Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 23: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Colin Keigher (talk | contribs)
3,129 edits
{{subst:afd3|pg=Brandon Jenkins}}
Colin Keigher (talk | contribs)
3,129 edits
{{subst:afd3|pg=Dan Ryan (electronic sports player)}}
Line 131: Line 131:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khaleel Mohammed}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khaleel Mohammed}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Jenkins}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Jenkins}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Ryan (electronic sports player)}}

Revision as of 21:52, 23 December 2006

< December 22 December 24 >

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 reset. The article has undergone a re-write that has introduced sources, and the question of if those sources are reliable or not has not, and in all likelyhood will not, get addressed in this discussion. A certain critical mass has been achieved where there are enough (now nullified) delete recomendation that it's going to be very hard to attract enough fresh meat to garner real consensus. Wait two weeks, argue about sources on the talk page, whatever, but there is not consensus to delete here.
brenneman 10:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewdar

Jewdar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — (View AfD)

Neologism and a dicdef. Google count is 4600 but besides Wikis and Urban dictionary (not a WP:RS), all the URLs I saw were from either blogs or hate sites. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Have heard this used a lot by Jewish friends, . Gaydar has an article. --SandyDancer 00:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Kchase T 08:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to International Monarchist League. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 13:48Z

Constitutional Monarchy Association

Constitutional Monarchy Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete - I place the "mergeto" tag on this article a month ago, but looking again realised that if the Association's journal was mentioned in International Monarchist League (its parent organisation), that would actually do the trick. The article was created on 16 May 2006 and has not been edited or expanded since. It has been tagged as unreferenced since the day it was created. The association is not notable, it would seem, and is merely an offshoot of the aforementioned Monarchist League. It doesn't need its own article - there simply isn't anything verifiable to say about it, it would seem. --SandyDancer 00:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would support redirect as John suggests. --SandyDancer 03:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They are also a seperate function from the Monarchist League as they are focussed on Commonwealth countries and they seem to have branches (Edinburgh and Lothian is quoted). Tory Reform Group, Conservative Mainstream and the Conservative Group for Europe all share the same offices but merit seperate entries because on their own they are worthy of seperate entries. The sharing of an office should not be the criteria to delete an article. JASpencer 11:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disputing that they exist and have been referenced in mainstream media a few times. But everything that has (and I think can) be said about them can be said on the page of their parent organisation. That is why merge (which has already happened) and redirect (which hasn't) is the proper solution. --SandyDancer 12:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should withdraw the AfD and put a merge tag on there. I still tink that you'd be wrong, however no one seems to want to delete this article and so an AfD is not for this article. JASpencer 15:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I already did put a merge tag on - read the nomination spiel above. Thing is, no one is concerned with the article because it is clearly going to a perpetual stub of a few lines. So merging is the correct action - which I did, simply by expanding on the reference to this offshoot of the International Monarchist League on the article for that page - here is the diff.
There seems to be a consensus forming for a merge and redirect - do you agree to that too? I expect that will be the outcome of the AFD and that outcome I would support. --SandyDancer 17:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree to a merger and I don't think that 4 votes against 2 is a concensus. This is not the forum for a merge debate which should be off AfD. JASpencer 17:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irrespective of forum, if we get the a sensible debate that's what matters. Apart from you and one other user, the users who have particpated want the article to be either deleted or to be a redirect to International Monarchist League (effectively the same thing). --SandyDancer 20:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, this does seem to be a jumble so far. Just H 17:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Kchase T 08:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electric sky

Electric sky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is a book published in November 2006 by a press that doesn't even show up on a Google search. There is no sign that it has achieved notability. However, there are signs that this article is an attempt to give Don Scott and those who share his views on physics a soapbox, namely, the self-references to Wikipedia and how Wikipedia's existing article on plasma cosmology is "disputed for its neutrality". The article contains no NPOV content about the book, only lengthy direct quotations from its author on why he is right and orthodox cosmology is wrong. In short, this is a POV fork. Antaeus Feldspar 00:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -As above. Tonytypoon 19:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dakota 01:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual idioms

Sexual idioms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Redundant with all of Wikipedia's other lists of slang. Also, unverified and a bit sprawling - not everything on there is even a sexual idiom. Crystallina 01:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Kchase T 08:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Super Soldier Volkov

Soviet Super Soldier Volkov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

In Soviet Russia, article deletes YOU!! Game guide article on minor character (and his dog) in game. (Volkov doesn't seem to have as much as a plot profile as say Tanya Adams -in as much video game cutscenes are "plots") Bwithh 01:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Kchase T 08:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma D-Day

nn paintball tournament, no third party sources. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 10:29Z

Amanda Carpenter

Amanda Carpenter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non notable conservative pundit/journalist; has written one book and been the subject of a minor campus squabble, but basically she is an assistant editor at a only somewhat notable publication. Previous AFD a year ago resulted in a redirect, but article was immediately recreated. Brianyoumans 01:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough to say "keep" or "delete", but I'd like to point out that there is another, better-known Amanda Carpenter, a romance novelist. So maybe if this is kept, it should be renamed to "Amanda B. Carpenter" with a redirect page from "Amanda Carpenter" set up. OinkOink 23:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails notability checks: obscure apprentice journalist, author of only one book and that from a minor publisher which owns the magazine whe works for (I assume you meant Regnery, Badly-drawn-Jeff?). If the book had not flopped, a case might be made for retention. --Orange Mike 21:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did, I simply can't spell. The publishing world may very well have an issue with you calling Regnery "minor." --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Didn't mean to tweak ya, badly-spelt-Jef; I'm impefect myself! As far as "the publishing world": Regnery has never had much 'street cred' outside the circles of the ultra-conservative community; their sales tend to be mostly to conservative book outlets and clubs, etc. Most are aware of their past history of publishing unlabelled CIA material during the Cold War, their ties with the John Birch Society, and their record of dubiety towards such liberal enterprises as the Nuremberg Trials (only fitting for a firm founded by the son of the founder of the America First Committee). And of course, Wisconsin still remembers Al Regnery's bizarre run for Dane County district attorney against our now-governor, and his record as the "Have You Slugged Your Kid Today?" head of the Office of Juvenile Justice. --Orange Mike 23:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-noteable. Davidpdx 12:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 10:30Z

Smokin' Hella Weed

Smokin' Hella Weed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary Meghann 01:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-03 07:39Z

Oanda Corporation

Oanda Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Online currency exchange / trading website. Very little context and no sources in article (nice big logo in the infobox though), no sign of compliance with WP:CORP. Deizio talk 02:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You would really have to edit the article first then vote keep if you can demonstrate how it meets Wikipedia standards. Your vote may not be considered by the closing admin as it does not address the concerns in the nomination. Deizio talk 21:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Unless some references to the companies importance are forthcoming. Does not seem to be a major company. No impact on stock indexes. Only one minor mention in a newspaper I can find and cannot find any reliable backup to claims on their website like ranked number one for currency exchange information. - Peripitus (Talk) 22:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CORP states "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself. . . . This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles . . ." Google News archive search since 2004 lists over 200 articles,[6] (a few of which refer to Opie and Anthony). Some sites use oanda as a source for current rates[7], which is what makes it an authority. Citicat 05:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Reads like advertisement, only keep if more information is added. Tarret 13:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong delete I was going to say keep until I looked at User talk:Nadyes. The fact that the creator of this article also made Template:Credit Card Cashback which was deleted makes me think that this is just spam and advertising. --BenWhitey 03:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

OK, I've added what I can for now. There are articles in other publications (including a pretty big one in USA Today) that I can't lay my hands on right now, along with about six kajillion brief "it's cool, try it!" mentions in articles like this one, which don't really add anything citable but do probably indicate some degree of notability. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete advertisement/marketing. Has also been a large source of ongoing linkspam on Wikipedia, most of which has been removed except for ones in the namespace oanda.com. --Hu12 16:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Deleting this walled garden per WP:CSD criteria A7 and G11, noting in passing WP:NPOV, WP:COI, WP:VAIN, WP:AUTO, WP:V, WP:RS and probably half a dozen other good reasons why the subject should not have re-created this twice-deleted article. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Randazzo

Joe Randazzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

JRandazzo created Joe Randazzo which is an obvious conflict of interest as it is autobiographical. Beyond that, he also created Vincent Zambrano and Jose Patino...the two others with whom he made the non-notable short film The Last Request. He also created David Forsyth one of the actors from this short film. The film claims notability based on winning second place in a tiny L.A. horror film fesitval, Shriekfest...a festival so small it has exactly three staff members [8]. IrishGuy talk 02:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the reasons outlines above:

IrishGuy talk 02:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding La Arana as it is yet another new article about these same people. IrishGuy talk 18:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added Shriekfest. IrishGuy talk 02:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, Irishguy seems to be targeting me specifically, even going into pages such as William Malone's to check my additions.

JRandazzo 02:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Joe Randazzo[reply]

It takes very little to be listed on IMDB and the only real credits are for this one short film. That isn't notability. I looked at your additions to find other pages created about this same subject in doing so, I cleaned up the William Malone article. Also, as a minor detail...your account JRandazzo didn't edit William Malone, Jrandazzofilms did. Are you admitting that you are using multiple accounts to edit Wikipedia? IrishGuy talk 02:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also have an IMDb listing. That does not make me sufficiently notable. That does not imply that multiple reliable sources have talked about me at length. That does not give me the grounds for writing a Wikipedia article about myself. -- Kicking222 03:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (EC) As listings can be bought on IMDb and content written by those directly concerned with or connected to the subject of articles, it is not considered a reliable primary source, rather it can act as a guide to the body of work of an actor, film company etc. The policies and guidelines that should be considered here include WP:V, WP:BIO and WP:CORP. Given the topics at hand here it appears Irishguy has simply conducted research to help make a decision about the AfD listing, unless you have more specific evidence that he is "targeting you specifically"? Deizio talk 03:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does not take "very little" to be listed on IMDB. I have worked for years and only two films of which I made a significant contribution are listed. And if being listed on IMDB is so easy, then what is wikipedia? A site where ANYONE can edit a page? IMDB is widely considered a reliable resource for the film industry.

As far as I know, I had been using the same account all along. If I am using two accounts, then they both belong to the same e-mail... sly devil that I am, I surely would do this intentionally as I wouldn't expect to be caught. JRandazzo 03:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "Get your own IMDb page" is the first service offered on that page. Joe, the content policies and standards at Wikipedia can be confusing for the uninitiated, please don't think you're being singled out. If you check out the highlighted links (WP:V etc. and also WP:RS) above you'll discover more. IMDb, like Wikipedia, is a tertiary source, and Wikipedia generally aims to gather material from primary and secondary sources. Deizio talk 03:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And in case no one noticed, I have many more works on my IMDB resume than on my IMDB listing, which disproves the previous assertion that it is easy to have your work listed. JRandazzo 03:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, three other listings (one of which is an extra) hardly counts as "many more works". No offense, but it appears that you are using Wikipedia to pad out your resume. IrishGuy talk 09:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Care to actually read what I wrote? What I stated clearly is that there are titles on my resume which do not qualify for IMDB, so the claim that any title is eligible is a joke. No offense, but can you read something and try to comprehend before you reply? JRandazzo 17:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one ever said that being on IMDB in and of itself qualifies me to have an article about me. Because that would mean anyone who got someone coffee on the set of "G-String Divas" would qualify. But if a film or TV series is listed, then it is notable because not every film or TV series qualifies to be listed. Also, a film festival that is listed on IMDB and is recognized by industry professionals as a major festival is also notable. There are plenty of festivals whose awards are not recognized by IMDB, just as there are thousands of films not recognized. As a matter of fact, one of the qualifications your film must pass is that it has been screened to a wide audience via a major film festival and winning said festival is notable. JRandazzo 15:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would imagine most regular visitors to this page are well aware that IMDb's criteria and practices are shrouded in mystery, hence the reason many Wikipedia editors are reluctant to trust it as a source when considering the notability of relatively unknown people, films and companies. Unlike Wikipedia which has very clear, prominent explanations and definitions of it's standards for inclusion, IMDb does not reveal any specifics, and has I believe been criticized for this approach. Joe, if you wish to save these articles your only option is to demonstrate compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. "WE ARE ON IMDB! IMDB SAY WE ARE NOTABLE!" will not suffice, no matter how long and loud you scream it. Deizio talk 16:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would say that IMDb's eligibility criteria are at least as objective as Wikipedia's, and probably more consistently administered. See the IMDb eligibility rules here. Note that the film festival provision says "accepted and shown on film festivals that don't accept everything regardless of its quality", not "screened to a wide audience via a major film festival". --Metropolitan90 16:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I never said that my just being listed on IMDB makes me notable. My ex g/f is on IMDB, she's never done anything above extra work and she definately is not notable. But if a festival or film is recognized, that is notable. And yes, I am relatively unknown, but I will bet that there are many people who are relatively unknown that you can not easily discredit as "not notable." Michael Tadross' name is relatively unknown, yet he has produced Hitch, Tony 'n' Tina's Wedding, Die Hard 3, The Devil's Advocate among other films. Winning a major festival is a notable achievement. JRandazzo 16:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about this guideline then? "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." I think the "multiple awards for their work" statement qualifies here since I have won 1 award and am nominated for another and in both cases, they are recognized industry awards. JRandazzo 16:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except you didn't win a major award. You got second place from a festival with three staff members. Beyond that, it is clear that you are creating all these other articles merely to advertise yourself. Please read the guidelines on conflict of interest. IrishGuy talk 18:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In which case there would be a guideline-friendly Wikipedia article about these awards, as the awards themselves would in turn satisfy WP criteria. If you have received all this acclaim then surely you can point to independent sources presenting reviews / coverage in newspapers, magazines, TV or other outlets which focus on your work? Deizio talk 16:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the webpages of the specific awards themselves do not qualifyas independent? Shriekfest is a recognized award even on Wiki as other films that have won an award at the festival are listed in your pages with mentions of the award. JRandazzo 16:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coverage must be reliable and independent. So for "Shriekfest" to be notable, it must have received independent coverage as the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works, eg reports in the LA Times, Empire magazine etc. If Shriekfest can be demonstrated to be notable and a bestower of notable industry awards, then the Shriekfest website could be used as an indicator of the awards it has awarded to films. Are other articles relying on Shriekfest for notability, or is it mentioned alongside evidence of meeting WP standards? Deizio talk 17:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dead and Breakfast stars David Carradine and was distributed by a major company, among various other indicators of notability. The article mentions Shriekfest among many other references. A cross-reference in a Wiki article does absolutely nothing to establish notability, as Wikipedia is a tertiary source and is not considered reliable. Again, you need to demonstrate the existence of multiple independent reliable sources that confirm you, your friends, your film and your company or the awards you have won are notable. Deizio talk 18:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Forty pages isn't a very large amount. IrishGuy talk 18:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference in Fangoria is passing, and could not be interpreted as the subject of the article. And, as above, 40 google hits is actually a pretty damning blow to your case, usually 1000+ unique results are required to be deemed anything like an indicator of notability, and google hits are considered a secondary indicator at best. However, I think you're starting to get the idea of what you're looking for here. Deizio talk 18:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except that Fangoria actually garners way more hits than 79. IrishGuy talk 19:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Filmmaker John Landis has only 82, far below your 1000+ unique hits. Is his career not noteworthy?
OK...are you just making up numbers? Right here I can prove that Landis garners well over 82 hits. IrishGuy talk 19:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fangoria gets 780 unique results [9], "Shriekfest" gets 591 [10]. It's the number of results, rather than pages of results that matter in the "google test", so you were inadvertently doing yourself a disservice with the 40 figure. The crucial thing is to discover if any of the Shriekfest references prove the notability of the event and awards with coverage from multiple, independent reliable sources as the subject of the coverage. References in blogs, fansites, resumes etc. do not qualify. 590 results is not bad, but certainly borderline. Deizio talk 19:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No,he certainly does not. But when disparaging the numbers of one event which is "not noteable," a comparison is necessary. And since Fangoria has similar numbers, how can one be noteworthy while the other is not? And I mistyped, Landis has 82 pages of results... excuse me. It won't happen again. JRandazzo 19:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joe, dont get hung up on the google test, it is a vague, subjective and secondary indicator. Musing on how X and Y get their respective results isn't helping you demonstrate the notability of these articles. Deizio talk 19:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you are saying is that it is vague and subjective when the results are not as low as you expected. You certainly didn't claim vague and subjective when you thought I meant over 40 webpages devoted to Shriekfest. JRandazzo 19:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're going to question my motivations then get along to my talkpage, this is about proving the notability of these articles. 40 is very low, 591 is borderline and I stand by those comments. But you'll get very few results for 7th century Chinese mathematicians who are among the greatest thinkers in human history and tons for web-exposed topics like online gaming, computer languages and other things that appeal to tech-literate white guys in the English speaking world aged 18-35, it's called systemic bias. The google test never proves notability in and of itself. Look through the results and see if you can find sufficient evidence to prove the notability of these articles. Deizio talk 19:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 10:31Z

