Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 21

< July 20	July 22 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aset Ka

No original Research. Wikipedia was used to be a starting point of an fake organization that claims to exist more than 7000 years ago. there were no proofs found that they exist that long. the only registers I and other researchers could found about them were pretty recent Darkoex 16:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced nonsense. Supposedly based on the concept of ka ("vital energy") - looks more like ka ka ("crap"). Clarityfiend 17:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—almost completely unreferenced, riddled through with original research and POV writing. If this were a legitimate organization, it'd need a complete rewrite; as it is, it seems non-notable enough that it can be deleted without a second thought. Switchercat ^talk_cont 18:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a hoax, and not even that good of a hoax. Every source I have found on Aset Ka cross references each other in a way that looks legitimate until you see that it's nothing but a house of cards - each source relying on each other for notability except that none of them provide any true references. There is not a single source on the organization older than three years ago which as far as I'm concerned put this clearly in opposition of WP:NOT#OR. Trusilver 20:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided – What is a supersecret society doing publishing itself – if it exists – it's a Catch 22 type situation. I can't bring myself to use the D-word because of a crazy curiosity. Julia Rossi 07:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 02:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doom 2D

Non-notable homebrew game ~ JohnnyMrNinja _{talk} 16:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marašmusïne_Talk 17:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No assertion of notability Rackabello 20:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: CSD:A7 (speedy deletion due to lack of notability of person/group/web-site) does not apply to software products. I removed the speedy notice; let's let this AfD run to completion to decide. Owen× ☎ 20:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fan game. Andre (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd have left the speedy notice. Someguy1221 22:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to the Doom Wiki, I would presume it would deserve an article there.--JForget 22:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's there already (although sans pictures) Marašmusïne_Talk 07:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brassy's Men

Fails WP:N due to lack of relevant independent coverage. PROD contested by User:The Bearded One with request to list it on AfD. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 16:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability established and I cant find any either Corpx 21:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:V, no assertion of notability. -- MarcoTolo 22:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default is to keep. Carlossuarez46 18:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XGameStation

Non-notable and unreferenced homebrew software ~ JohnnyMrNinja _{talk} 16:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marašmusïne_Talk 17:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Rackabello 20:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A quick google search reveals pages and pages of articles; Dreamstation.cc, geek.com, Megagames.com, and so on. Nominator is correct in that this article is unreferenced - I'll help clean it up once this AfD is over. Marašmusïne_Talk 07:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fin ©™ 10:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No idea why this article is considered 'Non encyclopedic'. There are tens of thousands articles with more 'obscure' subjects than this. More references could easily be provided. Also JohnnyMrNinja is completely off the mark, this subject has nothing to do about "Non-notable and unreferenced homebrew software", the XGameStation is a Device not just software, and it is quite unique in its sort. Mahjongg 10:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few references to the article. Mahjongg 15:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per added references. Axem Titanium 02:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mahj. Pats Sox Princess 02:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, due to the establishment of notability by credible CVG related sources. bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 12:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 02:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elementality Vol. Two

No definition/context (not a single complete sentence), no references, unclear notability. High on a tree 16:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a promotional short for a skateboard manufacturer. Nothing in the way of notable content, save for the skaters involved. Caknuck 16:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability established Corpx 21:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. -- MarcoTolo 23:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 possible plagairism, redirect to Politics of Kosovo. Until (1 == 2) 05:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Government of Kosovo

The article is just a pasted list of the competencies of the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government set up by the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo. The topic is dealt with in a far more encyclopaedic manner in the article on the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government. We would not want to merge this article into that one as a there is an appropriate link in that article to the source of this copy-and-pasted information. The title of the article is also potentially misleading and/or POV. DSuser 16:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a good article, but it is a standard one to have for government entities (e.g. Government of the United States, Government of San Marino). Perhaps a disambiguation to cover pre-"provisional" governments when it was a province, and the current one, and perhaps an eventual autonomous/independent one? At worst, a redirect to the Provisional article. (I should note that both of the ones I pointed to are in fact redirects. Here's one that isn't: Government of Tasmania.) --Dhartung | Talk 19:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, cleanup/expand yes, delete no.71.142.91.34 00:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While notable, I think it'd be best to start over. This is just a copy/paste of that document, which is probably not copyrighted Corpx 21:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviosuly, that looks to have been plagiarism from a site. It should only be used in Politics of Kosovo right via a weblink--JForget 22:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to WikiSource, if this is verbatim. 70.55.91.131 08:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Politics of Kosovo or PISG article, per Dhartung. Wl219 11:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is My Element

No definition/context (not a single complete sentence), no references, unclear notability. High on a tree 15:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a promotional short for a skateboard manufacturer. Nothing in the way of notable content, save for the skaters involved. Caknuck 16:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete information-free article about, I think, a promo video. —Travis ^talk 22:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails basic WP:N level. -- MarcoTolo 23:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - more cruft is being added --NeilN 17:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails Wikipedia:Notability and does not contain any real content. --Credema 18:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 09:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Element audio visual

No definition/context (not a single complete sentence), no references, unclear notability. High on a tree 15:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I dont know what this is. The link on that page doesn't explain what this is either Corpx 21:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - complete lack of context (one could argue that it meets CSD G1 - but probably not <sigh>). It took me several minutes of searching to determine - I think - that this is about a series of semi-pro skating videos (possibly relevant link). No assertion of notability, no WP:RS references. -- MarcoTolo 23:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward McSweegan

Notability is not conclusively proven. Writing several books and journal pieces are not enough to satisfy notability guidelines. Also, its subject is asking for deletion. — Shinhan < talk > 15:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom and subject. This is a potential libel and slander problem. Bearian 16:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every article is a "potential libel and slander [sic] problem" (emphasis added). That doesn't mean they should be deleted. Rather, that means that we as editors must keep an eye on our articles and ensure they do not contain libelous statements. --ElKevbo 17:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Libel and slander is the name of the article and the collection of torts. I would change my vote to weak delete, based on significant improvement to the article, but also comments (below) allegedly by the subject. Bearian 23:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I would think that if the original version were oversighted, the libel issue would be eliminated. Blueboy 96 00:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the subject edited the "bad" version in question himself and made no effort to remove negative material, instead choosing to employ point-by-point rebuttal to each point he disagreed with, very messy by WP standards. This is in versions now removed by oversight. Studerby 20:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm in the midst of a major rewrite of this article, per verifiable information from highly reliable sources (CBS News, WaPo). Please give it a chance ... Blueboy 96 16:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (pending sourcing from Blueboy96) I find it absurd that the subject would think to call us "vandals" when his first contribution here was to POV-push and delete cited material from reputable sources. All that aside, I don't think the subject is sufficiently notable for inclusion, regardless of their desire to have a bio or here or not. Caknuck 16:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the original version was heavily plagiarized. Blueboy 96 17:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to Emcsweegan's edits to Lyme disease from last year. Regardless of the user's prior activity, Blueboy96's version satisfies WP:N and WP:V, so my !vote is now Keep Caknuck 01:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per CSD A7 and WP:BLP --Edokter (Talk) 16:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That there was an entire CBS Evening News article solely focused on this individual contradicts your assertion of CSD A7. I have no comment on the alleged BLP issues. --ElKevbo 16:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's fixed ... to my mind, the fact that he was a program officer at the NIH is enough to be notable. Keep--but give a stern warning to Freyfaxi for potentially causing legal problems for Wikipedia. Blueboy 96 16:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the newest version cites multiple (well, just two...but that's multiple!) excellent sources asserting and supporting the notability of the subject. I would be amenable to discussing merging this article in to the NIH article but that is a separate discussion and an editorial decision. --ElKevbo 17:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Current version appears adequately sourced, and the news coverage supports notability. Espresso Addict 17:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject is notable; besides the references now in the article, the subject keeps injecting himself publicly into significant public health controversies, such as Lyme disease and more recently morgellons, see for example Pathogens & People: Internet helps spread delusion that Morgellons a disease which was published this month. The guy's happy to publicly pronounce on other people and gets bent when people who cite reliable sources write about him. (He did have a justifiable complaint with the original version of the article though.) He pops up all over on Google; while much of it is nasty "echo chamber" stuff written by folks he's annoyed, he's not exactly an anonymous scientist. Studerby 17:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Despite the fact that the article has been substantially cleaned up, McSweegan is still ranting about it not being "approved" by him and that it was "lifted" from certain sources without permission. I'm starting to wonder how much longer we can assume good faith. Blueboy 96 18:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 17:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, individual is clearly notable as a search of Google News Archive, Google Books and Google Scholar indicate. He has held a significant government post in his field (more than one, actually) and has been covered in depth for his views. I'd love to make this go away by deleting the article but unless OFFICE comes up with a rationale for that I have to stay with WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 19:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope Office doesn't delete it just because he doesn't want it there. If that were to happen, it would set a very bad precedent for Wikipedia. Blueboy 96 19:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete. Doesn't it matter what I think about being subjected to a Wiki entry for reasons unknown, by persons unknown? How can deleting something intended to defame and harass someone be a bad precdent? Whatever happened to honesty and accuracy? EMS

Please note that the above editor purports to be the subject of this biographical article.

