economics, which is especially understandable because the article itself is confused. My understanding is that physical economics is a term sometimes used in the field of Industrial Ecology to differentiate between the real physical economy of matter and energy and the financial economy. It seems however that the LaRouche people have hijacked the words as googling for "physical economics" turns up mostly LaRouche garbage. Adding to the confusion, the LaRouche stuff looks like a pasted together amalgam of real concepts from Industrial Ecology, Econophysics, and other fields mixed in with their own absurdist ideas such as building railroads under oceans. Google "biophysical economics" the wikipedia Biophysical economics article is very sparse but imagine it minus the bio. Since physical economics seems too much a larouche concept, perhaps the best idea is to redirect the article to "industrial metabolism" or "industrial ecology" as they are what physical economics should refer to. The Materials based models and Material flow analysis concepts are tools used in industrial ecology, among other subjects.
[24] PDF of "Approaches for Quantifying the Metabolism of Physical Economies: A Comparative Survey Part 2" Uses the term "physical economy" with an industrial ecology meaning.
[25] industrial metabolism is perhaps a better term for physical economics
[26] larouche babble for comparison
[27] A PDF of "Energy quality and energy surplus in the extraction of fossil fuels in the U.S." That uses the physical economics concept.
[28] PDF of "On the History of Industrial Metabolism" Gives an interesting history of concepts related to physical economics.--Openman 09:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fetish clothing manufacturers

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

Non-encyclopedic listcruft, filled with links to non-notable companies. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Leuko 06:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted by ChrisGriswold[29]. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 13:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FNFL (American football)

FNFL (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

fancruft, probable self-promotion Rama 07:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 11:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Stember

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

You can search his name in any of the items below to confirm the validity of his claims.

http://movies2.nytimes.com/mem/movies/review.html?res=9A05E3DB163DEF34BC4D52DFB667838A669EDE http://imdb.com/title/tt0807065/ http://www.amazon.fr/Te-Hine-Manea-Polyn%C3%A9siennes-fran%C3%A7ais-anglais/dp/2909790320 http://www.fashion-planet.com/sept98/features/sephorarocks/sephora.html http://www.search.com/reference/Gia_Carangi http://www.vickimarch.com/clients/marchv/pages/experience.shtml http://www.tahitiphilatelie.pf/details_timbres.php?annee=2007&id=152&chglangue=us http://www.answers.com/topic/carey-lowell

  • Comment: Great, but that's just a laundry list of long lists of photographers amongst which he is mentioned, a production he was in, and so forth. We get (and do not dispute) that the guy exists. We dispute that he is a notable photographer. Our advice is to demonstrate how Mr. Stember fulfills the criteria of WP:BIO, especially the following pertaining to "creative" individuals:
* The person has received notable awards or honors.
* The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
* The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
* The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
* The person's work either (a) has been displayed in a significant exhibition or as a monument (b) has won significant critical attention, or (c) is represented within the permanent collection of a significant gallery or museum of more than local significance.
Until that happens -- and even IF that happens, this is still going to be a vanity article that could fail to pass muster on that ground alone -- Calton's characterization of the subject as a "journeyman" photographer looks spot on. RGTraynor 19:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant self-promotion / advertising. Prolific name dropping but are there actually any links to anything that references the guy? -- RHaworth 07:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you try checking: www.google.com / www.imdb.com / www.johnstember.com / or contact any of the people mentioned for references. We are not trying to promote but simply inform which is what we believe an encyclopedia is for unless you think otherwise. We have taken exactly the same format as used on many other pages including john's ex-wife's carey lowell. if your response is so negative why don't you try offering some advice ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Stember (talk • contribs) 08:09, March 19, 2007

Well, Carey Lowell is actually famous, what with starring in movies and TV shows and all. Oh, and establishing bona fides isn't our job, it's yours. --Calton | Talk 09:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Frank and vinny

The result was Speedy delete A7 by ChrisGriswold. Leuko 08:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank and vinny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable webcomic. Article offers no sources as to why this particular comic is notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. —Ocatecir Talk 07:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamtone

Dreamtone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unforeseen Reflections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Oganalp Canatan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can Dedekargınoğlu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Burak Kahraman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Onur Özkoç (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Emrecan Sevdin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Efe Alpay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pandemonium (Single) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sojourn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kardanadam Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This band does not appear to be at all notable. Note that if this page is removed then the members' pages should probably also be removed. Robinson weijman 07:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Def Jam 3

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_19&oldid=116208478"