Narrows Community Theater

Narrows Community Theater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable theater group created by JRandazzo who appears to be creating a series of article to promote himself and his friends. See: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joe_Randazzo for more information. IrishGuy talk 02:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 10:33Z

First Baptist Church of Sunny Side

First Baptist Church of Sunny Side (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

nn church. There were a prod and a prod2 tag, but the original author removed both without comment. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 10:34Z

Zoids Restoration

Zoids Restoration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Although a useful page for collectors, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a "how-to" manual or a place to post original information not published in reliable, third party sources. This material would be excellent for a website such as Phenotype's zoids website or another fan site, but not here.

I prodded the article with the above reasoning. The article creator removed the prod and added to the talk page: "I do not believe this article is worthy of deletion. It is factual, it offers information and it can be used for reference just like all other articles on Wikipedia. Also, this is not Original Research as the techniques described within are generally well known."

I don;t believe that this addresses my original concerns, primarily that this information is not externally verified, a how-to guide, and information collated from first-party experiences (original research). There may be some obscure Japanese hobby magazine that can be used to source some of this, or some info could be merged into a sourced article on model kit repair, or the entire text could be transwikied somewhere. However, I don't think this article, in its current form, belongs on Wikipedia -- saberwyn 02:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted and redirected to Information technology governance. ~ trialsanderrors 04:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IT Strategy

IT Strategy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Prod removed without comment by author. Looks like an unencyclopedic essay whose main purpose is to insert multiple spamlinks, all to the same site. Author's other contributions seem also to be dedicated to adding links to that site in other articles. Fan-1967 02:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete but not as "patent nonsense". This is a CSD G11 - Blatant advertising... ---J.S (T/C) 04:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Futuregrail

Futuregrail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

At very least, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Denni talk 02:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge to Brinks robbery (1981). —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 10:36Z

Edward O'Grady

Edward O'Grady II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

nn bio, Wikipedia is not a memorial site. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article on O'Grady isn't a memorial. It's a description of him and the incedent that killed him. There are many wikipedia articles on police officers who have died in famous high profile incedents, such as Daniel Faulkner and Yvonne Fletcher. User:Chainclaw|(talk) 23:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 10:39Z

Melissa Spell

Melissa Spell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Actress with a small handful of roles, apparently as a minor character or extra. Zero biographical information or sources. Deizio talk 02:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 10:39Z

Dialectical method

Dialectical method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Unclear what this article is about; in any case, it's based on a source that Georg Wilhelm Freidrich [sic] Hegel was a 'transformational Marxist social psychologist'. Not very reliable, I'd say. Qwertyus 02:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this article is just... bad and wrong and there is already one on dialectic, i believe. --Buridan 04:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article on Georg Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel handles the discussion on the proposal of Hegel's dialectic quite well. This aricle seems to be off the mark in several areas, or at least so incomplete to be misleading. With a very confusing subject like this, an article would have to be quite long and involved to even begin scratching the surface of the intracicies thereof. SkierRMH 10:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A rather peculiar article. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 23:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if someone writes about it they should know what they are talking about Alf photoman 13:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Buridian and SkierRMH. - Sam 18:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Could be speedied as patent nonsense, actually. Comprehensible or not, this content is not related to anything that usually goes by the name "dialectical method." -- Rbellin|Talk 23:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I tried that, but Sugarcaddy replied that 'it's not patent nonsense if it's based on a cited reference.' Qwertyus 17:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and put it out of our misery. Source's spelling of "Freidrich" comes from an ad for Total Quality Management:
    Total Quality Management [TQM] is based upon the Hegelian dialectic, invented by Georg Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel, a transformational Marxist social psychologist. Briefly, the Hegelian dialectic process works like this: a diverse group of people (in the church, this is a mixture of believers (thesis) and unbelievers (antithesis), gather in a facilitated meeting (with a trained facilitator/teacher/group leader/change agent), using group dynamics (peer pressure), to discuss a social issue (or dialogue the Word of God), and reach a pre-determined outcome (consensus, compromise, or synthesis).
I see the article has been converted to a set of quotes from Lenin, which is an improvement, but not keepable: we need something more neutral. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It would seem like simple logic to have some sorucs. Fails WP:V. Davidpdx 12:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep Eluchil404 08:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Annette Richardson Dinwoodey

Annette Richardson Dinwoodey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
  • Delete: Non-notable genealogist and centenarian. This was deleted via prod (by me) months ago but was recently recreated. Notability is apparently writing up family history but so do I and that doesn't make me notable. Or maybe notability is being a centenarian but my great-great-aunt was 106 when she died and that doesn't make her notable. Apparently had a local news piece done about her but every news station runs similar stories from time to time. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable because she passes WP:MUSIC as a vocalist who performed nationally (including at Carnegie Hall) and on national radio (CBS Radio). --Eastmain 04:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I found this, but there's not much else (only 27 non-wiki ghits). MER-C 04:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until more searching done. I have her getting 7 points in my system, but she needs a major newspaper reference. I'll look in the Utah papers archive. If it gets deleted, save a copy to the editors user page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry, but I'm not seeing sufficient proof of encyclopedic notability Bwithh 05:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia is no longer, or never really was, an encyclopedia by traditional standards. It is a reference work containing elements of an encyclopedia, almanac, and gazetteer. Only a tiny fraction of its contents would be considered encyclopedic by Britannica or Americana standards. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Wikipedia is not defined in relation to "Britannica or Americana standards". It is defined by its own policies and guidelines. Please argue from our guidelines, not from comparisons with other projects. Most editors consider that material suitable for almanacs and gazetteers is quite unsuitable. Bwithh was appropriate to make an argument of encyclopedic notability. --Dhartung | Talk 08:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then use the term "doesn't meet Wikipedia standards" not "non encyclopedic". Gazetteers info not welcome in Wikipedia? We have an article on every town in the US by default. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the link from Deseret News provided by MER-C she seems to have been a notable singer in her time before TV and music videos to have been a national soloist for CBS, performed in Carnegie Hall, London's Royal Albert Hall and an audience of more than 50,000 soldiers.--John Lake 07:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as there seems just enough to make a proper article about someone who had historical notability. I'm not sure whether being on the radio or singing at Carnegie Hall by itself confers notability (and it is not made clear from the sources whether she was a "headliner"). --Dhartung | Talk 08:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable enough - has a collection on display at University of Utah for example. I share some of Dhartung's concerns re extent of notability. Orderinchaos78 19:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per above.Oo7565 20:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since she was a soloist for CBS. The Carnegie reference is less clear since we don't have evidence that she appeared there as a soloist. -- Bpmullins | Talk 22:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems notable enough-DESU 23:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If we can have articles on each of the hundreds of Pokémon entities, then certainly a person who performed nationally and on national radio merits an article. -- Mwanner | Talk 19:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • At this point, even I'm pretty much in agreement (if the article were as nice when I nominated it as it is now, I would have never brought it here). But you should probably know that you just gave a textbook example of a Pokemon test - using Pokemon as the example no less!  ;) —Wknight94 (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the link; I was unaware of the Pokemon test (though I had a feeling I was on thin ice). Interesting, though, that the Karen article, mentioned on that page, appears to have no references at all despite WP:NOTE's assertion that "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works...." I guess I haven't been hanging out in the AFD's enough lately. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wkikpedians seem to be folks who are far more interested in videogame characters and fictional characters , who can have articles with zero independent soources, than in old people, churches, malls, and other real but 'boring' things. Edison 00:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just keep in mind that this is what the article looked like before Richard Arthur Norton worked his magic - nothing about singing or Carnegie Hall or anything. I'll have to ask Mr. Norton to take a look before I bring articles to AFD in the future! —Wknight94 (talk) 02:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A rare for me, I saw clean it up with some better sources. Davidpdx 12:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somari

Another Pirate/ROM hack with nothing but graphic changes. These kinds of games do not deserve their own article, because any one over the age of 4 could do this. Newspaper98 20:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

do NOT delete. This article does not contain anything promoting illegal behavior, or an explanation of how to do so. Just because something is illegal doesn;t mean it's existence shouldn't be documented.

  • Keep, it's one of the more notable hacks/pirates, has had mentions on bigger sites, such as Sonic Cult, and anybody who says "It's just Sonic with Mario" doesn't know what they're talking about, seeing as it's also running on NES hardware. Shadic 14:58, 1 August 2006.
  • Keep as per consensus in 2004 deletion nomination, for same reasons- it's notable now, through emulation, it doesn't promote, describe, encourage, etc. illegal activities, it's an impressive programming feat, etc. And 225,000 hits on Google seems like it should be notable enough to warrant some mention on an infinitely large encyclopedia. Notability is carried way too far sometimes. But I digress. CrossEyed7 03:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Probably one of the most notable pirate games. Also, it was sold commercially (even if illegally,) and has recieved some media attention (as evidenced by the 225,000 google hits.) Were it one of those hack pirate games like the ones where only a character were replaced (I remember one pirate was a hack of some action game and they just changed the character graphic to Mario and called it "Super Mario Bros. 9" or something like that,) I would vote delete. Y0u | Y0ur talk page 04:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is one of the most well known pirate cartridges, and isn't a simple sprite hack, as they ported Sonic onto the NES, with some pretty impressive results. I simply don't believe a 5 year old could reverse-engineer Sonic the Hedgehog and port it to a piece of hardware with worse system specifications. The nomination is under the assumption that this is a simple graphics hack, and that's simply not the case. -MysticEsper 05:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ditto. Infamous hack, this. AMHR285 (talk) 06:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Peta 09:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This just isn't notable. Thε Halo Θ 11:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 10:41Z

William Frank Decker

William Frank Decker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Doesn't seem all that notable. It appears that Decker wasn't a major party candidate and was just a minor candidate. Metros232 04:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete I was one of 6 candidates for the Democratic Party Nomination, got 28,000 votes. This was the first time out into politics for the gay community in Oklahoma. I had the support of the Oklahoma Gay and Lesbian Caucus http://www.oglpc.com/ Feel free to check with their Chairman Paul Thompson. Also, check with the Chairman of the Oklahoma Decmocratic Party Lisa Pryor: http://www.okdemocrats.org/ Thanx! Will

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

The result was Speedy delete as WP:CSD#G12 Tonywalton  | Talk 13:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep Number bed

Sleep Number bed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Advertisement for a non-notable product KarlBunker 04:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as copyvio then redirected--Henrygb 11:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 10:43Z

The Tailor of Death

The Tailor of Death (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(unfinished nomination) by 69.29.129.154

del nonencyclopedic; about an unknown person who is even unknown to exist. `'mikkanarxi 04:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 10:45Z

National Democrats (UK)

National Democrats (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Tiny fringe political party with no national notability. Fielded less than the 50 candidates required to receive a national party political broadcast in the 1997 General Election, therefore their political activities must be classed as local rather than national and thus failing notability requirements for organisations as I cannot find any reliable third party sources to verify the article. It should also be noted that of the 10,829 votes they won in the 1997 election, 4,181 of these were for West Bromwich West which was the constituency of the Speaker and not contested by the major opposition parties. Political activity since then seems to have been minimal.

Would also support a merge with Ian Anderson (politician) as an alternative to deletion. One Night In Hackney 04:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Anderson (politician) nominated for deletion, failed candidates don't generally pass WP:BIO. Deizio talk 15:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. If their existence is verified and they have participated in elections in UK, then there is the possibility that the article could contain useful information. Djcartwright 05:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the party exists at all and has fielded any candidates, it is a legitimate subject of enquiry. DaveApter 11:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even though it is not an important party the article adds something to understanding of British extreme-right politics. Barnabypage 14:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the entire organisation has precisely 2 members and contested a few seats in one election with negligible success. Allowing this to remain is basically allowing them to buy a Wikipedia page, in the same way they bought their candidacy. Not enough to give them a platform on WP. Deizio talk 15:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - verifiable, won over 10,000 votes in 1997. The fact that it has only two members now is irrelevant -- Wikipedia has lots of articles about both major and minor parties that no longer exist at all. Wikipedia would not be improved by deleting this information. Wikipedia also has articles about local parties, such as Independent Kidderminster Health Concern or whatever they're called, that would not meet your "national" criterion. Ground Zero | t 16:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As documented above, the 10,000 votes is realistically 6,000 due to West Bromwich West. Citing other examples of articles that may not meet Wikipedia guidelines on organisations [14] does not address the failings of this article. If the article is verifiable, please introduce reliable third party sources. One Night In Hackney 16:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (EC) I believe the Kidderminster group hold a seat in the UK Parliament, and have been the subject of many non-trivial media reports in reliable published sources. Winning an arbitrary amount of votes, which constitute a tiny fraction of votes cast, with almost half coming in a constituency uncontested by the major parties does not equal notability. If the Sunday Times report could be verified, and other information also sourced this would be a far more acceptable article. Deizio talk 16:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep They exist and can be in no way described as a 'local'!! Their influnece within the extreme-right and neo-Nazi fringes of UK politics is well-demonstrated in the article and their members have overlapped with other, perhaps better-known parties. The returns to the Electoral Commission said two members, but remember that such reports are very new and have caused some upset to fringe groups - I would not place much reliance on this. In any case, whatever the strength of the party now, it has recent historical significance and the article succeeds in demonstarting this and shows the links between organsations and individuals. Emeraude 18:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'll use the text from the Wikipedia guidelines for Notability for organisations [15] to expand upon my points:
Criteria for organizations
  1. Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by a third party source.
    • Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to :warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable and verifiable sources. However, chapter information is welcome for inclusion into wikipedia in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included.
  2. Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable third party sources can be found.
Assertion of notability
Notability can be asserted for organizations through:
  1. Inclusion in third party published materials.
  2. A significant amount of media coverage that is not trivial in nature and that deals specifically with the organization as the primary subject:
    • For example, in 2004 and 2005, UC Berkeley enforced a moratorium on alcohol for fraternities and sororities. The moratorium became a much covered topic in the media outlets in the San Francisco Bay Area. While this asserts notability for the moratorium and the Greek system at Berkeley and possibly justifies an article either on the moratorium or the Greek system in general, it does not assert notability for an individual chapter of a fraternity or sorority on campus.
The following cannot be used to assert notability:
  1. Internal documents cannot be used as an assertion of notability. However, they can be used as source material for an article.
    • Internal documents can include, reports, newsletters, press releases, magazines and websites published by the organization itself.
  2. Student-run newspapers.
The scope of activies are not national or international in scale. No national campaigning for the National Democrats happened in the 1997 General Election, only local compaigning for the small number of candidates they fielded. Had they fielded 50 candidates and qualified for a party political broadcast, I would happily concede that they campaigned at a national level and were therefore notable. However this did not happen, and therefore according to guidelines the organisation is not notable unless verifiable information from reliable third party sources can be found. One Night In Hackney 19:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I may be a bit biased due to my strong focus on politics, but I believe that any political party that is fielding more than one or two candidates and wins some votes should be considered notable. Now, whether Wikipedia guidelines here are clear enough to say that this is definitely non-notable, I don't really believe so though I won't be upset if that is the conclusion of this afd. --The Way 07:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, All parties, even those who do not win seats in parliaments but have enough following to influence others should be included. The National Democrats have enough following to make the mainstream right jump on their bandwagon. Alf photoman 14:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if the reasoning is to keep parties who have some kind of influence - this lot have none. They are not one of the prominent English nationalist parties that have distracted the Tories into losing the last couple of elections, they are less covered than the Official Monster Raving Loony Party and have slightly less chance of forming a Government. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep My opinon is that it is noteable. The article needs to be cleaned up and sourced better for sure. Davidpdx 12:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to List of star trek characters#Star Trek: The Original Series. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 10:47Z