I do not understand your assertion that the article is "intended to defame and harass someone". Can you please expand on that, preferably with examples from the current version of the article? --ElKevbo 21:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. McSweegan, it seems that we've gotten off on the wrong foot here. By no means is the site here to defame and harass people. In fact, we have several core policies in place (most importantly regarding the biographies of living people and maintaining a neutral point of view) to prevent those very problems. If there are inaccuracies in an article, by all means bring them forward for discussion. We value accuracy very highly, and are working constantly to ensure that our articles are more accurate and thorough. Caknuck 22:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy says: When closing AfDs about living persons whose notability is ambiguous, the closing admin should take into account whether the subject of the article has asked that it be deleted. What we're doing here is arguing about whether or not Dr. McSweegan is sufficiently notable to justify an article. If Tom Delay asked for his article to be deleted, it wouldn't be. If someone created an article about me, it should be speedily deleted; I'm simply not notable, even though a Google search will turn up quite a bit of trivia about me. Dr McSweegan is somewhere in the middle, and that's what interested parties are debating here. In a few days, an administrator will come along and decide what happens next.Studerby 23:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In a few days." Is that the policy: to leave questionable or libelous material on your site long enough for it to be seen by thousands of Wiki users, then replicated by Google, Reference, Answer, etc. so it can be stored and retrieved by anyone from any number of other sites forever? Very reasonable, very responsible of you. I'm going on vacation for a few days; when I get back we'll settle this in public, not behind Wiki's barred doors. Emcsweegan 00:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about it and thought about it, and requested oversight of the relevant versions. Did this before discovering this comment by Dr. McSweegan. Blueboy 96 01:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Dhartung.--JForget 22:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Espresso Addict and Dhartung. —Travis ^talk 23:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think what has Dr. McSweegan so upset is that the original version of the article was the definition of an attack page. It was also heavily plagiarized. I'm starting to think that the best solution here is to oversight all versions prior to ThuranX's edit of today. Blueboy 96 23:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is an excellent suggestion should this article be kept. --ElKevbo 00:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are a some stories from 2003 about how he says he was being "paid to do nothing". The news stories were simply reporting this interesting claim because it suggested some sort of corruption. There do not appear to be any more independent sources since that time. This biography serves to document someone's briefly famous dispute with their employer. Wikipedia is not a news archive, notability is weak, and the subject wants it deleted. shotwell 23:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems Dr. McSweegan's issue is that the original version is still in the history (per his statement here that it was "intended to defame and harass me"). Oversighting it would take care of the problem, in my view. Blueboy 96 00:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it's been done. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 01:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in the present form, and watch. DGG (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I was involved in stubbing the article from its previous form to avoid a lot of the issues EMS had. I want to acknowledge that the current version is a much better assembled article, and those responsible should be wikipedia's stub patrol. However, even now, the article basically says "Here's a guy who didn't like his job, his bosses moved him, and hey, even though he didn't like it, he's good at it. Oh, he also thinks crackpots are crackpots, wrote a couple papers in his field, and a couple of pretty unknown sci fi novels." I really haven't seen any major arguments for notability. Should EMS ramp up his activism against moregollums or whatever it's called, and become a national speaker against the diagnosis, or do the same for Chronic Lyme, or any other disease, and become known for being not the loudest mouth, but the best mind against it, that would be notable. Being one among many saying it's a load of hooey does not make him notable to me. Couple that with his desire to NOT be on here, as a dubiously notable person, and I really have to support deletion. ThuranX 03:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that McSweegan's main objection was that the original version was still in the article's history. I personally think the oversighting removes the issue from play--hopefully Dr. McSweegan agrees. Blueboy 96 12:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Clean Up This article has some NPOV issues, but if Dr. McSweegan wishes for 'his side of the story' to be represented, his best course of action is to create more sources (interviews) so they may be used in the article.Archon of Atlantis 09:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but purge history - He seems notable, and assuming the newest version is up to snuff and satisfies the subject, I propose that the past history of the article be purged. Talk page also if deemed necessary. That would leave it still available to admins, if needed, but not the casual user. - Crockspot 16:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The past history of the article has been oversighted ... that was done yesterday. It's only visible to admins with oversight access--but not to the casual user. Blueboy 96 16:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're not quite right here. Not even admins with oversight access can see oversight-deleted articles. We can view the log of what was deleted in this fashion, but not see the content. Only developers with SQL access can do that; there is no route to this content in-Wiki. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems notable enough for inclusion in this project. --Tom 17:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - McSweegan does seem to be a player in a controversey significant enough to have its own separate article (Lyme disease controversy), though not significant enough to be mentioned in the article about the controversey. Given the polarization of his situation, which does seem to be noteworthy, it is unlikely that there are any truly disinterested parties who could write an informed article in a NPOV using only the sort of sources acceptable for citation in WIkipedia. However, if such article could be written, it would be worth having. How close is the current article to meeting such a standard? Hard to tell. --Pleasantville 18:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Where did the subject request deletion? If he did, delete, but if not, keep as there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it. Giggy _U^CP 01:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

revision from this very page has User:Emcsweegan saying just that. — Shinhan < talk > 05:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is nothing that is too defamatory or critical about the subject. Most criticism is against McSweegan's employer. Pats Sox Princess 02:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both, then redirect the first to List of basic astronomy topics. Sr 13 03:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of astronomical topics

Extremely unmaintainable (and fairly unmaintained), woefully incomplete and indiscriminate list. For example, there are 359,083 members of the extended Henry Draper catalog alone. We're also up to 160,015 asteroids. Yet, all of these would be eligible to be included given the current inclusion criteria. Not to mention all the other stuff that hasn't been cataloged yet... Had a previous afd back in October 2006, which ended up as no consensus but since then, there's some inkling that these sorts of lists don't belong on Wikipedia. Redundant to various categories and tag schemes, for example Category:Astronomy articles by quality. MER-C 13:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The category on this topic (Category:Astronomy) is better suoited for use on navigation. This list is unmaintainable, and no one want to maintain it. Dr. Submillimeter 14:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of basic astronomy topics, which is actually a useful article. JulesH 15:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List adds nothing a category cant Corpx 15:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite their astronomical importance. Redirect per JulesH. --Dhartung | Talk 19:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete achieves no goal. Dan Gluck 19:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nom. — RJH (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have categories for what would otherwise be ungodly huge and unmaintainable, indiscriminate lists. Someguy1221 22:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless list and way too long. The category mentionned above should be enough.--JForget 22:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- Bduke 23:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom —Travis ^talk 23:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to WikiProject space as a historical page. The second list (#2) should be deleted, the first list might be of historical interest, of how WikiPedia worked before Categories were implemented. 70.55.91.131 08:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Is this even worth keeping in WikiProject space for historical purposes? Would anyone even bother using it or looking at it? Dr. Submillimeter 09:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's in 500 categories. Enough said. Bulldog123 18:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Is it possible to speedy-delete List of astronomical topics 2? It appears in literally hundreds of categories, and removing these categories might be too difficult. Dr. Submillimeter 20:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or move to project-space. The article says it is used to monitor changes to related pages. The category does not do the same thing, because of sub-categories. So it should be moved to User space for this purpose. Dhaluza 20:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Does anyone use the pages this way? Dr. Submillimeter 20:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I assume XJamRastafire, the editor who created the list does, because that's what he/she wrote. And the list has had many other editors, so they may as well. This is not a good enough reason to keep an article in the main space, but is sufficient to justify keeping it in user or project space. Dhaluza 02:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - If the list is kept but moved to userspace, can List of astronomical topics 2 be edited so that it does not appear in hundreds of categories? This is a severe technical problem. Dr. Submillimeter 09:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Being one of 'the other editors', don't assume that we actually use the list, we may just be passing by + doing some tidying!
    EdJogg 09:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- 'List 2' was created in the last few days following an enquiry at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#List of everything related to astronomy. I created User:Quellem/List of everything related to astronomy for this user, after his initial enquiry, and removed his mass addition to 'List 1'. However he has since created 'List 2' in main space as well.
EdJogg 09:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have understood my mistake, the list will be moved to my personal space. My project turned out not to be so easy I thought previously and must be postponed. --Quellem 10:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Ye may delete list you are talking about. I am really sorry. --Quellem 10:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Projectify into Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy. If this page is meant to be used as a way to track changes to articles related to astronomy through the "Related Changes" feature, then why not move it to the project that would have the most use for such a thing? DHowell 01:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum by closing admin: This has been userfied to User:TravisTX/Workshop/List of schools in India. --Core desat 04:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in India

Listcruft--and given the size of India, it may never be complete. Blueboy 96 13:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unmaintainable listcruft. --Targeman 13:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete massive redlink farm, and unnecessary with Category:Schools in India anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is clearly listcruft. Having Category:Schools in India is more than enough. Thus this article is completely redundant as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft Nicko (Talk•Contribs)Review my progress! 15:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY - WP is not a directory of schools in India Corpx 15:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, as this could become the largest listcruft in the world. Bearian 16:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Bearian 16:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. The category (Category:Schools in India) is enough. --Boricuaeddie ^hábleme 19:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolute listfcruft article, the category should be enough.--JForget 22:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Bduke 23:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Bduke 23:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Travis ^talk 23:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are cases where lists are useful adjuncts to articles - where they provide additional, often comparative sources of information (List of districts of India, would be a good example). This is not one of those lists. Delete per WP:NOT a directory. -- MarcoTolo 23:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We already have Category:Schools in India, which ensures that only notable schools are kept. Spellcast 12:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The red links encourage the creation of missing articles, addressing Wikipedia's systemic bias against developing countries. Mowsbury 22:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Strong Keep should be reserved for extreme cases, pointing to a few useful redlinks while completely ignoring all of the convincing arguments isn't even reason enough for a weak keep. Malc82 23:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any convincing delete arguments, delete votes are mostly just playground namecalling. Kappa
There is no systemic bias against developing countries. It is done this way for every country Category:Lists of schools by country Corpx 05:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, helps fight systemic bias. Kappa 05:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:BIAS--we have lists of schools in regions of the U.S. If the list is too long, then it should be split up, not deleted. Also for the umpteenth time, categories only track articles that exist, lists track articles that do and do not exist. Dhaluza 22:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. — Dhaluza 22:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally considered an argument to avoid - after a quick look at the entries under List of schools by country, I suspect a bunch of those qualify for AfD consideration as well. -- MarcoTolo 23:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware of that, but the argument was related to WP:BIAS which invites comparison. Dhaluza 23:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment-maybe a category for such schools might be more useful than a list for a nation of a billion? Chris 01:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes eventually it will need to be split but I think it's too early to start a list of schools in Assam when it would only have 2-3 members. Kappa 03:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The systemic bias argument is a strong one. This list will help in the development of articles in an area which is under-covered by Wikipedia. A category can not do this. The potential length of the article is a red herring. As the list grows, the article can be split. A closer look at the US link on List of schools by country will reveal that it links to Education in the United States which contains a link to Lists of school districts in the United States, which in turn contains links to lists such as List of school districts in Oklahoma. The individual school districts contain links to notable school articles. Note that is not an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument but an analogy of how lists can grow and be managed. Dsmdgold 12:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the WP:BIAS arguments and I disagree. Personally, I'd say delete to [[List of Schools in the United States]] or [[List of Schools in North America]] as well. This list is nearly 900 lines long as it is and I, for one, can't see how it can be reasonably managed. Given the size of India, this list very well may be longer than [[List of Schools in English-Speaking Countries]]. If the list were split per your example above, it would much more keep-worthy. —Travis ^talk 15:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is of the Bias arguments is that we have fairly full potential coverage of school districts in the United States because the mostly US editors here have worked out the scheme above. Our much fewer number of Indian editors have not had the time to work out the more mature scheme outlined above. If we delete this list now, then we will make largely inaccessible a great deal of work. At one time, the scheme for the US looked like this. We should give these editors the chance to let this list mature into a better scheme. Dsmdgold 15:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I copied the whole list to my user space and have started breaking into separate lists by state. —Travis ^talk 00:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Corpx. --ForbiddenWord 14:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While my vote is borderline, I do not see a need to delete this. Please see the guideline at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes which states these three methods of organization are not in competition with the other. Categories should not replace lists or vice versa except for special circumstances, of which this is not. This article has obviously had a lot of work put into it and the rationale is much too weak to just delete it all. That the list may never be complete, the same could be said for the category also.(Mind meal 22:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

That's one reasoning, but what about "WP is not a directory" (of schools in India) ? Corpx 01:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TV Junkyard