Vincent DeSalle

Vincent DeSalle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Minor Star Trek character. Already on Memory Alpha. Crufty. Contested prod. MER-C 05:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know that much about this site yet. Why is my article being deleted? He was in two Star Trek episodes and also on Star Trek New Voyages. In a couple of books too that I've read. -Pahuskahey 05:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. I don't see any elaboration on the copyvio claim, but if it is, please tag the article with {{copyvio}}. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 10:51Z

Gary A. Olson

Gary A. Olson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Written entirely by one editor who worked on no other pages. Probably vanity, questionable notability. Djcartwright 05:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question How is this clearly a copywrite violation? --The Way 21:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 01:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonfable

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Redirect to Plame affair. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 10:54Z

Fitzmas

Fitzmas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Yet another silly political neologism, just like santorum. Folks, could you please, please, please keep your politics out of the encyclopedia? VoiceOfReason 06:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment In fairness to the article's creator (and those who support it being kept), the term is more than a WP:NFT; it is in fact widely used in the conservative blogosphere to describe the anticipation in the liberal blogosphere for the outcome of Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation. That doesn't, IMHO, make it worthy of an article in the encyclopedia. VoiceOfReason 06:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep Eluchil404 08:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doris Brougham

Doris Brougham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Speedy deletion for WP:CSD A7—no assertion of notability—was overturned at deletion review and is now here for consideration. Procedural listing (the first in a series of two), so I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 06:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 10:55Z

Srully Blotnick

Srully Blotnick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Speedy deletion for WP:CSD A7—no assertion of notability—was overturned at deletion review and is now here for consideration. Procedural listing (the second in a series of two), so I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 06:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge to American Meteorological Society. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 10:56Z

The Glossary of Meteorology

The Glossary of Meteorology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete - article does not assert notability, indeed, notes that the publication is of little importance. If not deleted then merge to American Meteorological Society. Otto4711 06:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody altered the original article by adding language that diminished the importance of both editions of the Glossary. Actually, the article was vandalized in my opinion. The original Glossary was well used by scientists for more than forty years before a second edition was deemed required. The first edition was a major addition to science. This article should be restored to the original state and them improved, but the comments that the Glossary became quickly out of date and as such is/was useless was and is not only inaccurate but absurd. Please consider this quote from the AMS:'

"Forty-one years ago, the AMS published the Glossary of Meteorology. Containing 7900 terms, more than 10,000 copies have been sold over four decades through five printings. It is a tribute to the editors of the first edition that it has withstood the test of time and continued to be among the leading reference sources in meteorology and related sciences. This is the electronic version of the second edition of the Glossary with more than 12,000 terms. Along with the print version it should be the authoritative source for definitions of meteorological terms for many years to come."

The editing of the original article is unsupported by any evidence and is a rather silly and ill informed claim that attacks the value of this important book.

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 12:01Z

Ralph E. Huschke

Ralph E. Huschke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete - does not appear to be notable for anything other than having edited The Glossary of Meteorology, which itself appears to be a non-notable publication. Otto4711 06:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I have already added notes regarding the Glossary itself, which is/was clearly a very important scientific publication as it stayed in print and was well used for more than forty years.

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 13:22Z

Martin Hospodarz

Martin Hospodarz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable person, reads like part of a geneology, nothing herein gives any claim to historical notariety, except being part of xxx family. SkierRMH 06:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 13:25Z

Sons of Lioth

Sons of Lioth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC. Google returns 66 unique hits for the band name, mostly MySpace, blogs and message boards. Unsigned. No entry on AllMusic. Article states their only release is a 5-track independent demo CD. ~Matticus TC 13:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marked for quick deletion only a few minutes after I posted the first version. Allow me some time to add more information.
Links to the publication in Mindview (monthly paper-magazine distributed in Belgium and The Netherlands). Please put deletion on hold while I gather more info.

Asplitsecond 13:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not the same as speedy deletion. There is a seven day period of discussion, and if during that time the article is edited to address the concerns of the AfD rationale (in this case, proof is added that the band meets WP:MUSIC requirements), then there is a case for keeping. ~Matticus TC 14:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, error on my part, should have read more in advance, can I delete them directly? Asplitsecond 16:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I take Asplitsecond's last edit above to mean that this may be speedyable by author request as an article "for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author and was mistakenly created".Apslitsecond, could you confirm that either here or by placing {{db-g7}} on the article? Tonywalton  | Talk 17:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Damon Hill. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 13:51Z

P1 International

P1 International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article does not assert notability. This does not transfer from notability of founder. Akihabara 13:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 13:53Z

Jacob Lyons

Jacob Lyons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Although the article does make an assertion of notability and includes a reference, it does not appear that this breakdancer is widely known- main substantiated claim to fame is appearing in the Run DMC video. In my opinion fails WP:N - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 14:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, possibly speedy. Article is a newspaper or magazine article, and as such fails WP:NOT. It is also a copyvio: blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=264900&blogID=78958791&MyToken=6ce0ccbb-78cf-48d4-af28-d8c81f3ba304 Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 14:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Speedy delete G12 and tagged as such. MartinDK 16:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep - Copyright violation has been removed. If he is, as is asserted, a regular judge of competitions, he may qualify as notable on that basis. Move that the article be given thirty days to establish notability, and then revisit the discussion if necessary. Badbilltucker 18:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As pointed out by the nominator on the talk page of the article the remaining text is still copyvio. The original author was quite clearly warned in bold text like all other editors that copying from other websites will cause the text to be deleted without further notice. Hence the speedy tag stays. MartinDK 18:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I personally don't have a clue whether this guy qualifies as notable or not. I only just found this article on the first day I was doing Dance assessments. The text of the article has been reworded so it isn't a copyright violation any more, I think. I don't really understand copyright that well, though. If someone can produce evidence that he does qualify as notable, they will probably do so. I have mentioned this discussion on the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Dance. Maybe someone there will know if he qualifies as notable or not. If he doesn't, I would clearly have no objections to the deletion. Badbilltucker 19:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • With the revised text I can't see any clear copyright violation. I have removed the g12 tag as a reviewing admin. Syrthiss 21:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment He basically took the original text and twisted the words around a little bit. That may or may not be copyvio but it is a creative way of trying to avoid deletion due to copyvio. Does this mean that we can copy freely from websites as long as we move the words around a little bit? I seriously doubt that's how anyone else defines copyvio including the law. He did not write the text himself. If he did he should show his sources and we already established long ago that Myspace is not a reliable source of information. MartinDK 09:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete after rereading the article. Lyons has worked in notable videos and with notable people, but it does not become clear how that makes him notable, what his role in this was. He seems to have been little more than (with all due respect) an extra. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 18:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 13:54Z

Troop 729

Troop 729 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

vanity, the Scouting WikiProject does not support troop articles save for those of historcal significance, like the first troop in a country-this does not meet. Chris 08:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troop 26 and ‎Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troop 34.

Of the tens of thousands of troops in the US, even the oldest in each state don't have articles, so that's no more notable than if they were sponsored by the Episcopalians of Pago Pago. Probably a sturdy troop, but wouldn't even merit inclusion in a larger umbrella article. Chris 12:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Tyrenius 00:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gregoria de Jesus

Gregoria de Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I cannot see how this person is notable enough for an wikipedia entry. Chris 73 | Talk 08:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Keep latest rewrite -- Chris 73 | Talk 17:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think she is noteworthy because she served as the caretaker in the Katipunan. She also became sort of the mother of the children who are caught in the crossfire between the Filipino revolutionaries and the Spaniards.D2B 09:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, or else delete and re-create better. The Andrés Bonifacio article describes Gregoria de Jesús as "a rebel leader in her own right", even though the article in question doesn't mention anything about that. So she might be notable, but the current article provides no evidence of notability. --Quuxplusone 09:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject seems notable. Her notability is established by her autobiography, which I found in the Filipinas Heritage Library. Also, she was featured in Tales of Courage & Compassion, Stories of Women in the Philippine Revolution, a book by Lilia Santiago. I suggest that the editor use these sources (and others; I'm sure there are many) for citation and to further improve and expand the article. ← ANAS Talk? 10:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  06:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if no sources are quoted by end of this AfD Alf photoman 14:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep try reading the article, leadership role in an independence movement is notability. stop wasting time with nominations like this, there are tags {{cleanup}} & {{references}} for the article's problems. could nominator also please read WP:CSB  ⇒ bsnowball  15:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the article she is the vice-president and the keeper of records and the seal of the Katipunan, with no indication of the significance of the Katipunan. From the article there is no indication of her significance. It seems the group is significant, and the vice president may be significant, too. I have no problems with keeping the article. Nevertheless, would the above voter also please do some WP:NPP sometimes to see what kind of garbage is coming in any minute, and how we have to check the accuracy and notability in a short time using incomplete information? -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • the article had been there for 5 days! to spell it out: tag potentially useful articles as unsourced, and in need of cleanup if you can't be bothered checking them yourself. that you (& other npp folks) "don't have the time" is because of your/their apparent need to immediately afd anything outside of your/their personal experience, this is no exageration, it is effectively what you/they are doing.  ⇒ bsnowball  15:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Where did that 5 days come from? I put up the AfD right after the article was created, since at that time i doubted the noteworthiness of the topic. This is proper procedure. You don't have to like it, but deal with it. WP:NPP is definitely needed, and no matter how hard we try there will always be some articles that survive AfD or may even get undeleted after a speedy. And, before you get too pissed off, please try to remember that we are both trying to improve Wikipedia. Have a look at the article now. I think it is much better than it was before. -- Chris 73 | Talk 17:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come to think of it, is this a copyvio from here? -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (rewrite) I have completely rewritten and overhauled the article with expanded information, cited from reliable sources. It actually turned out to be an interesting subject. Anyways, I think that should do it. ;-) ← ANAS Talk? 15:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 13:56Z

List of game magazines

List of game magazines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This page is a duplicate, in list form, of Category:Games magazines. However, it is much much less comprehensive than that category, and seems to list magazines without trying to categorize them in any way (D&D next to poker next to video games). This is a niche enough category that the existing Category page should cover it just fine. Delete. --Quuxplusone 08:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, taking a quick look at the category, and its sub-cats, I see that it's incomplete too, very much so. FrozenPurpleCube 17:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This list should be categorized in regions instead of dates( and keep the date column). This is because magazines are written in different languages and sold by different Currencies. Tonytypoon 16:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 13:58Z

We fight them over there

We fight them over there (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Stub about the intepretation of a Bush quote. Unsourced original research. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 09:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7, micronation that was made up in school one day. Sandstein 11:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Peoples Republic Of Katanga

The Peoples Republic Of Katanga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Micronation, formed 2006, only external reference is its own site Chris 73 | Talk 09:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 13:59Z

Shadley

Shadley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Soapy, crufty and unsourced original research. Contested prod. MER-C 09:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was In Absurdistan, article keeps you!. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 14:04Z

Absurdistan

Absurdistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable nickname for Turkmenistan. I don't deny that some people might refer to Turkmenistan as "Absurdistan", but the nickname certainly isn't important enough for its own article. At best it should be referred to in passing in the main Turkmenistan article. —Psychonaut 09:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge as suggested or merge into article about late dictator. Also listed as another connotation at -stan. Chris 09:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and rewrite, 3,300,000 Google hits. The name is used not only for Turkmenistan but also for all other absurdly ruled countries. They started to use it for the Czechoslovakia in 1980s, and since then, it was applied for other countries. See the German Wikipedia ([16]), it is well sourced there.--Ioannes Pragensis 09:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you may be misunderstanding how deletion works. We are discussing whether to delete the article in its current form, not in some hypothetical future form. Unless you (or someone else) rewrite the article into something useful which establishes the term's notability, and do so before the deletion debate is over, the article should not be kept. However, a deletion of the article in its current form will not prejudice the creation of a properly-sourced one of the same name at some point in the future. —Psychonaut 10:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that you misunderstand it. WP:DEL says: if "Article needs improvement" then the solution is "List on Wikipedia:Cleanup. See also Wikipedia:Pages needing attention" and not delete. AfD is more about the notability of the subject of the article and not about the current poor quality of the article. - Moreover before AfD you should have checked the history and you would probably at worst reverted it to redirect to Absurdistan (film).--Ioannes Pragensis 11:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable dicdef/WP:NEO Danny Lilithborne 11:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an article about the book, which has wide coverage (I changed the article to reflect this), but the neologism we can do without. Guy (Help!) 12:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to delete as the editors on the article seem determined to cover the neologism (WP:NOT) instead of the arguably-notable book. Guy (Help!) 18:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, just for your information, the page WP:NOT does not containt the word "neologism" :-) - the problem of neologisms in Wikipedia is covered by WP:NEO, but this guideline defines them as "words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities"; this word is used at least since 1980s, so it is not a neologism according to the definition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ioannes Pragensis (talk • contribs) 20:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - Widely used socially critical term that has even appeared in mainstream media for more than 15 years. As notable as Cockaigne. Original deletion request no longer relevant or valid because article no longer as originally and erroneously claims this is only used as a nickname for one country. --Espoo 17:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're confusing several things here. If you're trying to say that Cockaigne is not notable because it is not in current common usage, you haven't understood that encyclopedias also include information on older notable cultural concepts. Use of the term Cockaigne in the Brothers Grimm fairy tale and perhaps two other equally notable works of art would be sufficient reason for a separate article. In addition, you don't understand that Cockaigne is very commonly used in other languages today, so it is commonly used in English translations of these modern and older works. In addition, you're ignoring all the other points raised by myself and others concerning Absurdistan and trying to derail the discussion by only talking about my simile. Are you seriously claiming that a term regularly used even in mainstream media shouldn't have an article in WP? If Absurdistan weren't used in mainstream media and even if it didn't occur in literary magazines, WP would need an article since it already occurred in several works of art ranging from at least one novel and at least one film even to a Mickey Mouse comic book. If you think WP's coverage of cultural phenomena and concepts should be less inclusive than Disney comics, then my last hope is to make you see the fact that Absurdistan is at least as notable as banana republic and not a synonym. --Espoo 22:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to 2006 Winter Olympics. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 14:06Z