This fails WP:ATT. There is no TV junkyard I can find. Nv8200p talk 13:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Blueboy 96 14:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely made up. NSR77 ^T_C 15:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'. I think this isn't NFT so much as a very clumsy attempt to write a computer recycling stub. --Dhartung | Talk 19:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Z Machine (Video Game System)

Non notable. No reliable sources provided. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Onorem Dil 12:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Only source is to a Comcast home page. Not exactly a reliable source. A grand total of zero Yahoo or Google hits. Closing admin should take a long look at the history of the author, Scotty12 (talk · contribs)--he has a history of problematic edits to video game articles. Blueboy 96 13:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Crystal ball may be too nice, as a sparse article and a comcast homepage smells like a hoax. Tarc 13:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I think of it, this does look like a hoax. So tagged. Blueboy 96 13:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax or extremely non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty obvious hoax of the "Zmachine" interpreter for old text adventures. 68.39.174.238 15:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOAX, WP:NFT, and WP:NOTE. NSR77 ^T_C 15:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete WP:CRYSTAL, WP:HOAX, WP:NOT Rackabello 15:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Comcast home page even says, "you won't find information for this system anywhere else." —Travis ^talk 23:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casket match

non notable match type, already covered on the larger list of match types minus the crufty "history" list. The article was prod'ed for the necessary five days before an anon contested it. In truth a redirect would probably be needed. «»bd(^talk _stalk) 12:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough notability to have its own article. The mention in the other article is sufficient - The history section is completely unsourced Corpx 15:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep. The history section is sourced. Several of the entries link to a site with a comprehensive list of house show results taken from legitimate print sources, suhc as advertisments and sports sections. The non-sourced ones appeared on television, and cound be sourced easily. Add a 'citation needed' instead of deleting the article. Furthermore, the match type is notable. 75.129.169.49 20:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC) — 75.129.169.49 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per nom. The "history" section is nothing but listcruft. —Travis ^talk 23:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, its entry in the larger list article is sufficient. The list of every time it has taken place is listcruft. Nikki311 01:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Nikki311 01:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Darrenhusted 11:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article is nothing more than an unnecessary history list. It can easily be covered in the main list without its own page. A redirect should probably be made as there are a fair number of links to it. DrWarpMind 16:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and due to sourcing problems. Yamaguchi先生 04:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of professional wrestling match types. Article is nothing but a list of matches, and Wikipedia is not a directory. Article should be in the same pile as Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal. --SteelersFan UK06 02:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep - nominator changed mind and withdrew nomination. Non-admin closure. ~Matticus ^T_C 20:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astrosaurs

This Article includes no information about the books. This is why i have nominated it for deletion. If information about some of the books can be displayed, The notice will be removed. (Woggy 08:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Speedy keep. The article contains plenty of information about the book series. Nominator has a history of putting articles up for deletion for lacking content (though in this case the article isn't even that short or lacking in content). Woggy, you would be helping more if you expanded the articles yourself, rather than trying to use AfD to catalyse other people into doing it for you. ~Matticus ^T_C 12:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This book series is clearly notable in nature. It is also possible to verify the contents of this book. A google search shows up quite a few reliable hits for this subject. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 12:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep dumb but very notable. Nomination reasoning makes no sense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Book series is easily notable. Reasoning for nomination makes no sense. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 12:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! per above, and WP:SNOW at this point. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 15:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't one of you help me improve it! I want some people to join in the discussion at the Astrosaurs article about ideas about improving it. With the help of other users, We can make this article great! I just wish people would join me. By the way Matticus 78 there is plenty information about the book series. But thats not what i meant. I meant that we, (Not me on my own) Should include the plot for all of the books except the ones that have not been released. Thats all i just hate it when people can't help or tell me their ideas. (Woggy 18:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I just want some help. I want peoples suggestions about ideas for improving the article! I posted 2 messages for the discussion and they never got answered! If we all work together and discuss improvements this Article will be a masterpiece. Come on everyone we need to work together and discuss improvements! Isn't there anyone who is willing to do this? (Woggy 18:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I am pretty sure i removed the notice. Because i thought i was wrong for nominating it. Who removed it? (Woggy 19:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I also created this article under a different user Name but i had to change it to Woggy because i forgot my password. (Woggy 19:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Well, the article is a relatively low-traffic one in an area of fairly limited interest, and therefore edits will be quite infrequent and the talk pages rarely read, so your comments may not be replied to or acted upon for many weeks, if at all. AfD is not a good place to go touting for help, first because nominating for deletion is not the best way to improve an article, and second because the people who regularly read and comment on AfD discussions will not necessarily be particularly knowledgeable about or interested in the subject area of the article in question (we tend to apply our knowledge of Wikipedia policies, and our skills at researching a possibly unfamiliar topic, to form our opinions).

Fortunately, the Wikipedia community has identified the problem of articles that need attention but are not often visited/edited and get overlooked. To help solve it we have "WikiProjects", a sort of central collaborative workspace where editors can find out about articles in a particular subject area that might need attention, discuss improvements, coordinate activities, rate the quality and importance of articles, and so on. In the case of Astrosaurs, the most appropriate place would be the Children's Literature WikiProject. If you visit the project page, you will find a list of editors who tend to concentrate on editing articles about children's books and related topics. Might I suggest you send a message requesting help to one or two of the active editors on the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Children's literature? I am sure someone will be happy to lend a hand (but be patient - someone has to read your message first, and not everyone visits Wikipedia to edit every day). Since you said you have changed your mind about nominating this article for deletion, I will close the discussion and remove the notice on the article itself. If you need any more guidance, you are welcome to leave me a message, but I doubt I will be able to do much to help with the article itself because I don't know all that much about children's literature. Though for the record, your suggestion to add a short plot summary for each book in the series is exactly the kind of thing that would improve the article - if you've only read a couple of the books, then just do it for the ones you know, and it need only be a few short sentences. Good luck! ~Matticus ^T_C 20:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zottman curl

Wikipedia is not a manual or guidebook. Blueboy 96 11:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - this is a blatant copy of the article from the website [1]--Mendors 11:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, not as cut and dried, the author is Fitness Uncovered (talk · contribs). Definite WP:COI issues ... if he uploads another article that's a copy of an item on the Website, he'll be reported to WP:AIV as a role account. Blueboy 96 12:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very much cut and dried, they need to prove on their website that they are the authors of this article, or it's still a copyvio. Corvus cornix 04:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO and WP:SOAP —Travis ^talk 00:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Gouds

Just a list of people with nothing in common other than a surname. --ROGER ^TALK 11:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if they were that famous, they'd all have articles. Lugnuts 12:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Lugnuts. What do these people have in common besides sharing a banal surname? What next, List of famous Smiths, List of famous Kowalskis, List of famous Kims? Pure listcruft. --Targeman 13:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Actually, Goud is a cast in India. Their "backward cast" status means they were at a disadvantage compared to the other casts, so they technically had a tougher road. That said, I cant vote keep for an article that doesn't cite any sources. Corpx 15:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the clarification, I had no idea. The article should at least mention that and provide a link to Goud. --Targeman 16:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, ref. Corpx. Bearian 16:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not Goud enough. (couldn't resist that) Clarityfiend 20:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goud knows it's hard to resist :-) --Targeman 21:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Goud. I agree with Corpx (without whom we wouldn't know what the author was talking about) that there's no reason to keep something that's unsourced and doesn't explain that Goud is a caste. Mandsford 01:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think its better to merge with the Goud article and we can put citation tag in that article. If the people cant put any authenticated ref/link to the content (people) added to the article, then we can go ahead remove the content.

Daya Anjali (talk / contribs) 17:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nairs

It's wikilinked and it repesents a great deal of work but it's still just a directory --ROGER ^TALK 11:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. This list is clearly one. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Tough one because Nair is a cast of Hinduism, and we have lots of List of Jewish _____ etc. I know WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS :). An argument could be made that their upper class status helped them in their field(s). Corpx 15:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per above and other AfDs. At least this list has links. Bearian 16:12, 21 July 2007

(UTC)

'Comment:I am open-minded about this AFD for the moment but would like to find out more before taking a stand. I raised the question with the nominator (see Roger Davies' talk page) and he has speedily replied, though I still have some doubts. It's common sense that Wikipedia is not a Directory and that surnames like Goh, Smith, Davies, although the Davies may have a long ancestral history :-), etc should not be compiled into a list just because some bearers of these surnames (notable or not, wish to see themselves on the list). Some groups of people however do qualify (eg List of Jewish _____ mentioned by Corpx above). I would like some in-depth examination of the importance of the Nairs as a group before I decide whether they should be lumped with the Jews or with the Davies. Cheers.Ivygohnair 22:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Nair, since it's a caste. If it were simply a surname, I'd say delete. Mandsford 01:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be like merging "List of Famous Methodists" into the Methodists article. While cast is important to a degree, I dont think its as relevant as it was ~200 years ago. Besides, there's not much anyone can do if you include yourself into a cast even if you were not born into it. Corpx 01:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. I don't know how large the Nair caste is; it may or may not be larger than the Methodist church. There are a lot of castes in India; I'm not sure how many subdivisions of the Methodist Church exist, but Baptists are divided into Southern Baptists, Freewill Baptists, Primitive Baptists, etc. Nowadays, caste is still a part of heritage even if it's no longer part of the pecking order. Honestly, I'd never heard of the Nair caste, and the only ones I've heard of at all are at the opposite ends of the spectrum. Mandsford 22:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to the people who wish to delete this list, some of you seem to be unacquainted with the actual topic on hand. Because "Nair" is not just a surname its a community of people that encompass many surnames. So if one were to delete this so called "list" they would also have to delete every other list on Wikipedia. There is a list of distinguished/famous Rajputs, Iyers, Ezhavas, Jews, Brahmins, jats etc there are countless lists on Wikipedia of people pertaining to eminent or accomplished people from a certain caste or community and most of them do not have proper citations, whilst this list of Nairs has many sources and references shown. Secondly NAIRS ARE NOT A CASTE they were a community. The word Nair in Ancient Kerala was a synonym for warrior and since they were traditionally a warrior clan they had their own army called the "Nair Pattalam" which is now called Nair Brigade this was the army of the king, there are historical cases where people derived from the lower castes or lower stratosphere were assimilated or inducted into the Nair Brigade if they showed skill in the art of warfare and thus acquired the surname of "Nair" which was conferred onto them by the king. Many of the surnames in the Nair community are actually titles and not to be confused with a caste thus when you say "Nair" It is most definitely a community or a race not a caste. Because there were Nairs who were royals/kings/lords, but also Nairs who were servants and held menial jobs, although traditionally they were a warrior clan. If anyone wants more information on this they can read this http://www.kerala.cc/keralahistory/index13.htm. So in conclusion i would say take all these points on board before you contemplate on deleting the list, and if you decide on deleting it 1. you merely delete the accomplishments of a community 2. You will have to delete the 1000 other such lists on Wikipedia from the list of Jews to Ezhavas. Because they too have made a list of eminent people from their community. Oh and by the way there is a * list of famous ezhavas * which is exactly the same as the list of Nairs. I wonder why no one tries to delete that? Even though that list doesn't show barely any references or citations as the List of Nairs. Its pretty sad that some insecure individuals show their hypocrisy and double standards in wanting to delete one list whilst not the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.248.35 (talk • contribs)

I'm the insecure individual who nominated this list. It was ignorance, not hypocrisy, that led to the Ezhavas escaping nomination. That has now been rectified (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Famous Ezhavas). I have also nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish volunteers in the Spanish Civil War for even-handedness. --ROGER ^TALK 06:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nairs were all those things you described, but it has evolved into a cast of Hinduism now. I wouldn't mind if it only listed Nairs from their heyday (before/early british empire), but that would leave only 3. Everyone else listed on there is from late-British rule->modern day India era, when the "Nayanars" were just another cast in the social structure. Corpx 05:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by Philippe. Non-admin closure. Resolute 05:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MyBoss

I believe the article is at best, about vapourware, at worst, a hoax. There is very little web-based evidence to support its existence other than that originating from this article, or from the very limited official web site referenced, which contains no corporate or meaningful technical datail Lynbarn 10:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete totally non-notable project. I'm not sure it's a hoax but it really doesn't matter because it fails WP:N anyway. MartinDK 11:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I know of company MyBoss (monitoring program for computers in classrooms in schools) but article is scarce and needs a rewrite or should get the chop.--Achidiac 11:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Achidiac (talk · contribs), Rdpaperclip (talk · contribs), T3Smile (talk · contribs), and 60.241.91.14 (talk · contribs) have been blocked as sock puppets. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Achidiac. -- Jreferee t/c 17:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a hoax to me. Their website (hosted in Nauru looks like something slapped together in about 5 minutes, and of course no reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No assertion of notability, no context Rackabello 15:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a hoax. If not, it's non-notable. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 16:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Bearian 16:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 18:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SuperWookie

Only a handful Ghits, most user created content. Unsigned band, just one album (no mention of market success) - hardly any reliable sources to establish notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. Creator probably has COI. Ayleuss 10:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. So tagged. Now, how long before they remove that tag too? MartinDK 10:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete; does not explain how this group is important. Marašmusïne_Talk 10:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I'm unsure about this qualifying for speedy deletion per A7, but it is certainly an article of an extremely NN subject. Rlest 10:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per above Rackabello 15:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Doesn't assert notability. It fails WP:BAND flagrantly anyway. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 16:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 10, 2007 anti-Israeli occupation protest

Is a protest with 5000 people notable? There are no "big" media sources cited either. F 09:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded before, prod removed.

Delete First of all estimates range from 1000 people to 5000. Second, none of the sources are reliable in themselves since they are inherently POV. This is especially true for Indymedia. Unless someone can find some reliable secondary sources this should be deleted as news with no reliable secondary sources to establish notability. MartinDK 10:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor jolly for hard left SDS loonies with no long term significance. The writer obviously doesn't have a clue either. Gaza is only occupied by Hamas at the moment. Nick mallory 11:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - No historic notability Corpx 15:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Corpx, and MartinDK. Bearian 16:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as many protests with larger (much larger I mean) have no articles. If there was enough coverage, which I doubt because of the low number, it can be transwiki to Wikinews, although a very slim chance it will.--JForget 16:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kangen Band

References are missing. Note: The article's original creator has meanwhile also written an article about the individual described in Kangen Band as "Despite the size of his belly, he is actually carrying the softcopies of all Kangen Band's songs in his iPod, including those songs which has not yet being composed by the Band", claiming he has become homosexual because of a "former lady boss". See also Image:Kangen-band-oji.gif. High on a tree 09:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC - This band fails all of them Corpx 15:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 16:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 New Bedford, Massachusetts. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normandin Middle School

Speedy delete. Non-noteable School. Stub article. End of, really. Dalejenkins 08:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Based on its information and notability, I believe it should be deleted. (Woggy 08:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete A poorly written article compounded with notability concerns. It should be deleted. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete microstub with no notability present. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A1 and A7 Rackabello 15:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; not much at New Bedford, Massachusetts#Education either. Bearian 16:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Notability and WP:NOT#DIR. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Length of article suggest that it should be appropriate to list the school with others into New Bedford, Massachussets if not done already--JForget 22:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I will put on a stub tag and category I would like to see the article have more than a day to be improved esp. since it is summer vacation and those most knowledgable about the subject are on vacation. Postcard Cathy 18:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should not have to have people knowledgeable about a subject to be there, that's the entire point of WP:V. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 23:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Woggy removed the above vote from AfD previously before my restoration of it. Mine is Neutral due to unfamiliarity about the subject. Nate 01:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New Bedford, Massachusetts, until sufficient additional information can be provided to demonstrate notability for the school as a standalone article. No valid justification has been provided to ignore the choice of redirect rather than delete. Alansohn 02:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. — But|seriously|folks 04:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to New_Bedford,_Massachusetts#Education. Already done. Dhaluza 16:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and to the Education section of the New Bedford, Massachusetts article, which has been completed. Keep redirect in place with history in tact for GFDL compliancy. Yamaguchi先生 04:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per WP:LOCAL. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge only the most encyclopedic material. There is absolutely no sensible reason not to provide a redirect in this and similar situations. Burntsauce 17:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, not verified, sources not forthcoming. Until (1 == 2) 05:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muuse suldaan

I could not find any independent verification of the importance of this clan; there are only two pages of google results, none of which I could use to assert notability, but many of which were in a language I don't read, so maybe someone else can affirm notability for this group. Prod removed without comment by creator. FisherQueen (Talk) 19:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Cisman Mahmoud Taprobanus 19:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 07:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldnt find any english sources either Corpx 15:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Rackabello 15:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dont Delete Taking in Mind The Poor Usage Of Internet In Somalia and The Family is part of the Great Clan of CIsman Mahmoud AmericanKnight 13:46, 26 july 2007 (UTc)
Merge => Cisman Mahmoud as suggested above by Taprobanus. This is a topic for which it might be extremely difficult to find First World sources for. I think the most likely places would be in World Health Organization reports and the academic literature in social anthropology and linguistics. It's too bad we don't have a template to mark articles known for being difficult to properly source for legitimate reasons, such as noted by AmericanKnight. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Downley Lodge School of Speech and Drama

Likely non notable school. No sources available to assert anything beyond its existence. Sorted as part of Wikipedia: Wikiproject Notability. Daniel J. Leivick 18:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 07:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability and no significant coverage. Very, very few ghits that do not refer to Wikipedia or mirrors. --Malcolmxl5 13:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No assertion of notability whatsoever Rackabello 15:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Bearian 16:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:NOT#DIR. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After examining the arguments, including the external links provided, I have come to the conclusion that the points made by those !voting "Keep" are more influential than those !voting "Delete", particularly those regarding the tagging of the article with {{Unreferenced}} or a related template ~ Anthøny 11:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vexel

Non-notable and unsourced article (it even admits it in the article body!). Kargath64 06:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A google search brings out no reliable hits for this article. This article is also neologism in nature. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 07:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While I don't currently see any reliable sources in the search, there are "about" 150,000 results according to google (and yes, I know how reliable that figure is, but I've clicked through 300 of them and there are still more to come). A random selection suggests that the majority are about this topic (with a small number concerned with a vehicle manufacturer, and another small quantity concerned with something called a "bill of exchange" that's used in Russia). This large number of articles suggests notability within the community, and given that notability, I feel the existing sources (while self published) are adequate to ensure verifiability. JulesH 10:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has anyone even put a sources tag on it? Perhaps give it time, or actually find sources you approve of. This is genuine, and this article is quite well-written and intriguing. Give it a little time, or better still, do some of the work. It's not like this is non- content, it's informative.Merkinsmum 11:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability now. I looked through google news and found nothing relevant. There's just not enough notability to keep the article now Corpx 15:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has lots of Google hits. Google News is entirely the wrong place to search for this term. - Fuzheado | Talk 20:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits does not equal notability Corpx 21:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Attempt to introduce new neologism, as even admitted in the article text. Many of the Google hits you'd be getting are just from deviantART's metadata.
Weak Keep - it seems the community at vexel.org has about 6000 members (how many active, etc I don't know), so that seems to be an active community interested in an emerging art form. It seems to me not a small community for an emerging form, either. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary and Request treatment at Wikinews. Articles of this kind help to delineate the boundaries of Wikipedia versus her sister projects. The vexel concept as an emerging tool for artistic expression is simply in too early a stage to warrant encyclopedic treatment; as noted at http://news.deviantart.com/article/27110/ (probably the closest to a reliable source currently available for this concept) the definition of the term and the how-to around use of the graphic method are still a matter of debate ... it is an emerging art technique. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thekke Puthen Church

This article is about a local parish church in India. No sources are provided, I could find no Google hits for the church's name other than Wikipedia and its mirrors, and I could not even find the church listed in the directory of the denomination's parishes in its state (see [2] and [3]). Thus, the article has problems with verifiability and lack of reliable sources. I submitted this article for proposed deletion a few months ago, but the PROD tag was removed at that time. The justification for notability was that it is the only Malankara Orthodox parish church dedicated to St. Youhanan Mulk, but I don't believe that qualifies as notability in the sense intended by WP:ORG. I recommend a delete. Metropolitan90 06:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability. Looks like the church was built by a local family and there's not much else to it Corpx 15:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no way to verify notability Rackabello 15:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also, i's possibly not even the only chuch named for that saint, as noted in the article. Too many red links, WP:V and WP:RS issues. Bearian 16:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Bearian 16:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philippians 4:13