Gliz

Gliz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The page is tiny, is unlikely to ever become bigger and should be added into 2006 Winter Olympics. Also if you look on that page I just mentioned then the first image shows two mascots not only one. Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 09:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 14:08Z

Million Voices Against Corruption, President Chen Must Go

Million Voices Against Corruption, President Chen Must Go (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

article written to defame ah bian. not written in NPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pourly (talk • contribs) — Pourly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 14:11Z

Allahpundit

Allahpundit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Can anyone find any reliable sources in this article? It looks to be a blogger cited by other bloggers, "notable" for blogging a defunct blog. Guy (Help!) 10:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as non-notable/non-verifiable; all the references seem to be blogs, and blogs about blogs, and blogs about blogs about blogs, and so on to infinity. Demiurge 10:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How much is Allahpundit (alias whatever) known of among Muslims, and among people in general?, and how much has he spread information or influenced public opinion and/or awareness?, before anyone says "notable or not". Anthony Appleyard 10:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source or delete. MER-C 13:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, As stated, there was already an AfD, though it was not kept on the basis of Google hits or WP:ILIKEIT. It was kept because, during the AfD, Allahpundit subbed for Michelle Malkin, eventually becoming the primary blogger on Hot Air [17], Malkin's "conservative Internet broadcast network." This is detailed in the article. The website's Alexa ranking is about tied with Instapundit's [18][19]. This is the third time the article has been slapped with an AfD by some enterprising user, and frankly I'm sick of how any Internet opinion source (right or left) is automatically assumed to be nonnotable, and any citations on notable blogs, Alexa rankings, significant involvement in political reporting, etc., are waved away as not being/having "reliable sources," yet "personalities" like Kibo are justified because Wired Magazine wrote a story 13 years ago. This article is sourced and this subject is notable. And, as stated in Wikipedia:Deletion_policy:
If and when you do renominate, be careful to say why you think the reasons proffered for keeping the article are poor, and why you think the article must be deleted.
which Guy does not provide. Calbaer 20:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 14:13Z

Ghosts (band)

Ghosts (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Oh, where to start. Fails WP:NOT - The group's debut album has not been released, so fails the crystal ball test. Fails WP:BAND - The group has not released any records under a major label yet (but may release its debut in 2007). Violates WP:COI - The article was created by the band's new label User:Atlanticrecordsuk. Bobblehead 10:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--While their entry is written from what looks like a biased perspective, they are the download of the week on itunes; what weight that gives them as a notable band is debateable, but still, something to keep in mind.

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 14:16Z

Clannada na Gadelica

Clannada na Gadelica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not notable, few or no references to this group besides its own website —Ashley Y 10:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 14:18Z

Predator (TV Program)

Predator (TV Program) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

There is no such television show as 'Predator.' This stub refers to the Dateline segment 'To Catch a Predator' hosted by Chris Hansen. This stub also misspells the name of reporter Hansen. K-lit 11:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 14:18Z

Solaris (Aberdeen Rock Band)

Solaris (Aberdeen Rock Band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable band that didn't release any records on a major label. Basically a local band that failed to make it big. Bobblehead 11:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 14:19Z

Sharday

Sharday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A person who appears in a couple of specialist magazines. No sources, no evidence of notability. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 14:20Z

List of vehicles in Grand Theft Auto series

List of vehicles in Grand Theft Auto series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Previous nomination was closed with no consensus because a few GTA fans commented that it should not be deleted. This article/list is highly speculative in nature and as such violates WP:V and WP:NOR; note comments such as "resembles a 1980s GMC Vandura cargo van, a 1980s Ford E-Series cargo van, or a 1980s Dodge van" (got any other guesses?). It's also written without context, using GTA-specific acronyms all over the place. Given that the cars are fictional, I doubt that anything more than a brief treatment in the main article is possible.--Eloquence* 11:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 14:23Z

Angela Devi

Angela Devi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A self-published pornstar, famous, apparently, for her site folding after she died. Nonsensical religion adds amusement but not rigour to the article. Direct-to-web pornstars with "tripod-mounted camera" are not, I think, covered by WP:PORNBIO. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge to INTRA FRAME. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 14:24Z

Macroblocks

Macroblocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not sure about this one, thought I better bring it here to be on the safe side. Apologies if this is a legitimate article. J Milburn 11:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 14:26Z

Alicia Rhodes

Alicia Rhodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Breastcruft, pure and simple. No assertion of meeting WP:PORNBIO, the "award" is from the British Girls Adult Film Database, not in any way an important body. Guy (Help!) 11:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The number of Google hits is noted in WP:PORNBIO as a dubious method of determining notability, due to the industry practise of Googlebombing. Tabercil 16:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, consensus is reached. Punkmorten 14:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuzweg Ost

Kreuzweg Ost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

nn band. Unable to find anything of notability with Google. Disputed prod. Akihabara 06:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 11:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 14:28Z

RamaHanuKwanzMas

RamaHanuKwanzMas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yet another variant of that tired old theme that so many people seem to think is soooo funny. Well, grinch that I am, I don't see this belonging here, even though this one has the backing of a radio host - and not many other people, judging by the slightly-shy-of-500 non WP ghits it has garnered in the three years since the word was coined. That's a delete, BTW. Grutness...wha? 12:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 14:31Z

Sana Fey

Sana Fey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Does not assert notability, sole source is unreliable, contains speculation. Guy (Help!) 12:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 14:31Z

Tsumi

Tsumi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:BAND. Non-notable local group. An album article had also been created and I'll be nominating that as well. Link for album was to Moth, not an actual article. Bobblehead 12:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 14:33Z

Crizzash Bandicizzle

Crizzash Bandicizzle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable fan-cruft about a costume on a game. Also seems to be original research, and is unreferenced. Didn't think it was quite bad enough for a Speedy, Delete from me. J Milburn 12:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 14:34Z

Timothy P. Carney

Timothy P. Carney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

No assertion of notability (rather the opposite, actually, stating that his one book attracted "little attention"). No independent sources. Was an assistant editor at a reasonably notable magazine, and that's about it, really. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy close and keep, article was vandalized. NFL players are always notable. Punkmorten 14:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Pitts

Chester Pitts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

There is a lot of information about this person being the king of jupiter etc.... - perhaps it only needs to be cleaned up? Benjaminstewart05 13:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. I've reverted to the last non-silly version, so this AfD is now presumably based solely on his notability or otherwise as a football player, an issue I don't feel competent to comment on. Tevildo 14:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, only valid deletion reason would be that the town does not exist. Deizio talk 15:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panaca, Nevada

Panaca, Nevada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable town of only 761 people. No assertion of notability is made, either. Wikipedia is not a geographical dictionary. Justin322 13:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge to Alistair Begg. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 14:36Z

Parkside Church

Parkside Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete Delete or merge non notable, non verifiable per WP:CHURCH. However, the pastor has a Wikipedia article, so I would support the merge into his article. Adam Riley Talk 18:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:CHURCH has a number of conflicting proposals, no consensus, and substantial objections. So, I don't know why you are citing it here. Which of the views expressed in that debate does this article fail?--Docg 15:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Majorly (Talk) 13:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 14:38Z

Altporn

Altporn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is a neologistic term for a porn genre which may or may not exist, but I don't see a lot of evidence that those covered identify themselves under this label, and the article itself states that the definition is disputed even among them. I checked the sources, several of them do not mention the term at all, and others only allude to it. I'd say this fails WP:NEO and WP:V/WP:RS, also probably WP:OR. Guy (Help!) 13:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per WP:NEO. I think this is more of an advertisement for altporn.net. If we're going to have an article on this it should be called something like "Alternate pornography". Jayden54 17:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep – Altporn is a very important trend in contemporary pornography and strongly deserving of an article in Wikipedia. Numerous articles in the press about altporn are included as external links and references. (Just because you haven't heard the term before does not mean it isn't in wide use – try Googling it!) As for the term "altporn" rather than "alternative pornography", if you had bothered to read the talk page, you'd see that I posted a Google test demonstrating that "altporn" is the most commonly used label for this genre.

    I have to say, this whole AfD proposal is incredibly misguided. If you don't like the title, the first step is to propose a "Move", not a "Delete". If you think some of the links aren't suitable, delete them. (For the record, I added the Altporn.net link, because I felt it was relevant portal – I have no connection with that site.) If you think some of the facts in the article aren't supported by the references, then edit damn article, dispute it on the talk page, and/or put a cleanup tag on the article. Deleting the article as first recourse is totally inappropriate.

    Full disclosure – while I did not originate this article, I have been primary editor of the article and am listed on the talk page as maintaining it.
    Iamcuriousblue 21:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you say. But as the article makes clear, its definition is disouted and there doess not seem to be a good source for the neologism. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The precise definition and parameters of what constitutes altporn are disputed, not unlike the way the definition and parameters of any number of musical, film, and artistic genres are. The fact that altporn exists as a genre is not in dispute, however. I'll also point to this article which points out that Vivid and VCA, which are major porn production companies, are now getting into the altporn market – I don't think this genre would be getting financial backing if it wasn't seen as an important phenomenon. As for the title of the article itself, "altporn", "alternative pornography", "indie porn", etc are all more or less synonyms for this genre and the various terms (including "altporn") are all used in the various articles I have listed under "external links", however, the Google tests that I've pointed to on the Talk:Altporn page clearly point to "altporn" and "alt-porn" as by far the most commonly used term for this genre. "Altporn" is an established term for an established genre, albeit, a newly established genre. Iamcuriousblue 22:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should also point out that I have provided external links to articles on the altporn phenomemon from Bitch, Orange County Weekly, The Stranger, Adult Video News, American Sexuality, and Der Spiegel, which are all reliable hard-copy secondary source magazines and newspapers (albeit, non-academic sources). (True, these references should be better incorporated into the article, but that's not an argument for deletion.) Clearly, news sources attesting to the fact that altporn is real-world phenomenon can and have been provided. The only point of contention, really, is whether the article should carry the title of a relative neologism or not – this means there's legitimate debate as to whether or not to move the article, but I don't think a good case has been made at all for deleting it. Iamcuriousblue 23:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability and verifiability issues. Anomo 04:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As others have said, altporn has been written about by notable publications and simply because it suffers the same definitions problems as say many music genres is not sufficient justification for deleting it. I do think a debate about what to call the article on this genre of porn is valid and maybe the article name could be change but I don't think the existence of the altporn or whatever one chooses to call is debatable.--Cab88 10:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Very well-known genre, term widely used in the press. It usually appears as "alt-porn" or "alt.porn", however, and that's where most references will be found. Article has good sources, but there are plenty more for the taking. Google search results: "alt-porn" (with quotes and hyphen): 137,000 hits. Media references include the Village Voice, AVN Magazine, The Phoenix, Wired News, NY Press, Nerve Magazine, and many more. --MCB 17:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 14:40Z

Eve Tyler

Eve Tyler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Part-time porn model, no credible evidence of meeting WP:PORNBIO, no independent sources. Guy (Help!) 13:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 14:40Z

Kayla Kleevage

Kayla Kleevage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Vague assertions of notability, but these are not backed by sources (nor is anything else in the article, for that matter). Seems to fail WP:PORNBIO. Guy (Help!) 12:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus - keep for now, per claims that it can be sourced. If references don't arrive in a couple weeks, should be re-nominated. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 14:43Z

List of objects dropped on New Year's Eve

List of objects dropped on New Year's Eve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The article appears to be unverifiable due to the introduction of objects of varying degrees of absurdity (including a tortilla chip into salsa). I can imagine that this list could potentially (if it hasn't already) become popularity with arbitrary objects being dropped by individuals on New Year's Eve. -- tariqabjotu 13:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So we could find out who dopped an acorn in Raleigh, North Carolina, when, and why? I think not Fledgeling 02:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and here's a source for the Tortilla thing, it's a promotional gimmick.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/31/se.02.html

"In Tempe, Arizona, the new year begins only after a 200-pound tortilla chip drops into a giant bowl of salsa."


—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.177.20.128 (talk) 06:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]


Is there any way to keep those that can be verified with, say, an article in a local newspaper?

But many cannot be verified. Oranges. Acorns. Also, Wikipedia is not a random collection of information, its an encyclopedia, and how is this encyclopedic?? As it stands now its just a random collection of information. Fledgeling 15:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as long as the criteria for inclusion on the list is tightly defined, e.g. something dropped as part of a public new year's eve ceremony, with the support of the relevant local government authority. Some guy throwing things off an apartment building into a crowd below doesn't count. If "dropping X" is part of an official ceremony, however, there should be some record of it happening in local media. Quack 688 07:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an arbitrary collection of information per WP:NOT. Even if WP:NOR and WP:N concerns can be addressed this remains an unencyclopedic list. Eluchil404 09:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 14:48Z

Cathy Barry

Cathy Barry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Many claims, all unsibstantiated. No sources. Does not appear to meet WP:PORNBIO. Guy (Help!) 13:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as G7 (author requested).--Kchase T 08:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Throval

Throval (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Prodded by me with the following concern:
Description of a fantasy world in an unpublished book. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Additionally there's no assertion of notability, this is unverifiable and is original research.
Author removed the mention that it was in a book "started in 2006" whose publication date is "unknown""unclear", and then deleted the prod tag. So I'm listing it here Tonywalton  | Talk 13:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the messages: I'll delete the article since it meets none of the rules. I'm sorry for making a such a fuss of it! I'm also sorry for being such an inexperienced user of wikipedia :P Richie bartels 13:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 14:49Z

Tom Wright (British actor)

Tom Wright (British actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Originally tagged with {{subst:prod}} for the same reasons as this AFD:

How notable is this young lad? Moreover, IMDb doesn't know of anything named Brum Doctors, and Google only picks up information about it in the form of a British forum post.