Not sure how this particular writing is notable outside its particular "epistle" To clarifiy, I'm not seeing notability for this particular verse on its own. Navou 06:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable in and of itself as a single passage. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - compare and contrast with John 3:16, which is notable in itself - Alison ☺ 06:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is clearly a non-notable passage in itself. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 07:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete 1) I can't believe we'd want to jump on the slippery slope of an article on every single verse of the bible that someone decides is notable. 2) the article is inherently POV simply because it seems based on one (and only one) english-language translation of the verse. 3) Redundancy: the passage is listed on the main Phillipians article as a notable verse already -Markeer 12:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as bible-cruft. 70.55.85.148 12:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why salt? ~ Wikihermit 18:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm a little curious about this also. In my opinion, the article is not a recreation, and in the future, if sources are discovered to justify notability, I do not want its creation precluded. Why salt? Navou 19:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philippians 4 should be enough. 70.55.91.131 08:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to SALT this article - Alison ☺ 20:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thou shalt not commit biblecruft (Targeman 24:7). Send this article to Hell and mercifully burn its author at the stake. --Targeman 13:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do we need an article on every verse of the Bible? Rackabello 15:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No cites since the 4th C. A.D.? Bearian 16:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately there is not enough information on this verse yet, if enough can be gathered in the future, this verse is notable enough, in my opinion, to warrant its own article, but, for now, there is not enough content. --Will Mak 050389 17:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Markeer. Additionally, no reliable sources with significant coverage prove the individual notability of this passage. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete but certainly do not salt there is significant written commentary on every verse of the bible, and perhaps someone will do these articles on some of the key verses properly. . DGG (talk) 05:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP:but if it must be deleted I agree with what's said above ("recreate when enough information").--Hornetman16 18:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rackabello, Wikipedia is not the bible. Darrenhusted 09:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No but we do Document the notable verses.--Hornetman16 20:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Epistle to the Philippians. Does not have an extensive history of notability, as some individual passages/verses of the New Testament do. Pastordavid 21:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pastor David, since your a pastor you should know this is one of the most well-quoted verses in the Bible and one of the most well known. event though it doesn't have much information to the article. It still deserves it's own page exactly like John 3:16 does.--Hornetman16 03:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - While I do not care to get into an extensive debate here, let me say that I respectfully disagree. (A) It was not ever a lynch-pin verse in the early theological debates of the church, such as John 1:1 and the Great Commission; (B) it was never a doctrine-defining verse, such as the Words of Institution; (C) it has not been the object of modern scholarly debate, such as 1 Corinthians 11; (D) nor does it have a secure place in our cultural vernacular, such as John 3:16. I am glad that you find it personally meaningful, as do I. However, devotional value is not the same thing as encyclopedic notability. Pastordavid 16:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Δοξα σοι ο Θεος! it's nice to see a pastor capable of a reasoned, encyclopedic approach to the Bible. Kudos to you, Pastor David. :-) --Targeman 16:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The difference between me and you, Pastor David, is that your Luthuren (or however you spell it) and I'm Pentecostal. It mean a whole lot more in my church.--Hornetman16 20:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, that has nothing to do with it. The use of Scripture in theological development from 33-1517 has nothing to do with whether or not I am Lutheran (A & B above). Since then, it still is not a topic of debate among modern biblical scholars (C above). It is not a part of the broader cultural vocabulary (E). Further, it is not doctrine-defining even in the modern Pentecostal movement - which instead focuses on places like 1 Corinthians 12 and 14. "It means a lot" is not the same thing as encyclopedic notability - that is, "it means a lot" is a subjective value statement. As I noted above, it "means a lot" to me as well. But in neither of the traditions in question is it a doctrine-defining, or church-defining, verse. Pastordavid 20:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll say it this last time. IT'S NOTABLE, BECAUSE IT'S ONE OF THE MOST QUOTED VERSES IN THE BIBLE.--Hornetman16 21:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Unfortunately, there is not a shred of reliable, independent evidence to suggest that provided. VanTucky ^(talk) 21:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        What the heck does indepenence have to do with it?--Hornetman16 21:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Hornetman - step back and chill out for a moment. Please. - Alison ☺ 21:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Notability is not hear-say or opinion, it is something to be verified in reliable, independent sources. Sources with a clear conflict of interest or which are not generally known as independent and reliable are not acceptable verifications of notability. VanTucky ^(talk) 21:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted by User:Philippe Corpx 15:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuous Ink Systems and Photographers

Advert dressed up as a chatty article. -- RHaworth 05:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete spam, tagged Rackabello 06:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Blatant vanispamcruftisement. Astronomical COI issues as well. Blueboy 96 11:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Philippe, copyright violation. Non-admin closure. Blueboy 96 11:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Towards an Egyptian National Migration Policy

Original research. -- RHaworth 05:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an opinion essay, not an encyclopedia article. Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Obvious original essay.
Speedy Delete Likely a copyvio, see [4], if not spam, also WP:NOR and WP:NOT Rackabello 06:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Per above. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice toward a redirect. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most ancient common ancestor

The article is based on original research. The name of the article appears to be coined by the author.

Article does not cite real sources to support the so-called 'most ancient common ancestor'. The pbs page cited in is merely describing how Lucy (Australopithecus) is a common ancestor to various lineages of hominids. Clearly they meant 'most recent common ancestor' in the article. It was a typo.
Most 'ancient' common ancestor does not make sense. Clearly, the most 'ancient' common ancestors of all human (or for that sake, between you and me) is the first self-replicating RNA. See the book The Ancestor's Tale.
The article is clearly written as an attack on Recent single origin hypothesis. The author should be editing Multiregional hypothesis instead of creating your own article.
The author does not seem to understand what Most recent common ancestor, Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve are, and what they really mean. Mitochondrial_Eve#Eve_and_the_Out-of-Africa_theory clearly discusses some of the issues the author raised in this new article. Fred Hsu 05:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Regardless of what the article specifically says, overall it's clearly an essay, and pretty much entirely original research, and should be deleted as such. User:Calgary 21 July 2007
Keep The term does exist, and it's a pretty simple concept which therefore needs a sourced definition. There's no need to delete, just a complete rewrite. The MACA is always defined relative to some group, e.g. for all animals it is considered to be some sort of sponge[5] -- rewrite in progress! . --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That two websites incorrectly used Most ancient common ancestor when they should have used Most recent common ancestor does not make this a real term. As I said earlier, most ancient common ancestor for you and I is the very first self-replicating RNA. Please think about it. Fred Hsu 15:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 92 ghits for the term. Logically, what is described is the most recent common ancestor, which gets 117,000 ghits. JulesH 10:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still no reason to delete. Do a redirect then if they are synonyms. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Antonyms are not synonyms. They mean the opposite, not the same. Edison 21:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've read worse here. Could we maybe see this article expanded? Thanks. Anthony Chidiac --Achidiac 11:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Achidiac (talk · contribs), Rdpaperclip (talk · contribs), T3Smile (talk · contribs), and 60.241.91.14 (talk · contribs) have been blocked as sock puppets. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Achidiac. -- Jreferee t/c 17:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that 'writing style' was not one of the reasons I listed as reasons for deletion. This article is factually incorrect. It is simply wrong and should be deleted. Fred Hsu 15:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- article quality has nothing to do with the deletion process (can we post this in giant letters somewhere please?) shoddy articles on valid topics should be cleaned up, not deleted. This one is unsalvageable since its very title is unsalvageable. dab (𒁳) 18:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JulesH for looking up the Most Prevalent Common Ancestor Term. The citations are for some decently written articles that happen to use the same combination of four words that fit in the context they are writing about. No assertion or citation suggesting this is a scientifically prevalent term or even a particularly popular term. -Markeer 12:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic for example:

For all living animals it is considered to be some sort of sponge.

You get the impression it is a kitchen sponge.Muntuwandi 13:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into one or more related articles. There's not much to salvage but what's there shouldn't be lost. Category:Phylogenetics has some good merge candidates, including Clade and Most recent common ancestor. Keep only if the article is vastly improved between now and the AfD close. As it is, the article doesn't even do a good job of defining the term. If it weren't for the other articles to merge into, it would be Improve fast, startover, or delete. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC) see below[reply]

Perhaps the latter? Extremely sexy 14:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. As per the previous user. Extremely sexy 14:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not merge until someone comes up with a clear definition of this term which makes sense. Please also cite real sources for this term. Currently cited sources talk about most recent common ancestor which is already well written in its own article. What can we add to that article that is not already there? Fred Hsu Fred Hsu 15:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the grammatically-challenged may refer to it as the "most ancient common ancestor". Sohelpme 19:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Article just contains a definition now and that's it, which could be construed as violation of WP:NOT#DICT. I dont think we're losing much to start over Corpx 15:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge - if there is anything of value here it should be merged into one of the other main articles. This is definitional in scope, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to get unsourced, OR/POV essay out of the page history, then create Redirect to most recent common ancestor and add a note there like "sometimes erroneously referred to as most ancient common ancestor". Compare [6] to [7]. The "most ancient common ancestor" of any set of living things is the world's first living single cell--not all that interesting or important. Sohelpme 19:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Unlike WP:BLP, copyright issues, and a few other things, it is not necessary to hide original research through deletion or edit-masking. It may be convenient or even A Good Thing but it is not necessary. I'm sure there are lots of articles in Wikipedia that were OR at one point until someone cleaned them up. Those edits remain in the history unless someone bothered to remove them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Sohelpme. Has very little content which in fact should be in most recent common ancestor. Dan Gluck 19:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder: hey folks, you are now looking at a completely trimmed down version of the article, if you simply click on the article link. The original revision which I talked about in my deletion nomination is THIS ONE. Fred Hsu 20:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revert and Merge the original version Fred Hsu mentioned above at 20:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC) with Multiregional hypothesis and redirect. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: After Merging, delete and replace with a disambiguation page, such as the one I posted on the article talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as complete nonsense, or Redirect to Most recent common ancestor to assist people who type the opposite of what they mean. Current evolutionary theory would say that all species have the same most ancient common ancestor, perhaps a single cell organism in a primordial pool. Most recent common ancestor would make sense. This is not a term with sources to show it is used in the literature and if not a hoax is at least original research. Edison 21:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even if this is not original research as claimed, any useful content in both the old and new versions should be merged into existing articles. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Update: Any useful content that can be sourced, that is. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will restore the Fred Hsu 20:19, 21 July 2007 version sometime after 0300 unless someone objects on the article talk page or the current article is drastically improved. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Er... folks, it's not my version. I added original research template first. Then I added the nominated for deletion template. I think the entire article is simply nonsensical. There is nothing to be salvaged from the original article. I posted the Reminder comment earlier to give newcomers to this thread a heads-up, in case you mistake the current version for what I nominated, in which case my nomination comments would make no sense. Fred Hsu 23:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hearing no objections and seeing no improvement, I reverted to last version by Fred Hsu. Any comments made here between 08:39, 21 July 2007 and 04:38, 22 July 2007 may be referring to a rewrite started by 08:39, MichaelCPrice at 08:39, 21 July 2007. Which bore very little resemblance to the version that is now up. The version that is now up is the same as the version that was up when the AfD started. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like everyone above, except the original nominator Fred Hsu, Calgary, and the man who attempted a good-faith rewrite Michael C. Price, stated their opinion while the rewrite was up. The closing admin should take this into consideration. IF the consensus is for deletion based on OR grounds rather than other issues, I recommend instead reverting to the latest version of the rewrite and hiding the OR-version edits. Personally though, I think the OR version is more salvageable than the rewrite. The rewrite has issues of quality and readability. The text needs to be vastly improved before it should be placed in the main body of the encyclopedia. The OR version just has issues of OR, adding sources and citations should fix the problem. See Multiregional hypothesis for potential source material. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 12:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article should be deleted. The term simply does not exist. Multiregional hypothesis references are irrelevant to this article. If this article exists simply to support such hypothesis, then it should be part of the multiregional hypothesis. Please let us not create an article with fake, nonsensical scientific name with body text which talks about something completely different. No amount of out-of-context citations can salvage this article. Fred Hsu 13:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At best, I found 4 sources on Google. These sources are ambiguous and may in fact not be sources at all. See the article talk page for details. In contrast, I found 8 sources that use this term in the context of Clade and 1 that used it in the context of geneology. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REQUEST for closing admin: Userfy the talk page if the article is deleted. There's some stuff on there I want to hang on to for a bit. Don't leave it where it is, if the article is recreated as a redirect to something else, a stale talk page will be confusing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still delete. The article may be substantially different from the one that I previously commented on, but now it looks like original research, rather than a duplicate of existing information with the wrong title. There are two references in the article, but neither seems to be discussing the idea proposed by the article, which to me seems nonsensical. JulesH 16:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete. the term is used (a) incorrectly, by authors who don't know what they are talking about, and (b) casually, within some understood context. nothing to do with what the article pretends to be about. Arguments for Multiregional hypothesis can be discussed at that article. dab (𒁳) 17:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment the concept that the original author is apparently trying to describe is that of the identical ancestors point, which could indeed be split off the mrca article as an independent topic. dab (𒁳) 18:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break