Notability does not seem to have been addressed well since removal of the template, hence this AFD. Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 21:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Majorly (Talk) 13:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted as spam. Tonywalton  | Talk 16:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GamersUnderground

GamersUnderground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

There is no assertion of notability, creator has removed prod tag. FisherQueen 13:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge to table d'hôte. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 14:50Z

Set Lunch

Set Lunch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete. Seems non-notable and/or encyclopedic. Additions to it might improve it enough to be an article, but currently I think it needs deleting. Grand Slam 7 21:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. At first I thought it was a neologism but it appears to have reasonably widespread use. That said I can't see how this article can ever become more than a dictionary definition with in limitless number of examples. Koweja 23:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki-ing (as opposed to deletion) would be fine with me also.--Grand Slam 7 01:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it need deleting? It's true. Set lunches are real. It's suprising that you would not have this article. User: katakata994

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Majorly (Talk) 13:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Expand, or merge into menu? The set lunch is real and worth mentioning in the context of restaurant operation, restaurant economics etc., but as it stands it's little more than a dicdef. Barnabypage 14:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 14:52Z

Tantric Massage Association

Tantric Massage Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Related nomination to Tantra massage. Only sources don't look to be overly reliable, and this tends to make me feel the notability of this association is shaky.-- Syrthiss 22:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Majorly (Talk) 13:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Tyrenius 23:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Wienbarg

George Wienbarg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable actor/broadcaster. Has appeared in (per IMDb) two minor films, one a short and one no length provided.[22] Vague references/sources. Those immediately checkable do not show results: Washington Post [23], LATimes through 1984 [24], LATimes from 1985 [25], all 0 results for "George Wienbarg". Principal editor has been Georgewienbarg. Appears to have worked at notable places and possibly with notable people, but no clear indication, to date, that he meets WP:BIO. Robertissimo 13:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge to Virginia. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 14:54Z

Rest of Virginia

Rest of Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is probably not a good article for Wikipedia to have. It's like having an article about E. Coli and then another about "Rest of the Bacteria on Earth". I tried to start a discussion about merging this article with Virginia, but it didn't seem to come to any solid consensus. Takeel 14:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This term has been used prominently in the Washington Post; entire articles have been dedicated to the differences between NoVA and RoVA. It has become a very important term in the press and in the Commonwealth's politics (especially in Northern Virginia). It's very useful to have an article explaining the difference between RoVA and NoVA when the two are brought up. If Wolf is not re-elected for Senate in 2008, the term will be even more common. I can, however, see this being merged with Northern Virginia, but only if the alternative is deletion. Thomasmallen 03:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Find a few more reliable sources that prove it's a real, defined concept, add them to the article and I'd vote keep. Deizio talk 03:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Deiz; having only one source from the Washington Post makes the term look like it was made up for that one article or is limited only to the Washington Post. One or two other sources would help determine notability. If these sources can be found and added I'd support a keep. --The Way 08:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect. The full text is below if someone wants to merge it. ~ trialsanderrors 18:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A School of Tomorrow school is a private school that uses Accelerated Christian Education curriculum. In these classrooms teachers are called supervisors. Students work individually on their work without direct teaching from the supervisor. Student desks are set up with dividers that do not allow students to see each other. Students have American and Christian flags that they place at the top of their desk to signal that they need help from the supervisor. Students correct their own work with score keys that are kept in a central location for all students to use.

School of tomorrow

Not sure whether delete or merge is best here. I don't think it can last on its own. Just H 23:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Docg 14:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 14:56Z

List of Slovak sculptors

List of Slovak sculptors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:LIST, as it is neither informative nor useful for navigation compared to Category:Slovak sculptors which we already have. No redlinks, so not useful for development purposes either. Punkmorten 14:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 14:58Z

List of South Korean badminton players

List of South Korean badminton players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:LIST, as it is neither informative nor useful for navigation compared to Category:South Korean badminton players which we already have. No redlinks, so not useful for development purposes either. Punkmorten 14:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge to List of Andorrans. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 11:05Z

List of Andorran footballers

List of Andorran footballers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:LIST, as it is neither informative nor useful for navigation compared to Category:Andorran footballers which we already have. No redlinks, so not useful for development purposes either. Punkmorten 14:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 15:00Z

List of Spanish footballers

List of Spanish footballers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:LIST, as it is neither informative nor useful for navigation compared to Category:Spanish footballers which we already have. No redlinks, so not useful for development purposes either. Punkmorten 14:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 15:01Z

List of Iranian footballers

List of Iranian footballers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:LIST, as it is neither informative nor useful for navigation compared to Category:Iranian footballers which we already have. No redlinks, so not useful for development purposes either. Punkmorten 14:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 15:01Z

Ian Anderson (politician)

Ian Anderson (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Failed candidate, negligible share of vote in a handful of constituency elections. Article full of unsubstantiated claims and lacking sources. Membership of a fringe political organisation =/= notability. Involved with National Democrats (UK), also nominated for deletion.Deizio talk 15:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - non notable per WP:BIO, and I couldn't find any reliable coverage through Google News. I must admit though that I'm not really up to speed to the UK political scene, so if he's a well-known politicion I'll happily change my vote. Jayden54 16:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Anderson has been a leading figure on the extreme-right and neo-Nazi fringe of British politics for twenty years or more. If you have not studied a topic, its leading protagonists and players may seem obscure, (don't get me started on rap singers!). Google News is hardly a reliable source here: pick any famous person from twenty years ago and see what comes up! So he may well appear to be unknown. The article clearly demonstrates not only his contribution to extremist politics in the UK, but provides background infrmation useful to anyone wanting to know more about the groups that preceded the British National Party and surrround it now. OK, he's never won an election, but that is not relevant because these groups never intended to win elections. To put it in terms that US readers may grasp, you have an article on David Duke, but he's never won an election either! Nominator says "negligible share of vote in a handful of constituency elections" but, again, that someone has contested FIVE elections knowing they will lose says more about the politics of the man and his parties than anything else. Emeraude 18:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No, he is not a leading figure in anything. I am English, I follow English politics, and I say this person is not of note. Duke is known for things other than losing elections (including his involvement with the Klan). Bill Boaks was notable for losing elections. This guy is neither notable for losing nor notable for anything else, as far as I can tell. Guy (Help!) 19:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, with these guys we should concentrate more on how much they can move the mainstream parties toward their themes. In this case, how does his nationalistic rethoric influence the themes of the Tories (for example) Alf photoman 14:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs improving and shortening (I've begun this) but he was an important figure in the evolution of the British far right Whiteabbey 13:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

}

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

The result was Redirect to Sasaki Kojiro. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 15:03Z

The Drying Pole

The Drying Pole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Irrelevance:This article is about a specific sword, but no other information is known about the sword except it's owner. Most of the article is about the owner, but all this information is on his page. Therefore, this article contains NO new information, has NOTHING useful in it, and is not cited even once. --DurinsBane87 15:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 15:04Z

MesNews

MesNews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:SOFT, advertising ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 15:06Z

Rachel Sterling

Rachel Sterling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I tried editing this entry myself to make it worth a Wiki entry, but I have to admit it fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTE. Especially now that anon user 71.138.88.132 has removed all references to Angel Veil, the name under which Rachel Sterling strips and takes nude photos for Penthouse, etc.[26] As this is the only time 71.138.88.132 has ever edited a WIkipedia entry, I suspect 71.138.88.132 is Rachel Sterling herself, so possbily add WP:VANITY to the mix too.

So what we're left with is a smokin' hot gal who dances behind celebrities in music videos and does walk-on parts in movies (her role in Wedding Crashers, for instance, was as one of the girls bedded in the montage scene [27]). Which doesn't really warrant an entry in an encyclopedia. TruthGal 16:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - non notable per WP:BIO. She's made some appearances in tv series and films, but nothing that makes her a "notable" actor. She might be keepable under WP:PORNBIO but if that information doesn't get included in the article then it should be deleted. Jayden54 16:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Jayden54. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails both WP:BIO and it appears that she would fail WP:PORNBIO if the miminal stuff there would be included. SkierRMH 18:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Posing for magazines, extra roles in movies, and starring in a Z-tier filler show does not a celebrity make. Nate 03:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non notable --Mhking 04:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would it be possible to add this woman's 'band' (The Sugar Blush Beauties) article to the AfD also? It also doesn't have enough notability. Nate 04:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per this the band appears to meet WP:BAND as "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.", although the author needs to cite references to show those "notable mentions" aren't just self-promotion. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I checked that link. The only checkable references are the subject's own webpages. The other cited references include a magazine called Calabasas (which links to The City Of Calabasas), a magazine called OYE (which links to nothing), a magazine called Peace (no link), a magazine called Infamous (which links to a definition of the word) and Playboy. If 4 out of the 5 magazines a band is mentioned in are not notable enough to have Wikipedia entries, it would come to follow that such a band is not notable. I'm going to add the band to AfD too.TruthGal 15:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Calabasas Magazine exists, and is confined to the LA area (I only know of it because of a Lauren Graham piece from a few months ago). Most likely though it was probably a passing mention, as I can't find anything within their online archive about this band. The others I have never heard of and sound like they're very small publications with limited or free distribution. Nate 21:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, I'm not questioning whether the magazines are legit - I'm just saying that 4 out of 5 of them aren't noatble enough to have Wikipedia pages. And therefore, if a publication that's not notable does an article about a person, one can't then use the article in the non-notable publication to make the case for the person's notability. Or if you prefer - If someone writes about a tree falling in Calabasas Magazine... ;) TruthGal 23:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've improved the article slightly, and I think she meets the qualification for WP:BIO of having had "Multiple features in popular culture publications". In any event, I would appreciate it if an admin would check the article again before taking a decision about deleting it. --Metropolitan90 07:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, making the article longer hasn't gotten the subject to clear the WP:NOTE bar. You've done an excellent job writing an interesting narrative - though now it seems less like an encyclopedia entry and more like an E! True Hollywood Story about a stripper-turned-extra. TruthGal 18:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm changing my recommendation to neutral due to the fact that the quality of this article is fluctuating. (Most of the "narrative" was written by an anonymous editor, not by me personally.) --Metropolitan90 01:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to Yuba City, California. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 15:07Z

Faith Christian High School

Faith Christian High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I'm no expert on Wikipedia deletion policy but this organization doesn't seem to be notable by any discernible standard. There happen to be a number of Faith Christian High Schools throughout the country; I fail to see how this one is any more notable than the rest. Rmfitzgerald50 17:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There does exist a Wikiproject for schools, however. At worst, merge into Yuba City, California, which has a section for schools. Chris 17:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 15:10Z

Academic squatting

Academic squatting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested prod. Concern: "NN neologism; 14 Google hits; delete per WP:NOT / WP:NEO." Explanation for prod removal at Talk:Academic squatting. --Muchness 17:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. alphachimp. 18:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jhoon Rhee

Jhoon Rhee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
  • Delete. This article violates the notability criteria on WP:BIO. Though I have no issue with articles on minor sports figures in Tae Kwan Do and the like, WP:BIO requires objective 3rd party verification of sports figures in citation. All that has been supplied are links to advertisements for this individual's schools, and a Taekwando Hall of Fame Banquet advertisement, where Jhoon is the keynote speaker. Djma12 17:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a reference and guide for this conversation, I have taken the liberty to include WP:BIO's exact criteria for sports figures:
Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles. Third-party verification from a non-trivial publication outside of publications by sponsors of the sport or activity should be provided to demonstrate that the subject is widely recognized—meeting the first criterion—as performing in a fully professional league or at the highest level. (Emphasis inserted by me.) Djma12 17:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete (CSD G4). Alphachimp 17:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Jurey

Roger Jurey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article has been deleted once but now has been recreated Aforest 17:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 15:10Z

Looks Like a Fact

Looks Like a Fact (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
<relisted, because was lost in Dec. 21 list because of improper formatting Mukadderat 18:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)>[reply]

Article appears to be self-promotion. No outside links to support "fame" criteria, entire article written by art work creator.--Natcase 06:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus to delete, so keep. However, the oppose reasons need to be addressed or the article will be susceptible to another AfD. Tyrenius 00:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rafed.net