Comment dab ~~gutted~~ removed most of the unsourced material from the article again but this time left at least some of the original. I moved what's left into a section and turned the header into a disambiguation section, with some citations to back it up. The article is no longer unsourced original research. However, the section that's left of the original is and remains tagged as such. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC) edited davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced (a non-scientific popular publication and a throwaway, uncited reference in a scientific one?) original research. The use of unmoved mover doesn't help it either, makes it look like creationist BS. The original article was worse, with extensive use of first-person plurals - POV OR. WLU 13:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Most Ancient Common Ancestor" is not sourced and the article gives one no idea what it's supposed to mean. It just says that the two things it might mean - it doesn't. There doesn't seem to be anything worth saving here by merging into another article. Perhaps a redirect to most recent common ancestor or abiogenesis. Bgplayer 19:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is article Last universal ancestor. This article does not seem to have any useful content. Biophys 02:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: I feel that the references davidwr mentions are really referring to Last common ancestor. So I favor redirection to Last common ancestor now. I have enhanced the MRCA article to talk about different between MRCA and Last Common Ancestor (LCA) and point to LCA article, the same way the MRCA article talks about the identical ancestors point. Fred Hsu 04:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution

I know people usually don't vote on deletion nominations. But given that we have wildly different opinions here, I thought perhaps we should quickly do an informal survey to see where people stand. Please don't post opinions in this section. Just put your signature below your choice. Add your own if you want. Fred Hsu 04:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Last common ancestor:
redirect to Clade:
- davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 12:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete:
- WLU 15:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC) (redirect is second choice)[reply]
- JulesH 16:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC) (although I would also support a redirect to most recent common ancestor)[reply]
- dab (𒁳) 20:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep:
Anything but keep:
- Corpx 16:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC) (I'm split on the merge/redirect issue, but I definitely don't think this should exist).[reply]

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

No consensus = keep, but still it has been deleted? Extremely sexy 14:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete and Salt enough is enough. Non admin closure Rackabello 06:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Young son

Faster deletion contested, so here we are. No claims of charts, tours, awards, primary-topic press, or anything else to meet WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. The purpose of Wikipedia is to document (previously attained) notability, not to try and help create it. With no independent refs also fails WP:VERIFY and, given the contributor's username and that it's been speedied and recreated three times here and five times at Young Son, probably has WP:AUTO and/or WP:COI issues, as well (and may need salt). Sohelpme 04:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no credible references included, and does not pass notability standards. - Kneel17 04:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real assertion of notability, article has been speedied several times before. NN artist who recorded a NN album released by a NN label. Caknuck 05:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong~~ Speedy Delete and Salt as recreated deleted material. Also fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC as well as other issues noted by the nominator Rackabello 06:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Per above. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 & salt (non-admin closure, article already deleted by Philippe) — Caknuck 07:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Inspired: Hip Hop's Revival

Few month-old 'debut album' of aspiring rapper Young son listed above. 'Good luck with that, kid' and all, but... Faster deletion contested, so here we are. No claims of charts, tours, awards, primary-topic press, or anything else to meet WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. The purpose of Wikipedia is to document (previously attained) notability, not to try and help create it. With no independent refs also fails WP:VERIFY and, given the contributor's username and that it's been speedied and recreated several times, probably has WP:AUTO and/or WP:COI issues, as well. Sohelpme 04:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real assertion of notability, article has been speedied twice before (and various permutations of Young son have been speedied multiple times. NN record recorded by a NN artist and released by a NN label. Caknuck 05:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. ~ Wikihermit 15:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas E. Winter

non notable writer and lawyer. ~ Wikihermit 04:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Although he has written a few books, none of them are notable. Same is true for WP:BIO: doesn't pass and has no sources. - Kneel17 04:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At least perform some due diligence before nominating. A simple Google search found lots more he wrote, and lots more on him. He has 36,000 Ghits. Two good references are all thats needed. He also has a dozen incoming links. He has 142 Google News archive hits for reviews he wrote for the Washington Post. He has 187 hits in Google Books. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's written one novel, four non fiction books including biographies of Stephen King and Clive Barker, contributed short stories to numerous horror anthologies and contributed lots of reviews. The novel, "Run" was reviewed in the Guardian and the Independent on Sunday among others [8]. Short of actually turning into a werewolf himself what else does he have to do to be notable here? Nick mallory 06:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Author of multiple notable works, therefore best to have an article on him. JulesH 11:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'd like to know more about the guy. Benefit of the doubt it should be worked on further - guys life, motivations, and - achievements. Anthony Chidiac --Achidiac 11:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Achidiac (talk · contribs), Rdpaperclip (talk · contribs), T3Smile (talk · contribs), and 60.241.91.14 (talk · contribs) have been blocked as sock puppets. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Achidiac. -- Jreferee t/c 17:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely strong keep Are you kidding? I've been reading his stuff for nigh on twenty years! He's VERY notable in horror and science fiction circles. What a strange nomination. Rhinoracer 11:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His books have been nominated for fairly notable awards: that's more than enough for me. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 15:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball trivia

"Trivia" in the name gives it away. Basically a pretty clear violation of WP:NOT a collection of random information. Maybe this can be salvaged by merging it elsewhere? Calliopejen1 03:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty clear cut case of an indiscriminate list of information. Spellcast 04:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would be better to organize this article to provide a logical grouping of facts. The subject in question is notable in itself as well. Thus this article should be re-written and not be deleted. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia, even if it is trivia that I personally like. Resolute 04:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Spellcast and Resolute. Maxa megalon 2000 05:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom comments. 08:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete Cruft. Pity there isn't a speedy for this. Blueboy 96 11:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivia. Period. Keb25 11:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Time to chop up the contents into little bits and insert them into relevant articles each line talks about per WP:HTRIVIA.--Kylohk 12:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF, since in theory the article's purpose is to define the term "Baseball Trivia" as "Trivia about Baseball", and that's it. EVERYTHING else in the article seems to be an excuse to drop lots and lots of baseball trivia somewhere because it's just so fun. If there were only one example (after all, only one is needed to clarify a definition), and the article then went on to describe the popularity and history of baseball fans who are obsessed with trivia, I could be persuaded that this is attempting to depict a sociological phenomenon. However, this is not the case. -Markeer 12:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' grouping of mildly related facts in trivia, although this good trivia compared to the "in popular culture" trivia Corpx 15:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the title said so, only a trivia-filled article.--JForget 22:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per virtually everyone above, and the fact that perhaps half of this information is not trivia, but basic baseball statistical records. - fchd 06:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish defense

article is origional research and article has no content. Not sure this is even a real concept. Sefringle^Talk 03:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 03:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (a) Used in this sense, it appears to be a neologism. Most Google hits for the phrase that don't find the JDL or the JDO seem to be organizations from Mandatory Palestine. (b) Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Delete, unsourced neologism. 6SJ7 16:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to a disambiguation page, which is what it is. Bearian 16:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Author presupposes that "Jewish Defense is an umbrella term referring to the defense of the Jewish People through any and all means necessary" without any source for that idea. A term has to be well-known for there to be one meaning, let alone an ambiguity. Mandsford 01:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As far as I know (or informed by this article), this is not such a notable, self-standing concept. HG | Talk 18:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Little content and original research.Type 40 16:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 01:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Deceased Wrestlers

I don't see how this article has any relevancy. Perhaps it could be made into a category but I doubt that as well. This article's existence doesn't seem to serve any purpose in my opinion and the relevant information could simply exist within the pages of each individual mentioned. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hopelessly impossible to complete, indiscriminate. What's next? List of dead people? Resolute 04:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolute waste of space. While there have been too many wrestlers who died young, this page misses the point. WWGB 08:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. For the love of GAWD, someone lock the damn page! Lugnuts 08:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the fact that dead and being a wrestler are loosely associated topics and thus this is listcruft. MartinDK 09:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unmaintainable listcruft. Pity there isn't a speedy for something like this. Blueboy 96 13:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bury this per nom. --Targeman 14:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Delete if you must, but I see no difference from this and other articles (e.g. List of people who have disappeared or List of racing drivers who died in racing crashes) It is a similar list that CNN has broadcast on Nancy Grace. The title should be contain under age 65, it was an oversight on my part. Dom316 14:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone dies eventually. Not all racing drivers die in races. You could draw a comparison if this was "List of wrestlers who died in wrestling matches", but it isn't. Equally, not everyone 'disappears' — in fact, it's really quite unusual (and often even notable on a per-person basis) for someone to fall off the face of the Earth. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 15:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — As per my comment above: everyone dies eventually. This is little more than a list of wrestlers. Had they died actually 'in the ring' (or whatever the jargon is), then it would serve a purpose. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 15:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - since this AfD, the article in this nomination has been redirected to List of Wrestlers Died Under Age 65, which is a redirect of List of Wrestlers Who Died Under Age 65, which is also up for nomination. --tgheretford (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolute listcruft.--JForget 22:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul controversies