Rafed.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

72.75.72.174 (talk · contribs) requested I list this at AfD, so I am doing so. I removed the CSD, because the article makes at least one genuine claim of importance. According to 72, that claim isn't backed up by reliable sources, and I don't endorse or dispute that, but I think AfD is a more appropriate venue to settle this issue. So consider this no "vote", but I'd obviously support deletion if no sources emerge. W.marsh 18:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless sourced. I couldn't find any independent coverage on Google or Google News, so there doesn't appear to be anything from which to construct an article. Trebor 18:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When determining a sites notability, the amoung of people adhering to that religion must be considered. Considering that most Shi'a live in non-western countries, the site has a remarkably high Alexa rating, even higher than al-Islam.org, in fact 3-4 times higher rating. And then it should be noted that al-Islam.org is the highest ranked Shi'a site by Yahoo. Now, add to that a google seach gives almost 70k hits, and it becomes very hard to argue that this is a non-notable shi'a site. --Striver - talk 20:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Using the definition of notability as there being multiple, independent, non-trivial published works, then it is very easy to argue that it is "non-notable". What verifiable information can be included in the article (because anything that isn't verifiable can be removed)? Notability is not important or significance (or popularity). Trebor 20:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Islam.org linkes to it [28], so does google [29]. dont know how important this is. sistani linkes to it [30]. Blocked in Saudi Arabia [31] --Striver - talk 20:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But there still isn't information from which to write an article. It should be deleted unless or until sources are found, otherwise there is nothing verifiable to put in it. Popularity, in itself, cannot guarantee an article if there's no third-party coverage. Trebor 20:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
" information from which to write an article"? Nor did i present it as such, presented that as a list of highly notable entities noting the site. --Striver - talk 17:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so those sources have no use in creating a verifiable article, do they? The fact that these entities note the site is fairly irrelevant if that's all they do. Trebor 17:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1st Comment (negative) User:Striver (the author) has removed the "Contents" section with the beau coup links to their site, but the remaining links are still either to non-English pages, "404 Error" pages, or a demonstrably unreliable Alexa page ... as for the link they just offered, http://www.aboutus.org/Rafed.net, quite aside from it being in a non-English language, AboutUs.org ("a website about websites that you can edit") is also not a WP:RS since we have no idea who wrote it or if it is even true (whatever it says) ... to quote Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided:
12. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.
2nd Comment (negative) As of this date, the Alexa ranking for Rafed.net is 15,930 ... I don't know how it works, so does that mean that it is more popular or less popular than the ranking of 11,172 (as of six months ago) that appears in the article? The point is, the numbers do not match, which means it is not current or factual information about the subject that can be verified, so it should not even be stated. Alexa's Most Popular In Shia page lists Rafed Network for Cultural Development as Number 3 today, but where will it rank six months from now? Will it even be around? (How long has it even been around? The article sure doesn't tell me.)
(modified 10:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)) Alexa also says that of the 937 sites that link to Rafed.net, Wikipedia is at #2 with a ranking of 12 (Google is #1), so what does that tell us? It tells me that either
  1. the "External link" at the end of the Abd-Allah ibn Umar article ("Shia are the real ahl ul-Sunnah", which produces a 404 error, BTW) has been drawing a lot of traffic to their site, and Wikipedia is being used to inflate their search engine rankings, or else
  2. if Wikipedia listing has no effect on Alexa and Google rankings, and Wikipedia is also the 2nd highest source of traffic to their site, then those other 936 sites each must only have Very Few links
... and we already know that most of the English language links to their site (both here and on other sites) are either bogus or have evaporated (to give them the benefit of the doubt, with no implication that the links were bad faith additions) ... I'm sure it's a very popular Arabic language site, but that has absolutely nothing to do with meeting any of the Wikipedia:Notability (web) criteria, which is the only issue open to debate.
3rd Comment (neutral) I believe that Google and Alexa results have their place in conjunction with other verifiable evidence, but search engine results by themselves are not a reliable source because their information changes from day-to-day ... there is no way to set a "minimum threshold ranking" for popularity, (e.g., "one of the top five" or "in the top 5%"), nor is there a mechanism for deletion if the site falls below that threshold when it is their only claim to notability, so in this case it Just Doesn't Matter ... but the question is moot because WP:WEB does not say anything about considering results from search engine pages as one of the three well defined criteria for notability of websites. 72.75.72.174 (talk · contribs) 06:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • answer It looks like the site has had a considerable re-work on their site map structure, and that explains all the error links. I requested the AboutUs.org link to be translated in case it provided clues as to were to find coverage, it's not unusual to include such things. Ie, i did request it to be translated as a RS. And in either case, it is a RS about what they say of themselves. #3 of the Shi'a sites on Alexa tells a lot and it is a clear indication of notability, going above al-Islam.org (#1 according to Yahoo) and also above Sistanis page, both being very well known Shi'a sites. Only that is enough to establish notability. I mean, it goes even above Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting! We don't care were it is in six month, we are looking at it's notability now. Even if it goes to zero notability in six month, it will still be notable for historical purposes. The external link at Abd-Allah ibn Umar was put there as a link to the Shi'a view of the person. Is that supposed to work against this site's notability? Strange logic. Again, al-Islam.org a site that is #1 of the Shi'a sites according to Yahoo has an Alex ranking of about 45k, while this site has 15k, making it 3 times more popular and visited than al-Islam.org. Of course does the numbers of this site change, how is that a argument against its notability? In either case, all of this is really redundant, this should alone suffice. --Striver - talk 14:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Popularity is not notability. Notability is multiple, non-trivial, independent sources, and for this site we just don't have them. At the moment, the article can't contain anything verifiable except its page ranking at Alexa. Read through WP:N and WP:WEB and find a criterion it meets. Trebor 15:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alexa's coverage is both independent and non-trivial, right? --Striver - talk 17:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's highly trivial unless Alexa actually wrote a prose article with specific information about this site, not just the rating they provide for millions of sites. That's the whole need for reliable sources... if there's nothing we can say about the site beyond it's numbers that's backed up by reliable sources, there's really no article. --W.marsh 17:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Independent, yes, but I'd argue it's trivial. It's just a ranking in a list of sites on a particular subject - there's nothing there from which to construct an article. Trebor 17:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
here is it linked number 3. Here is the non-trivial coverage. Here, this small coverage explains that the site is from Qum, the center of Shi'a Islamic learning of the entire world. Guys, i would like to remind you that WP:WEB is only a guideline. WP:RS is already fullfiled by multiple sources that state that the site is a very high ranked Shi'a site. SO we know that the site is notable in the sense that it is highly popular. That is so far as the policies go. Now, considering that rafed.org has a arabic text would explain why it's hard to find long texts that cover the site in English, but that is only a guideline requirement. Ask yourself, does wikipedia benefit or not from having a stub about the third or so most visited Shi'a site, considering the large amounts of other sites on wikipedia?--Striver - talk 17:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Alexa coverage is still trivial, as is the other site - it's directory entry information. Trebor 17:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC) I quote WP:NOT: "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner". The only remotely encyclopaedic piece of information is that it is the 3rd most visited site on a particular subject according to Alexa (which isn't perfect by any means). It has stub tags, but there is no way it can be expanded without some independent coverage and, at present, it is little more than a directory entry. WP:WEB is only a guideline, but you still need a (very) compelling reason to ignore it, and popularity does not count as one. Trebor 18:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to http://www.alexa.com/browse?&CategoryID=180817 (which Striver provided) the website for Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting is the #1 "Most Popular In Shia" website, but (a) that article is not being judged based on WP:WEB criteria, and (b) it's popularity is so trivial that it's not even mentioned in the article, even though it is a verifiable fact ... that same Alexa page places The Aalulbayt (a.s.) Global Information Center (another article authored by Striver), a.k.a. al-shia.com) as #2, but again, that article doesn't have to meet WP:WEB because WP:CORP#Criteria for clubs, societies, and organizations is the most appropriate benchmark for the subject ... and since the author keeps mentioning Al-islam.org, I should point out that the article looks like it should be included in this AfD since it, too, has nothing but "popularity" by Alexa as its source of notability. --72.75.72.174 08:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I argue that this shows a flaw in the WP:WEB, and this should not surprice anybody considering that it is still in a guidline phase and has not been accepted as a policy. The bottom point is that wikipedia does not cover non-sense, small and trivial issues. We have a consensus here that this site is among the very top of the Shi'a sites regarding popularity. This is enough to establish that this is not a trivial site, no mater how lacking WP:WEB is. --Striver - talk 14:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability guidelines will almost certainly never be made policy as they're so heavily debated. Feel free to argue the case for popular sites with little coverage on WP:WEB if you think there's a flaw, but at present that's not the consensus decision. The site may not be "trivial" (although I'm not sure what you mean by that), but the independent coverage certainly is - that means a decent article can't be written. I'm afraid the bottom point is that Wikipedia does not cover things that have not already been covered elsewhere, regardless of their popularity. Trebor 14:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing that we should scrap WP:WEB, of course not. Rather, i'm saying that this seems to be a case that is somewhat of a exception. You see, a large Christian cite will have no problem finding third part full coverage in English, while an Islamic site will have more trouble doing the same. Specially if it is a Shi'a cite. This is most probably natural bias, i mean, is it really so surprising that we have trouble finding English coverage for a mainly Arabic Shi'a Islamic site? Nobody here have tried to make an Arabic search. And we do know from the statistic and numbers available that a Christian equivalent site would have plenty of third party coverage in English. So, is it good or bad for wikipedia to delete a decidedly notable Shi'a site, only due to a lack of English coverage? As for wrting an article, we do have some facts already that are attributed to third parties, such as the Saudi Arabia ban and the numbers. And adding self-evident facts need no third party sourcing, we don't need somebody to tell us that it has a multi language Qura'an and that it has severa language and sections. I agree that we wont be able to have a large and FA article, but we can most surely have a decent stub. --Striver - talk 15:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But a stub needs to have potential for expansion - you can't put all the available information in and say that it's a stub, as there's no way it can grow. You raise a good point with the foreign language coverage, it's possible there will be Arabic sources with more coverage of it. We could really do with someone who can speak the language to search. But I'm reluctant to include an article because it might have additional sources, and the onus to find them is on the people arguing to keep. And although you could add self-evident facts, as they have not been mentioned (to the best of our knowledge) in any outside sources, they aren't notable aspects of the site. We could add articles for any sites popular on Alexa, along with a basic précis of what's on them, but they would just be directory entries. Trebor 15:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Im not sure why this article is being deleted. But if it is popularity or significance that is being debated, I can note that the institute that runs the Rafed.net website is a large institute that has branches in 3 countries (Iran, Syria, Lebanon). (says it here in Arabic: [32]). The thing with Arabic websites is that they arent very google friendly. Try finding any website using google. Youll have to do a lot of diging. It seems google is set up in a way such that it doesnt have the search capabilities that it does in English or other languages. Maybe it's the way they put Meta tags on Arabic pages or something. But anyway, google isnt a good measure of things when dealing with Arabic websites. And even if you argued that it isn't popular enough, I'd argue that the website is a portal to a ton of information regarding the Shi'i faith. I'd definitely keep it.--Zereshk 16:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read the discussion - popularity isn't an issue for deletion, a lack of verifiable information is. r (or in other words, a lack of notability). I'd be happy to keep if sources can be found. Trebor 16:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zereshk just confirmed my suspicion, the problem is not that this site is not notable, the problem is that it is hard to establish this using English googel. It's popularity is not in question, and it's hard to argue that it is non-notable in the entire world, just because it has a lack of third party coverage on the english internet. Let me ask you, are you arguing that it is likely that the article has no third party Arabic coverage, considering its high popularity? --Striver - talk 17:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zereshk has missed the point entirely ... http://rafed.net/aalulbayt/m8a.html cannot be used as a citation because it is from the subject's website (1st party), and WP:WEB does not include "popularity" (as measured by Google or Alexa) as one of the criteria for "notability", so it's popularity as a Shi'a website (which has never been questioned or denied) is simply not a subject for debate ... to quote WP:WEB, The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. ... that is the only subject open to debate, and so far there are no citations to support such a claim, either in Arabic or English ... perhaps some Arabic speaker would like to add this article to the Arabic Wikipedia, but in its present state, it just does not meet the criteria for inclusion in the English Wikipedia. --72.75.72.174 18:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I honestly don't know if it will have third-party coverage - a lot of popular websites don't and thus can't have an article. However, that doesn't matter as the burden of evidence lies with the people arguing to keep - you can't keep on the basis that it might have sources. Trebor 19:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Google and Alexa citations are only allowed to remain in the article in support of the assertion that the subject website "is one of the most popular Shi'a websites", otherwise they would have been removed per WP:EL, which excludes search engine results pages, but as citations they are allowed as a WP:RS for that assertion only ... and without at least one of those citations, that assertion must be removed as WP:NOR. (Just as the assertion "The site is among several Shi'a sites blocked in Saudi Arabia" will have to be removed unless a replacement can be found for the citation that has evaporated.)
Here are Alexa and Google rankings that contradict the claim of "popularity":
  1. "Most Popular In Islam". Alexa Internet. Rafed.net comes in last in a list of 10 most popular websites
  2. "Google Directory - Society → Religion and Spirituality → Islam". Google. Rafed.net is not in the list of 25 top websites — click "Shi'a" (the citation provided by the article) and it's #9 in the list
That is why the article may assert that the subject website is a "popular Shi'a" rather than "popular Islamic" website ... it's popularity is in a narrowly defined field ... note that neither Alexa or Google have a category of "Sunni" wesites, although both have categories of "Sufism" and "Islamic Organizations" (subject website is not listed by either Web directory in the latter category, although its parent organization might be), but if any wesites in the Top (pick any number between 1 and 5) of any of these categories have articles in Wikipedia, then they either have some claim of notability other than "popularity" that satisfies WP:WEB, or else they should be AfD'd as well.
In summary, Alexa and Google may be used as citations for assertions of popularity, but popularity is not a factor in considering notability as defined by WP:WEB, which requires that something has been published about them besides the anonymous rankings made by some Internet bot that tabulates hits and links. --72.75.72.174 21:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dissagree, the "top ten list" is not page ranking based on Google hits, it is a third party assertion to it's notability. Sure, a pure google search gives 67 000 hits, and i can agree that is not a third party assertion, but when google adds it as number nine to its own list of most popular Shi'a sites: Society > Religion and Spirituality > Islam > Shia and Alexia makes it number three on its list, that is most certainly two third party assertion, that is a direct non-trivial statment from Google and Alexa and not something derived from their search engine or general statistics. --Striver - talk 09:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one denies that the Google Directory is the same kind of web directory as Yahoo! Directory, which has nothing whatsoever to do with Google search results. However, since Alexa Popularity, Google Directory, and Yahoo! Directory rankings only contain trivial information about the subject websites, and they do not meet the WP:V or WP:RS criteria to satisfy WP:NOTE, then even being first on the list for all three web directories would not matter (note that Playboy.com does not even mention their ranking on any web directories, even though it's relative popularity in its own special category is probably higher than the subject's) ... you are welcome to try to change WP:WEB to allow popularity rankings as a criteria instead of WP:V, but until the guideline is changed, the consensus opinion is that such rankings by themselves lack sufficient notability for inclusion of a website in Wikipedia ... besides saying, "this website gets more traffic than most others in the same category", they do not offer any information that is non-trivial, and it does not matter which ones or how many of them say it. --72.75.72.174 10:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that it is notable since its in a directory, im saying it's notable since it is among the top of notable directories, that's a huge difference. Google saying it's Number one = does not establish notability? I simply do not agree. I could agree that it does not bring in lots of other usefull info such as when was it created and what's the creator name and such, sure, but it most certainly establishes that the article is notable. Were going round in circles, if you want to argue that Google is not a RS for notability, you go ahead and believe so.--Striver - talk 10:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I believe does not matter ... Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources of dubious reliability (which is an official policy, not just a guideline) says:

In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight.

If you can demonstrate that Google Directory, Alexa Popularity, or Yahoo! Directory has any fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight, then I will no longer consider them dubious, which is rather the opposite of reliable, as sources. --72.75.72.174 11:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
lol! omg, i can't believe you actually wrote that! ... i rest my case. --Striver - talk 15:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 15:12Z

Hereford High School, Parkton

Hereford High School, Parkton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable per Wikipedia:Schools —Swpb talk contribs 18:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Wikipedia:Schools is just the latest proposal for discussion and is not a relevant standard for AfD discussions. This is a substantial high school that will have a significant community profile. It made widespread headlines when two alumni were killed in Iraq. Anyone reading about the soldiers might well look their school up here and expect to find it. TerriersFan 20:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - appears to be like any other high school, and nothing notable about it. Jayden54 20:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even though SCHOOLS is just a proposal, if we were to use WP:CORP, this would fail (and it would fail SCHOOL as well). SkierRMH 21:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not assert any notability. How many US soldiers have died in Iraq, 4,000 or so? It's sad to say (or even think about), but that's a lot of soldiers. That means that Having soldiers who went to the HS die in Iraq- which is the article's sole claim of significance for the school- that would put it in the same category of 3,000 or so American high schools. This is a sad claim, but it's by no means a unique claim. Of the five Google news hits for "Hereford High School", only three pertain to this particular school and all five are mere passing mentions. -- Kicking222 21:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just another non-notable school. TJ Spyke 23:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It seems to be just like a significant number of high schools and is notable, passing WP:SCHOOLS (and even WP:CORP, if it were a business) with flying colors, using multiple, non-trivial sources that are reliable and verifiable in compliance with WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N. I have no idea how anyone could fail to find hundreds of references via Google, including these that have already been added regarding a wheelchair athlete who fought to compete in track meets, garnering nationwide attention. But will anything satisfy the deletionists? Alansohn 23:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (preferred) or merge, even if this didn't meet WP:SCHOOL the course of action suggested by WP:SCHOOL would be to merge and/or redirect, not delete. This isn't a corporation article, so WP:CORP wouldn't apply here either. JYolkowski // talk 00:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Now, how does it meet WP:SCHOOL? Fledgeling 02:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't see anything notable in the sources offered. The records might be, but are not verified by independent sources -- they're from the school's site. The wheelchair racer might be, but does not attend this school -- the articles place her as a sophomore at Atholton High School, and Hereford is mentioned in passing as the team Atholton was competing against. The soldiers' school is mentioned in passing, and WP:NOT a memorial in any case. (I am unable to assess the Washington Post article, since it doesn't appear in the online archives.) Shimeru 02:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no valid deletion reason provided. It is sourced and verifiable information.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 09:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a high school, notable to the local community. bbx 10:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Washington Post article is referenced at Snopes' page on the Tomb of the Unknowns, so we know that it exists. The area newspaper has numerous articles of 500 - 1500 words on championship football teams, the cheerleaders going to the state championships, and other subjects. All high schools should be included in this project--this one seems to have enough to justify an article, or at least a section in the town's article. --Hjal 22:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please has multiple sources and is about a notable school people will search for this here Yuckfoo 08:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons established at User:Silensor/Schools, no valid reason for deletion under policy has been provided, the article demonstrates notability and exceeds any standards we have for verifiability through reliable sources. Silensor 06:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 15:13Z