note to AfD closer: ~~if this gets deleted please first fold it back in to the Ron Paul#Controversies section as this is being used as a WP:SUMMARY main article at present. BenB4 09:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)~~ Nevermind, got it. BenB4 13:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV fork created for/because of an apparent content dispute in the main article. By definition this article can never be NPOV. — Coren ^(talk) 02:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait This article was just created. Please give it some time and judge it on its own merits/potential. Read this in the meantime if you wish.--Daveswagon 02:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - it doesn't have it's own merits; it's a POV fork from Ron Paul's main article, because people there can't come to an agreement about what should or should not be included. The article's objection doesn't hold any water here. --Haemo 02:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Obvious POV fork. Likely a speedy candidate. Realkyhick 02:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a POV fork, but certainly a content fork. And forking is not a speediable offense. Blueboy 96 02:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Content is forking because of Anappealtoheaven's unilateral edits. A review of Talk:Ron Paul and the user's talk page will show such a history. And how is this any more POV than Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies or Controversies of Rudy Giuliani?--Daveswagon 03:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I agree with above, Not really justifiable as it's own article and seems to be a POV fork. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Montco 03:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to neutral but leaning merge based on Turtlescrubber's suggestion. Comments and attitude by Anappealtoheaven indicate that there is more than meets the eye in this debate. Montco 15:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll modify that further that the 9/11 stuff, while there is no evidence that Ron Paul is a member of the conspiracy crowd, as long as his comments are verifiable, they should be included in his article. It just needs to be left in the context of controversial comments that he has made, rather than some involvement in the 9/11 truth movement. Montco 15:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Content is no longer forked. Could a revised justification for deletion (if any) be issued?--Daveswagon 03:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was an attempt at WP:SUMMARY style. The several ardent admitted supporters who are heavily editing and biasing the Ron Paul article have deleted the material in this new sub-article, tried to relegate it to footnotes, and have tried to rewrite it in a biased manner, just in the past couple weeks. BenB4 04:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Delete per Turtlescrubber below, agreed. BenB4 13:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- A summary was my intention -- and to detail the controversy surrounding a U.S. Congressman and presidential candidate being played out across many major news outlets and blogs.--Daveswagon 04:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE Your summary does not reverse or invalidate any of the arguments for deletion. A speedy DELETION is in order Anappealtoheaven 04:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~No, the fact that the content is no longer forked does.--Daveswagon 04:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - Strong Delete Daveswagon and BenB4 are manufacturing controversy and reposting "political position" content OUT-OF-CONTEXT and moving it up in the article to unfairly prejudice readers. Their edits have many characteristics of a HOAX and should be moved completely off of wikipedia. These lies are NOT good enough to publish at uncyclopedia.org. Why are we allowing such a forum for this nonsense on WIKIPEDIA? Delete, Delete, Delete this is silly stuff. Anappealtoheaven 15:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant violation of NPOV. --Serge 05:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge first part, delete the restMainly manufactured controversies, but I have noticed how the real controversy (newsletter remarks) continually gets erased from the main page. Turtlescrubber 14:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Blueboy96 and BenB4, as a valid article about a notable politician. Bearian 16:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates NPOV. And if this is what Wikipedia's gonna be used for, that'll be the end of this site as a neutral fact-based encyclopedia.TruthGal 05:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete in light of Turtlescrubber's reasoning--Daveswagon 21:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is no consistent practice. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Thompson controversies just resulted in a 'keep' after a lot of differing opinions. Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies, which had been around for some time, was recently dismantled, with its contents distributed into various HRC-related articles. Wasted Time R 22:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete While I recently supported the "Keep" of the similar Fred Thompson article, it included many more controversies than this, and ones that wouldn't fit into the main article. These could fit into the main article and there are only three of them.--Gloriamarie 03:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Inherently POV unsalvageable--Ted-m 00:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obvious fork, it has no merit that the section in the main article hasn't got, this only serves to broadcast certain authors' opinions. --Joffeloff 13:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Jimfbleak, A7. Non-admin closure. Blueboy 96 11:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

50 UK Campus Conversation Topics

Advert for non-notable book. The author of the article is probably one of the authors of the book. -- RHaworth 02:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Chinese-flavored spam. Realkyhick
Delete Not notable. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A google search shows absolutely no hits for this article. It is thus impossible to verify the contents of this article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptor (spam blocking Outlook plugin)

Contested speedy, then prod. The software described is not notable. The article does little or nothing to assert its notability, and the article is largely written like an advertisement. Few relevant Google hits that aren't ads or Wikipedia/reflectors. Realkyhick 02:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Plenty of ghits for downloads, but this does't make it notable. It doesn't do anything different or new to deserve an article. Nicko (Talk•Contribs)Review my progress! 02:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Those which follow historically don't do anything different. This was the first to do it so it needs its own article. Parlanced 02:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==non-notability contested== fix header so it won't disrupt things Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reference to: printed technology magazine[reply]

additionally it is a first-in-kind use of Microsoft's COM add-in technology.

Parlanced 02:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd fix the entry above if I could make heads or tails of it. Realkyhick 02:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

being the first of a kind thing makes it deserving of an article doesn't it? apologies for the garish formatting. I wasn't trying to be an attention whore. I assumed that was the right style. Parlanced 03:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"First of its kind" is by no means a criteria for notability, particularly not the sole criteria. Realkyhick 13:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is an advertisment. Oyster guitarist 03:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete reads like an advertisement and no "significant coverage" of this plugin Corpx 15:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russel Timoshenko

Notability of the subject has not been established WWGB 02:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does not assert the notability of the officer, other than sadly being killed on duty. It reads more like a news item than an encyclopedic entry. WWGB 02:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is sad, but there are unfortunately many line-of-duty deaths for police officers. This is not Wikinews. Realkyhick 02:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sad story, but violation of WP:NOT#NEWS - No historic notability for this Corpx 02:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough for it's own article. Agreed, sad story, however I don't believe it's anywhere near notable enough. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not suffiently notable. Read a lot about the case, and there doesn't appear to be anything remarkable about the case. Just a dirtbag who gunned down a cop. Montco 03:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Let's wait a bit longer and see where this anti-gun thing goes [9]. Not opposed to re-listing if it doesn't result in greater notability. Wl219 12:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no notability to the officer, other than sadly being killed in the line of duty. Unfortunately all too many officers are killed in the line of duty worldwide... but most, like Timoshenko, are not notable. I agree that the article reads more like a news item than an encyclopedic entry. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Perhaps this belongs in WikiNews. Tom M. 22:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 04:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The latin phonetic method of Shanghainese

DeleteThis page looks quite like a rehash in expanded form of the deleted Lumazi - a project to develop a Romanisation scheme for Shanghainese. The content was originally inserted into, then deleted from, Shanghainese ([10] [11] and [12] on the grounds of "self promotion"). Several grounds for deletion:

no assertion of notability;
external links reveal only a limited online presence: one project website, and one example of implementation; other links are to web forum posts;
The article links to Chinese and French wikipedia articles, but those were created by the same user over a 3 week period - which seems to give the subject matter a hint of notability that it does not in fact possess. PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On further reading of the Chinese Wikipedia page (zh:吳語拉丁式注音法), that article gives the following details about the project: it was created in 2001 by a person identified through his/her web alias as "上海闲話abc", and developed with two other persons identified via web aliases as "Hisahara" and "Key". Nothing is stated about the extent of its usage on that page. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm really not sure about this. Could this fit under WP:NOT#HOWTO in that wikipedia is not a pronunciation guide? Corpx 02:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, there's that aspect too. And it's a pronunciation guide of a non-notable scheme for transliterating Chinese, not the language itself. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, I've read the article, and I still can't quite figure out what it is. Is it some kind system for romanizing Chinese characters, or what? I'm kind of inclined to support deletion as it seems to be altogether non-notable, as well as a sort of manual (not to mention incredibly confusing), but I wouldn't want to do that if I'm not sure exactly what I'm discussing the deletion of. Calgary 05:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to be a system for romanizing Chinese characters according to their Shanghai dialect pronunciation (as opposed to the more standard Mandarin pronunciation). Comparable (but more notable and less confusingly written) systems would be, e.g., Pinyin or Standard Cantonese Pinyin. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very interesting for a linguist, but misses notability criteria by a large margin. This is a very recent proposal, it has had no official recognition, and its author is not notable. This system might catch on in the future (although I doubt it), but it's certainly not notable enough right now. --Targeman 14:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sourced and I see no reason why an editor might want to hide an article about this romanization system from other WP users. Badagnani 18:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no external sources. And what do you think about the notability criterion though? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are external sources. It's also real bad that the original author of the article was not alerted of this AFD nor was any discussion posted to his/her discussion page. That really isn't right! Badagnani 01:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The external links consist of the project's own website, one example of implementation on a website, and web forum posts. There are no external, third-party sources for the article. Most problematically, no claim to notability is made out.

This AfD was notified on Wikiproject:China, and of course it is prominently displayed on the article itself. There is no requirement to notify the creator (who, btw, has not edited since June 5, when this article was created). If you think notification is necessary, I will do so now. But please give us your thoughts on notability.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Badaboom Mandsford 01:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information. Notability needs to be satisfied. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Much of the article's content is already covered in a better-written and referenced article at Shanghainese. However, I would encourage editors who are more familiar with the subject have a look and see if there's anything that can be salvaged from this article and put into Shanghainese. enochlau (talk) 09:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The system has to actually catch on and be used by a significant number of people for it to be notable. Otherwise, we leave ourselves open to making an article for every romanization system that anyone dreams up.--Danaman5 21:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is primarily a How-To violating WP:NOT. The article has no reliable sources, and fails notability. -- Whpq 14:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Non admin close. ~ Wikihermit 00:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Clancey