Harvard Din & Tonics

Harvard Din & Tonics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not-notable collegiate a cappella group; fails to meet standards at WP:MUSIC. Dylan 19:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 15:14Z

Raagapella

Raagapella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not-notable collegiate a cappella group; fails to meet standards at WP:MUSIC. Dylan 19:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 15:16Z

Tonal Ecstasy

Tonal Ecstasy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not-notable collegiate a cappella group; fails to meet standards at WP:MUSIC. Dylan 19:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 15:16Z

Smiffenpoofs

Smiffenpoofs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not-notable collegiate a cappella group; fails to meet standards at WP:MUSIC. Dylan 19:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 15:17Z

Georgetown Phantoms

Georgetown Phantoms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not-notable collegiate a cappella group; fails to meet standards at WP:MUSIC. Dylan 19:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 15:18Z

Out of the Blue (Oxford University)

Out of the Blue (Oxford University) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not-notable collegiate a cappella group; fails to meet standards at WP:MUSIC. Dylan 19:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Here we go again... fails WP:MUSIC. SkierRMH 21:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment These exact words have been copied and pasted in a very short space of time onto the majority of A Cappella articles on Wikipedia. It seems unlikely that the writer has actually examined the article and the secondary evidence in any meaningful way. Teamvillage 21:50, 25 December 2006
  • Keep No it doesn't, clearly satisfies main criterion (National Newspaper reviews of shows, national TV appearences clearly proved), and 9 (Placed 2nd in the international finals of a major music competition.) Do we have to go through this every month? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.220.26 (talk • contribs) 07:08, December 24, 2006
    • Comment Only one actual review (The Scotsman; the Daily Telegraph was merely a passing mention), and the criterion requires multiple published works; also, although they have appeared on some TV shows, they have not been "subject of a half hour or longer broadcast" (i.e. might have been on for a few minutes, not clear in the article, but this was not a 30-minute show about the group). Dylan 19:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I would suggest the Telegraph article contains more than a passing reference, it clearly notes the author had seen the group, described them, and confirmed he had recommended them to his friends. It may be a short reference, but this in itself does not make it trivial. With or without it however, multiple sources now cited so Keep
      • Comment I'm sure I've seen some more reviews around the web. I'll have a quick look for some more! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.132.246.46 (talk) 01:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per 86.132.220.26. Edison 00:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Over here in the UK, they are by far the most notable college a cappella group in the country, which the competition results and reviews go a long way to proving. They may not be as notable in the US, but it's not their fault they are not based there! In any case they satisfy the criteria so should remain. Teamvillage 21:55, 25 December 2006
  • Keep — This is a successful group in the UK with competition success (in the US) and also several CDs. — Jonathan Bowen 14:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 15:19Z

Penn Masala

Penn Masala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not-notable collegiate a cappella group; fails to meet standards at WP:MUSIC. Dylan 19:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 15:20Z

Carrickcruppen

Carrickcruppen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I can't seem to find notability beyond the "official website". Lacks sources and cites. Navou talk 19:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, I was thinking about taking up Aer Lingus on one of their Fly-Drive deals. OTOH, as a 2nd division county level team, this team could not compete on the national level, correct? Here's an idea, change the Carrickcruppen article to reflect its status as a town, as a town, it won't be deleted.Tubezone 05:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can find on Carrickcruppen tomorrow (post-turkey). Don't know much about the place, except that it is near Camlough and Newry, which puts it about 200 miles away from me. I'll also have a look at WikiProject Gaelic Games. Flowerpotman 22:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• *Delete, but a weak delete. Unfortunately there isn't a Wikipedia article for the village of Carrickcruppen, as this article could be merged in as a section. I categorized it as a Armagh GAA club a few weeks ago in the hope someone a bit more knowledgeable on the subject might do a rewrite. (Note: Searching Google using Carrickcruppen, rather than St Patrick's Carrickcruppen will get a lot more relevant results.) Definitely not a hoax article, though; the club certainly exists.Flowerpotman 01:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Please note this decision takes into account the quality of the arguments presented. Tyrenius 00:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improvidence

Improvidence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable group of students. The notability claim is non-verifiable. 30 or more hours of non-stop improvisational theatre is impressive, but how can we verify through independent sources that it happened, the circumstances of the record, how can we have independent confirmation that it is indeed a world record? IMHO, articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources (a message board, the only source, is rather unreliable), and exceptional claims require exceptional sources... Edcolins 19:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete as nn-bio. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Reynolds

Bryan Reynolds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I prod-ed this article, with the summary: "Article is obvious vanity (or hagiography), books have seven-figure Amazon sales ranks, no evidence of passing the professor test". Prod was disputed: see comments here. I let the matter rest at the time. A few days ago, an anon added an {advert} tag here which was reverted here. I restored the tag, which was removed with the comments made here. The page is nonetheless clearly promotional in tone. The books mentioned have 7-figure Amazon ranks (see here here) but one is currently at 176,000 (see here) so on the face of it the subject fails the author test. The page shows no evidence of passing the professor test. A matter for a community decision, I think, but in my opinion delete as a nn-bio. (Note, FWIW, that the creator, User:Gregorthebug is a single purpose account. See here.) AndyJones 20:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wiki Contributors,

Thank you for the enormously productive responses to our entry on Reynolds. We did not understand what the problems were with the entry, and no one was spelling them out for us. However, the many responses here made it very clear, and very clear what we needed to do to revise -- really rewrite -- the entry. This is what we have done:

1. In response to the criticism that the entry was way too long and like a book review, we have cut down the descriptions of Reynolds’ work to less than half -- leaving just enough to summarize the basic ideas. I think we just got too attached to our write-ups and could not see how they were overkill.

2. We have removed all qualitative and evaluative language from our descriptions -- to ensure WP:NPOV.

3. We have provided sources to back everything up, to demonstrate WP:PROF.

4. We have included quotations, both positive and negative, from reviews of Reynolds’ work, as can be seen in the entries of other scholars.

5. We have included a section listing recent honours Reynolds received.

6. Further to WP:PROF, note that: 1) Reynolds is seen as an expert in his field, 2) by independent academics in the field; 3) his work is well-known; 4) his work is widely cited, 5) Reynolds has come up with a new concept -- a critical theory and methodology: “transversal poetics,” and 6) has received two notable awards/honours for his work. From this it is clear that Reynolds passes every category of the WP:PROF and not just one as required: “If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are definitely notable.”

7. We don’t understand the issue with regard to Amazon’s record of book sales. Reynolds numbers are similar to those of most academics. Most sales of books by academics are to libraries.

We hope that these improvements are enough to keep the entry. Please let us know if we need to do more. For sure, the entry is only improving. Thank you Gregorthebug 19:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. To Gregorthebug, if this article is going to have any chance of surviving, all the haigiography has to go, all the reviews, all the incomprehensible gibberish that currently summarises his books. A brief summary of his qualifications and publications, with one paragraph per book that the lay reader can understand, might be sufficient. As it stands, it's irretrievable. Tevildo 22:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Tevildo, thank you for the constructive criticism you have provided regarding how the entry could be changed productively so as to have it benefit the wikicommunity as a whole. So far, I have removed one of the pictures of Reynolds, and also per your suggestion have removed all the reviews. I would only like to note that the reviews section was added during our last change (Dec 24 2006) so as to attempt to improve upon the suggestions made by Wafulz and SkierRMH that the article was unverifiable and massively non-sourced. Nevertheless, the reviews section is now deleted, and moved to the external links sections in the case that other users would appreciate double-checking the legitimacy and sources of Reynolds' books.

Also, I plan to make changes to the summaries of his books. Their length will be shortened, and their language made more accessible to the wikicommunity as a whole. Despite appearances, I thought the language appropriately reflected the academic community in which Reynolds' work is engaged with, but upon further reflection you have made clear how the language could be improved so as to benefit all readers of this entry.

Hopefully our good faith effort to improve this article will generate more positive criticism and suggestions on how to make this a valuable wikientry for the wikicommunity. Sincerely, Gregorthebug 20:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If this is a page that needs work, then it would be better to just edit it or mark it for cleanup, along with many pages on Wikipedia that are in the improvement process. Everybody should feel comfortable editing it, as this is a public work. As for notability, this seems somewhat tricky to gauge to me. I should disclose that I do know some of Reynolds' students, which is why I've been following this page. However, I don't have any personal interest in keeping this page or not. Gccwang 22:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep. A UCI professor with an extensive track record is notable. Amazon rank is a wrongheaded measure for specialized academic publications. The article does look like hagiography, but that is an argument for cleaning, not for deletion. I have no dog in this fight, and I don't admire the sort of stuff Mr Reynolds does, but I think he's clearly a valid subject for an encyclopedia article.--OinkOink 23:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • To all those concerned,

Please note that book summaries have been reduced to one paragraph in length, and their language has, hopefully, been ameliorated in response to the concerns raised above. We hope that these changes have gone far in eliminating the hagiographic content of the entry, so that the entry, as a number of wikiusers have noted above, can now be considered for cleaning and editting, and not deletion. (also, we're responsible for making the last set of changes on 02:36, 27 December 2006, but forgot to sign in) Gregorthebug 02:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly richly sourced. Perhaps that's the problem: I agree it may still need to be edited down a little. However, without understanding (or necessarily caring) about what this chap is on about, he is clearly making his own distinctive contributions to critical theory and to theatre, and has garnered recognition within academia, and merits retention, in my view. Shawn in Montreal 02:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Would an encyclopedia say "Transversal theory is, in these early works, delineated through an analysis of its manifestation in the emergent theatrical phenomena of early modern English culture"? This is an admirable degree of precision for a scholarly journal--where the audience is already specifically familiar with the source texts--but it is nigh-unparseable to the layman. 71.57.40.110 00:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
agreed, but that's not at issue here. This isn't about whether the article needs to be edited and improved, which as you point out, it does -- as does most of the stuff on WP. This is about whether to delete entirely.Shawn in Montreal 00:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The popularity of his books by the general population is of little relevance; he is an academic, not a pop science writer. Given the number of references, he seems to be fairly well-known in certain circles. Owen 09:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 15:21Z

Sudellside Community Association

Sudellside Community Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

local community group Skysmith 20:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 15:20Z

Tagsonomy

Tagsonomy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Neologism for tag manipulation or some such. I found one reliable source[33] on it (it's the same as the one in the article), but it doesn't actually say anything about Tagsonomy- in nine pages, it mentions it once under "keywords", so there's no substantial content about the term itself. Not verifiable. Maybe a redirect somewhere would be better? Wafulz 20:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 15:21Z

Twist my ballbag one more time

Twist my ballbag one more time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A non-notable local band, fails WP:MUSIC. "very popular and influential" sounds like an assertion of notability, hence no CSD. Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as WP:CSD G1 and WP:CSD A7. alphachimp. 06:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Miles

Christian Miles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non-notable individual, looks like a spoof complete with comedy photo. No reliable sources (fails WP:V) - the links which are supplied appear to belong to different people. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 15:23Z

Libertyville High School Football

Libertyville High School Football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Poorly written and structured page for an Insignificant high school football team. ShadowJester07 20:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because this team appears to have a history and is a very important part in this town and High School. -- Libertyville 16:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Three years and no sources does not give an organization a "history". While the information may be relatively substantial, it doesn't really deserve its own article. You can follow the advice of others, and move the information to Libertyville H.S' article. ;) --ShadowJester07 17:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 15:23Z

Standing Ovation

Standing Ovation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The article is about an album that is "rumored" to be released in the future. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Note also that a Google Search for "Standing Ovation" eminem produces few meaningful results. Heimstern Läufer 21:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy G10 by Canadian Bacon. Tevildo 22:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burke germs

Burke germs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Bump from speedy, because it doesn't fall under one. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. ---J.S (T/C) 20:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olen Steinhauer

Olen Steinhauer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

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

Comment WP:BK says Publisher's Weekly and Library Journal are trivial reviews, and don't count for establishing notability of books. However, if you look him up on Amazon, he does have other reviews.. but OTOH, his best seller has an Amazon rank of 366,080, you can buy used copies for three bucks. Not exactly Tom Clancy territory. BTW, a book is a product, articles solely put up to promote a book or author are spam, spam isn't restricted to corporations. No problem putting him back in later if he establishes more notability, that's happened before. Neither Amazon nor the WP article mention which "five awards" his novel was nominated for. Tubezone 04:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point about Publisher's Weekly and Library Journal, thanks for that. I disagree with you that an article about a published author constitutes spam, though. I'm still for keeping it.Shawn in Montreal 05:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite keep - has books from a large commercial publisher. Rightly or wrongly, we count an author as notable if he or she has even a single book that has sold 5000 copies. Any book published anywhere by HarperCollins will easily meet that test. Personally, I think the test may be too easy, but that's a debate for another forum and lots of much more crufty stuff gets into Wikipedia. Metamagician3000 02:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nominated for an Edgar Award[34] (by itself short of notability), nommed for an Ellis Peters Dagger[35], RS reviews from Guardian, NYT, Edinburgh Review. Additionally author is a former Fulbright Scholar. --Dhartung | Talk 03:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Metamagician3000, that's not the criteria given in WP:BK.
      This is an article about an author not about a book - obviously we have to be tougher about what individual books get articles. If you are saying that the policy on authors has tightened up recently without my becoming aware of it, that's a different matter. I'm relying on my memory of what it used to be, so I'm happy to be corrected if something has changed. Metamagician3000 03:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Interesting. I've now checked: the policy always used to say: "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more." That wording seems to have been deleted recently, and replaced by ""Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." I can't quickly see what the circumstances were. This is surprising because such a change could render a lot of people with articles retrospectively non-notable. I don't necessarily disagree with the change, actually, despite that. Oh well ... Multiple independent reviews is not that much harder - any book published by HarperCollins will almost certainly meet it. Metamagician3000 03:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak KeepThe Fulbright award doesn't mean anything much in Wikipedia terms, but judging by website, this author seems to have picked sufficient positive critical attention in mainstream media Bwithh 03:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't agree with Bwithh about the Fulbright award: per guidelines "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." --Kevin Murray 08:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Fulbright award is unlikely to be encyclopedically notable, and it is not at all clear that it was awarded for his work as an author. His website simply describes it as a Fulbright grant for a year abroad[36]. This means it was probably a Fulbright student or scholar grant for study abroad of which there are 1,200+ US citizen awardees every year[37]. There are thousands and thousands of "awards" and "prizes" and "scholarships" and "fellowships" and contest honours etc. which are not encyclopedically notable. Bwithh 09:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keepThought the Fulbright alone does not make someone notable--it might have been to a graduate student who did no further work-- the Fulbright along with contributions in one's field does serve as a criterion of notability. I would not be surprised if we tracked them that more than half were in WP already or obviously ought to be. There are not thousands of awards of such prominence. Cf. Fulbright awardDGG 09:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 15:25Z

Clearmirror

Clearmirror (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Reads like an ad Navou talk 21:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 15:25Z

Can't Stop, Gotta Date With Hate

Can't Stop, Gotta Date With Hate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Nowhere on the internet confirms this as the next Lostprophets single, and there is very little information to speak of even if it is (which it almost certainly isn't). U-Mos 21:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Kchase T 01:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Smith (electronic sports player)

Chris Smith (electronic sports player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

As per a previous AfD, I am resubmitting this. This article fails WP:BIO and is related to Major League Gaming. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 21:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skier: there have been notable professional gamers, including some with product lines now named after them that have claimed over a million dollars in combined prizes (Fatal1ty comes to mind), but those cases are few and far far between. There are *maybe* at the outside a dozen notable pro gamers out there... Wintermut3 06:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete no independent verification of notability from reputable sources.-- danntm T C 15:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This gamer has been featured the most on USA Network out of any MLG gamer. MLG is a very significant league - it offers the most prize money for its permanant games and has broadcasted shows on USA Network featuring every single player and team on the list. Most if not all players have had articles written about them in their local newspaper. EGM magazine - the most popular gaming magazine (you can get it in any of your local pharmacy stores) regularly feature MLG and its best teams and players. Wall Street Journal published an article about the first contract deal MLG offered to its top gamers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrashju (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Subject has never appeared in any major international competition, nor has any notable achievements and therefore fails WP:BIO. For clarification regarding e-Sports, view e-Sports and 2006 e-Sports World Champions -- DJiTH 22:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Where does it say you have to be international?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrashju (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. --Wizardman 22:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. alphachimp. 18:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Lussier

Scott Lussier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

As per a previous AfD, I am resubmitting this. This article fails WP:BIO and is related to Major League Gaming. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 21:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As per nom.--Bryson 21:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO - and how can playing an electronic game gain one notariety? At all? SkierRMH 21:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 23:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Scott Lussier has been featured on MLG's Pro Circuit on USA Network. MLG is a very significant league - it offers the most prize money for its permanant games and has broadcasted shows on USA Network featuring every single player and team on the list. Most if not all players have had articles written about them in their local newspaper. EGM magazine - the most popular gaming magazine (you can get it in any of your local pharmacy stores) regularly feature MLG and its best teams and players. Wall Street Journal published an article about the first contract deal MLG offered to its top gamers.
  • Delete Subject has never appeared in any major international competition, nor has any notable achievements and therefore fails WP:BIO. For clarification regarding e-Sports, view e-Sports and 2006 e-Sports World Champions -- DJiTH 22:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. --Ezeu 23:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Hewitt

Eric Hewitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

As per a previous AfD, I am resubmitting this. This article fails WP:BIO and is related to Major League Gaming. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 21:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:BIO - and how can playing an electronic game gain one notariety? At all? SkierRMH 21:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per above. --Bryson 21:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Naconkantari 22:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I thought Santa brought me the end of this nonsense for Christmas, but I guess not. One, Eric Hewitt is a member of Carbon, an extremely notable and #1 ranked team, one of the teams on TV every Saturday, with a lot of media coverage, and is notable just in that. But just in case that doesn't do it, here's some links:

    Link talking about Carbon's contract [38], interview with him [39], Discussion of pro gaming in traditional news [40], two articles about the World Series of Video Games which mention/quote him [41] and [42]

    I truly hope this the last one of these I have to do for now, but it's probably not. I'm just glad I caught these before all these articles disappeared off the face of Wikipedia due to people's personal bias against the concept of pro gaming as a sport. J0lt C0la 00:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — media coverage is too trivial, so WP:BIO is not passed. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 06:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Scott Lussier has been featured on MLG's Pro Circuit on USA Network. MLG is a very significant league - it offers the most prize money for its permanant games and has broadcasted shows on USA Network featuring every single player and team on the list. Most if not all players have had articles written about them in their local newspaper. EGM magazine - the most popular gaming magazine (you can get it in any of your local pharmacy stores) regularly feature MLG and its best teams and players. Wall Street Journal published an article about the first contract deal MLG offered to its top gamers.
  • Delete Subject has never appeared in any major international competition, nor has any notable achievements and therefore fails WP:BIO. For clarification regarding e-Sports, view e-Sports and 2006 e-Sports World Champions -- DJiTH 22:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your work on e-sports in general, but I am seeing a major anti-MLG bias in all your 'delete' votes. I feel that I have gone above and beyond in proving notability in all these AfD's, and that you are against the articles merely because they are members of MLG rather than some other league. Competition is not required to be international under notability guidelines, merely national. These articles have more than enough sources to become good, useful articles, and isn't that what this is (or should be) all about? J0lt C0la 02:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. alphachimp. 18:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Jackson (electronic sports player)

Ben Jackson (electronic sports player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

As per a previous AfD, I am resubmitting this. This article fails WP:BIO and is related to Major League Gaming. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 21:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep.--Kchase T 01:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Walsh

Dave Walsh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

As per a previous AfD, I am resubmitting this. This article fails WP:BIO and is related to Major League Gaming. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 21:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but would ask that some of the jargon (i.e. 4v4 or 1v1) be explained - as someone with no knowledge of the internal lingo, I don't know what those things mean (or create internal links for explanations). It would also be helpful if the citations that J0lt C0la mentions below were included in the article as well :) SkierRMH 05:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has the same level of notability as the Ogre Twins (because they're on the same teams), who I've already proven to be notable, (--you told me someone else did it---and on the original AfD, his name was struck out and put next to it was "Determined that this article is note-worthy. Remvoing from AfD.") but here we go. Here's a newspaper article about him. [46] Here's a four page interview on a popular gaming site if you'd like to add more personal info about him. [47] Here's another interview on GotFrag: [48] He took 3rd place in the 2005 World Cyber Games [49] He used to be on the Halo team for Team 3D, and now he's on arguably the most famous Halo 2 team, Final Boss. He clearly meets notability guidelines, whether you like the idea of gaming making someone famous or not. And as for the comment "and how can playing an electronic game gain one notariety (sic)?" one might have felt the same way 10 years ago about poker, but now everyone knows who Chris Moneymaker is. J0lt C0la 00:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, no not everyone knows who Chris Moneymaker is, I've never heard of him. Asked 3 co-workers who were passing by, none of them have heard of him either. SkierRMH 05:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep per J0lt. He's the captain of the most notable team in electronic sports, and multiple well-known sources have talked about him / interviewed him. Plus, how can you delete Walshy?! -- Kicking222 01:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep This may be a new area of notability. I've tried to clean it up a little by replacing an unsourced claim with a sourced claim that shows some amount of notability. Have to see if professional gaming stays viable. Citicat 05:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - Should do a list of people under Electronic sports —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tonytypoon (talk • contribs) 20:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I appreciate your work on e-sports in general, but I am seeing a major anti-MLG bias in all your 'delete' votes. I feel that I have gone above and beyond in proving notability in all these AfD's, and that you are against the articles merely because they are members of MLG rather than some other league. J0lt C0la 00:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khaleel Mohammed

Khaleel Mohammed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

this guy is just a professor, there really are lots of professors. Not only is no mention of why he is notable. It really appears he is not notable. Nlsanand 21:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:PROF & WP:BIO SkierRMH 22:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT Delete as Prof. Mohammed is primarily notable with respect to his thesis concerning support for the establishment of Israel, which is a controversial position for a muslim scholar (link). A simple Google search for him makes it clear that he is a well-regarded and well-travelled speaker, especially as to the controversial subject of Israel/Palestine. I would add that information to article but I do not possess enough information or knowledge on that exact subject to add the appropriate content; perhaps a current student or graduate assistant could do so? It makes me wonder if the inclusion of this article into AFD has more to do with him being a professor at San Diego State University (a California State University campus rather than a University of California campus) and not so much as being perceived as non-notable; perhaps if he was a professor elsewhere this article wouldn't have been identified as AFD. Unfortunately, if the majority consider him "simply a professor at a mid-tier school" then we had better delete this article. Streltzer 22:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No assertion in the nomination of WHY he fails WP:BIO. The professor test while not policy seems to be met here. Lots of varied mentions on the net - seems to be notable and have reliable sources available. - Peripitus (Talk) 23:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The second half of the introductory paragraph is copied from the subject's web page at http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~khaleel/ ... since there are no references or citations that support any of the criteria in WP:PROF, I don't see how you can say it "seems to be met here." Show me just one link in the article to a reputable source that satisfies just one of them! The "assertion" that it fails is self-evident and implicit in the fact that it does not satisfy any of the criteria ... and the burden of proof that it satisfies the criteria lies with the supporters, not the detractors ... a personal web page and a bio from the "Carol Fass Publicity & Public Relations" website do not even come close, since both are explicitly forbidden reference sources for notability ... that link for http://www.cias.sdsu.edu/ is useless even as proof that he is "a core faculty member of SDSU's Center for Islamic and Arabic Studies" because his name is not mentioned on the linked page, or any page to which it is linked. --Dennette 01:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  05:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, can't see why he fails the Prof test Alf photoman 14:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Satisfies WP:PROF. When nomination says "just a professor" it looks like just a case of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT.Edison 01:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you explain to me (possibly insert in the article) how he meets the professor test? Prof test means you have to be more than a university professor. If this guy meets the test, can I start writing articles on all my uni professors. I may be willing to accept that he is well known, however, I really haven't seen it in this article. Every professor has had work submitted. What particularly worries me is if this article exists alone because of his support of the State of Israel. Having a controversial view alone, does not warrant having your own article. Should we have articles about every Jewish professor who has come to the conclusion that Israel is actually the modern day South Africa? I bet there's a lot more of those. No, they have to be noteworthy because of what they have done with that view (ie many works, and notoriety in a more general sector). Mohammed appears not to have done it. Also, I dont want to judge San Diego State, however I think the academic ranking and population of the school is somewhat important in determining notability. Maybe, I'm wrong. Nlsanand 04:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment many professors have published their dissertation and 2 or 3 more articles in refereed journals, then avioded any more such effort, and have had no influence or note outside the classroom or departmental committees. Edison 19:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:PROF. No mention in the article of why this particular academic is notable in his field. If such is added to the article, and referenced, then I change my !vote. -- Samir धर्म 19:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Do not look notable to me and fails WP:PROF. --- ALM 14:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Samir ... this is just an average academic who has published one paper a year since 1996 ... while the subject may have written many articles, there has been nothing written about the subject that establishes their notability in their field. According to Wiki policy, it is the responsibility of the supporters to show that the subject satisfies the criteria (in this case WP:PROF or WP:BIO), and I cannot find any citations in the article to satisfy either of them. It's not a question of how much they have published ... "notability" is a measure of how much has been published about them, and that is the evidence which the supporters have failed to provide ... none of the "Keep" votes (including Edison) has offered any indication in the article of how the subject satisfies the criteria, whereas the "Delete" votes only need to say, "I don't see anything that satisfies the criteria". --Dennette 16:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added a significant amount of biographical and "notable" information to the article. I hope to add more. Since the majority of those who are in favor of deletion are more active with the Muslim Scholars articles that I am, is there anything that you might add to help with this article? Streltzer 00:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His public advocacy work and the fact that he has been engaged as a consultant to goverments (including here in Quebec) suggest, to me, that he has a notability beyond academia. Shawn in Montreal 18:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What "public advocacy work"? What "consultant to governments"? There is nothing in the article about either of those claims, and unless you can provide some reliable source citations, we only have your word that the statements are true, which makes such claims just unverified original research that cannot be included in the article ... lack of WP:RS citations is what this AfD is about ... unless you can show citations for those claims, they are just rumors, and thus invalidate your "Keep" vote. --Dennette 01:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any unverified statements can be tagged as such. You're right, they should be backed with citations. The article needs to be improved, as do many. But my vote remains the same, whether or not you claim it is invalid.Shawn in Montreal 01:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just to clear up any possible misunderstanding: I mentioned advocacy and government consultancy because they are mentioned in the article, however incompletely. It's not a question of taking "my word" -- I know nothing about this individual.Shawn in Montreal 01:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. alphachimp. 18:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Jenkins

Brandon Jenkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

As per a previous AfD, I am resubmitting this. This article fails WP:BIO and is related to Major League Gaming. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 21:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Ryan (electronic sports player)

Dan Ryan (electronic sports player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

As per a previous AfD, I am resubmitting this. This article fails WP:BIO and is related to Major League Gaming. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 21:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete fails WP:BIO - all of these need to disappear. SkierRMH,22:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)/[reply]

Keep with the same request as above - please remove some of the jargon and include the massive amount of research that J0lt C0la has included below into the article - would give someone not familiar with this realm some idea of the notariety thereof. SkierRMH 05:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Same argument as on his brother's page.

    Do we have to go through this again? I already proved both Tom and Dan Ryan's notability in the last AfD, at the end of the last AfD, it said next to both of their names "Determined that this article is note-worthy. Remvoing from AfD." If you want to go on an anti-MLG crusade, that is your right, but please don't use Wikipedia to do it. I'll give you a cut-and-paste of my original arguments. Whether or not you like it, they meet notability.

    Argument #1 "Keep (Tom and) Dan Ryan. They have plenty of sources, such as a full front page section B article in a large paper, The Columbus Dispatch (unfortunately, you must have a subscription to read the archives). They won the 2005 World Cyber Games in Halo 2, which according to Wikipedia, is "the largest gaming festival celebrated once a year". A few articles related to that: [51] and they are even mentioned in the BBC News article on the festival, which tries to be mostly focused on the UK participants [52] Here's a nicely done interview on a large gaming website, GotFrag, if you'd like to add more than "just their MLG standings" [53] The argument is that Team 3D is notable, they are former members of Team 3D's Halo 2 team. They appear on the MTV True Life: I'm a Professional Gamer as the people to beat that T-Squared just can't defeat. I may be wrong, but I believe that they have been discussed on the gaming channel G4 multiple times. They are #1 and #2 in the MLG league, which I do not believe is non-notable or minor (what other leagues have a TV spot on USA, a channel carried in most homes across the country?) According to Wikipedia notability standards, they belong. They: "are competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable" "have a large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following" I could add more sources, more, better arguments, but I hope that will suffice, as I don't want to spend way more time on this than necessary. If it doesn't I will keep adding, keep sourcing, I will locate better sources (there are just the first few I found). I will even personally re-write anything that has to be changed or added if necessary. Thank you!"

    Argument #2 (was against someone's comment): "Show me some proof that the "global e-sports circut" considers MLG non-notable, for I've never heard of this. This just sounds like your opinion, which group would you rather push? Even if MLG's "PR machine" is "trying to re-invent history" , they're succeeding, because many people, even non-gamers and casual gamers have heard of MLG, and its members get widespread media attention, making them notable by Wikipedia's standards, which is all that matters. This AfD debate is not about whether you like MLG and their set-ups and gametypes or whether or not they're overshadowing "better" leagues, but whether or not they meet Wikipedia standards to deserve an article, which they clearly do."

    Here's to not having to do this a third time! J0lt C0la 23:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did not know that, though all of my other arguments still apply. J0lt C0la 00:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_23&oldid=96167194"