Non-notable designer. Coverage is trivial, price in article smells like promotion. No claim to sufficient notability to pass WP:BIO for creative professionals. — Coren ^(talk) 01:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: She's apparently up-and-coming, but non-notable at the moment. Not only are there prices included, but some parts of the article are word for word copies from the Julia Clancey website [13]. - Kneel17 01:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: The subject's products appeared in fashion magazines. However, I don't see any of them on the website. I do agree, she's non-notable at the moment. And, the article has bit-by-bit pieces of plagiarism from the official website. Miranda 02:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I know a news release when I see one. Realkyhick 02:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After she becomes more notable the article can be brought back to life. Montco 04:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sorry guys, I'm going to go the other way. Article is just not well written, thats all. I know of this designer and putting out a successful fashion range is notable enough, sure she didnt re-invent the belt but Gucci, Prada, and D&G didn't either. cheers Anthony Chidiac --Achidiac 11:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Achidiac (talk · contribs), Rdpaperclip (talk · contribs), T3Smile (talk · contribs), and 60.241.91.14 (talk · contribs) have been blocked as sock puppets. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Achidiac. -- Jreferee t/c 17:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Notability is just above borderline IMHO. If the article can be cleaned up and properly sourced before the close of AfD, I'll happily add a keep vote. As-is, it's overly advert-like in tone and relies too much on her own website for sourcing, and losing the article wouldn't be any great loss. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Achidiac and Andrew Lenahan. She appears notable, but what a mess of an article! Autohagiography at its worst. Bearian 16:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Obviously this needs to be more or less scrapped in its current form and rewritten, but I think the designer is definitely notable. (BTW I started Wikipedia:WikiProject Fashion.) I don't think the other voters looked through the sources for the article--one of them is vogue.co.uk, which has a full slideshow of her latest collection at London Fashion Week. Her show was an off-schedule one, but London Fashion Week is one of the four major fashion weeks in the world, and if Vogue magazine attends your show and posts pictures of your collection its website, you're pretty big news. Obviously she's a new designer (this is her first collection that Vogue posted a slideshow for online), but I think the other sources referenced (including [14] and [15] are at least enough for a short article. See also her website where she lists all the fashion magazines her designs have been used in--not necessarily articles, but if your clothes are in fashion spreads in Elle, I.D., Vogue, Vogue Italia, Vogue Russia, Glamour, InStyle, GQ, FHM, etc etc, you definitely should be covered here. Calliopejen1 10:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just cleaned it up so it's not an ad anymore. Calliopejen1 11:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Seems to me like a standard business professional in a glamorous industry. Not notable enough yet, but she could easily get there soon. Uranometria 21:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you are on Vogue's website, you are not a standard business professional. If you look in the drop-down box, you'll see they went to about 250 shows this season and took photos. This means that Vogue UK (one of the most important fashion magazines) thinks this woman is one of the 250 most important fashion designers in the world right now, which I think is decently notable in such a huge industry. If you were one of the top 250 actors in the world, to compare this to another profession, would certainly have a wikipedia page. I'm adding new references to a The Independent piece on her. There are certainly enough reliable sources to be had here... Calliopejen1 13:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads more like news or an advert. If you have to explain the notability in full detail to someone, then maybe they aren't that notable to begin with. Pharmboy 15:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep are you fucking serious? Her designs have been featured in Vogue, Glamour, InStyle, Elle, GQ, and FHM... if thats not a notable designer... then we might as well delete them all. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Lets please keep this civil. We can disagree without being disagreable. Pharmboy 18:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has changed in major ways since its nomination. The subject meets WP:BIO by a) being the subject (or being the creator of the subject) of multiple reliable secondary sources and b)by being known for originating a significant new concept in that her fashion concepts have been recognized by the Centre for Fashion Enterprise (an internationally recognized institution) as being worth nurturing and retaining in London. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Like many articles, they seem to magically improve when nominated. It is better now. Pharmboy 00:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 01:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jezebel swain

non-notable, suspect hoax; prodded it, IP address user modified with a link to a livejournal page as a source NeilN 01:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Even on the livejournal link, it says that her music is "hard to find"... doesn't pass WP:BIO and has no credible sources. - Kneel17 01:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero hits on Google and Google Books. If she were really "an overnight sensation in the singing world" during the 1920s, someone would have written something about her. Smells like a hoax to me. Deor 02:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably a hoax. For starters, "Jadwiga Tchalov" is not a Czech name. Even the author says she was an "obscure artist". No wonder there are no sources. --Targeman 14:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax. Did you follow the link? Bearian 16:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It won't load on my PC. What is it? --Targeman 16:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Live Journal entry uses Wikipedia article as a source; Wikipedia article uses the Live Journal entry as a source. A hoax. --Malcolmxl5 21:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; unverified and non-notable. --Russ (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Until (1 == 2) 05:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David L. Leamon

I'm sure a claim to having had the lobby of a local public library named after oneself is not enough to pass notability criteria, but I suppose it's enough to not be speedily deleted. Non-notable librarian, with no sources. — Coren ^(talk) 01:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Although I'm sure he's greatly contributed to a local community, I see no way how this fulfills WP:BIO. - Kneel17 01:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: His contributions to the Library community across the country as well as to communities in Michigan, Texas and Kansas does qualify him for inclusion. If this does not qualify him for inclusion then I would say that the many articles about mayors of Topeka would also need to be deleted as they have had virtually no impact outside the Topeka area where David Leamon has. Jopgaard 01:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument for deletion. --Ybbor ^Talk 02:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ooooh! He has a circulation lobby named after him.... uh, what the heck is a circulation lobby, anyway? Not notable, folks. Realkyhick 02:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This guy's just an average librarian - no notability established Corpx 02:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO, not notable person. Oyster guitarist 03:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does indeed fail the criteria for notability. Not notable enough for own article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The most notable thing I could find about this guy was that the Topeka library got sued when he was director after a staffer was fired for discussing gay rights issues. Unfortunately, Mr. Leamon was on vacation at the time the firing occurred and had no direct involvement in the incident. Montco 04:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[16][reply]
Weak keep as notability is asserted and cites can be verified. Bearian 16:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being head of major library systems in multiple states (Kansas, Michigan, Texas, and in top management in Washington) seems to put him near the top of his field, not average. Sohelpme 19:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... which is laudable, but does not meet WP:BIO. — Coren ^(talk) 03:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I think Mr. Leamon more than meets the criteria in WP:BIO. He has played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work or collective body of work (multiple Libraries significant enough for you?) which have been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles, and he personally has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles as well. Additionally, his work has become a significant monument within each community, 2 of his libraries have won significant critical attention and are internationally significant both architecturally and for the services they provide. If you go by the academic standards, he is repeatedly quoted in newspapers or newsmagazines , has appeared on CNN and is widely regarded as a significant expert in his area. Zafti 17:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC) — Safti (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep on the basis of the building activity. Librarians dont get very often to design major new facilities, and to have planned two notable ones with major architects is quite distinctive. It's sometimes hard judging the work of administrators, but I think he's well over the bar. DGG (talk) 07:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article has expanded some and accumulated citations since being brought to AFD. The references are from two newspapers, but the set from one newspaper are not accessible, which is why I append Weak to my support. Assuming Good Faith, I would say that the subject passes the first WP:BIO criterion of being the subject of multiple secondary sources (I count the 6 articles being from 2 secondary sources in this case - which is why WP:AGF is needed). Having a part of a building named after you satisfies (weakly) satisfies a second of the WP:BIO criteria - receiving a significant recognized honor; people seek out having wings of buildings and rooms named after them as persistent marks of their influence. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of sportspeople who have died during their playing career. Obviously a fork of that page; I don't see why wrestling would require a separate article. Sr 13 01:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of wrestlers who died early age

This is a text-book example of irredeemable WP:LISTCRUFT if I ever saw one. The underlying concept is not notable, and it's indiscriminate and arbitrary (why not before the age of 40? Or 60? What is "early age"?) — Coren ^(talk) 01:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, purely list cruft, hard to verify, etc. And I agree with the nom here -- what is "early age" for a wrestler? For anyone? I'm 20 years old -- is that "early age" for a Wikipedian? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the article - 50. Chaldean 01:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Greatly disagree. Ho did you conclude it to be not notable? I think people would be very interested in this list considering the many wrestlers who are dying at a young age for the past 5 years. In any case, this list has great potential (in terms of length) considering the amount of wrestlers who have died. Chaldean 01:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overly specific. Has no clear standard for inclusion. --Alksub 01:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I would also like to know how is this different from List of professional cyclists who died during a race? Or what about if we changed the title to "List of wrestlers who have died during their career" just like List of sportspeople who have died during their playing career? The current list [[17]] isn't in any order, lacks information - age importantly. Chaldean 01:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "List of wrestlers who died during a match" would be an analog. Also, please try to remember that the existence of one article is not a good reason to keep another. — Coren ^(talk) 01:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to List of wrestlers who have died during their career seems like a smart move -- that way, the listing criteria would be much more explicit. The reason the list is currently no good is because "early age" is NOT verifiable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can easily expand it, but it was tagged exactly 30 seconds after I began the article. Chaldean 01:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reason for that. Realkyhick 02:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete or Merge: Would be made a lot better into a regular encyclopedia article, and not a list. It is something that's notable, but doesn't need to have a page to itself, especially when only six are mentioned and there are probably many more that can be found and included. At the moment it just seems like it was copied off another page (Old Assyrian Period?) and then filled in with the info of the wrestlers. Good idea, just poorly made and needs to be included in another way. - Kneel17 01:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listcruft, pure and simple. Besides, who defines "early age"? Count this one out, ref. Realkyhick 02:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been changed before you even commented. Chaldean 02:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. That was fast. Didn't realize I wielded so much influence. :-) Even so, I'm not really thriled about this list, and I think it would be better sorted by name than by date, though I think there's a way you can set charts up to allow user sorting. I gotta say that there seems to be an inordinate amount of coverage of pro wrestling on Wikipedia as a whole. However, I think this list now escapes the choke-hold of listcruft. (Choke-hold? Wrestling? Get it? Oh, never mind.) Realkyhick 02:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Note - According to Hannity and Colmes [[18]] 104 wrestlers have died under the age 40 in the past 10 years. I think its important to list this. Chaldean 03:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Doesn't warrant own article. See List of Deceased Wrestlers for another related article I recently nominated for deletion. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but take note that being dead is not at all notable, or list criteria, whereas the situation/circumstances surrounding your death may be. Calgary 03:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First off, the article is improperly named. The appropriate title is List of professional wrestlers who have died during their career, as that is described by the article as criteria for inclusion. When you look at it that way, it seems to be of far greater value, as it is entirely objective, rather than subjective (For example, if Ric Flair were to die any time soon, he would still be included in the article, as although whether he is at an "early age" for death may be arguable, the fact that he is still an active professional wrestler cannot be disputed. Once you take that into consideration, I'd have to say that yes, the subject of of professional wrestlers who have died during their active careers is indeed notable enough for it's own list. Calgary 03:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Young" is ambiguous, "Early" is also ambiguous. As for "in their career", that would put the list to maybe 15 notable individuals at most. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piledrive aka Strong Delete WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:NOT Rackabello 05:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article, under its new title, suggests that there is something rotten in this industry. Would be much stronger as an article WWGB 08:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete recreation of something very similar that was knocking about soon after Benoit killed himself. Lugnuts 08:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete list cruft of the worst kind and WP:NOT as stated above. Fork of the equally bad List of Deceased Wrestlers. MartinDK 09:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is listcruft and unsourced.--JForget 16:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Monster in My Pocket characters

Catalog listing of hundreds of figures in a toy range. It's a useless list as well, because none of the names link to articles about the toys. Indiscriminate information that belongs on a fansite, not an encyclopedia. Crazysuit 01:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Crazysuit. Purely pointless... fairly entertaining list to look at, though. - Kneel17 01:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - the "See also" section is hilarious - it includes a link to The Lesser Key of Solomon. The main Monster in My Pocket article is quite large, so I think merging is completely out of the question, whether someone can format it or not. I sympathize with anyone interested in this subject matter who says "but it's useful!"; but I think this is a little too much detail for Wikipedia to have on this topic. Thus listcruft, thus delete. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I was more or less forced to excise this from the Monster in My Pocket article, but without this, it ignores the rich lore that Monster ion My Pocket draws from. It's not a collection simply of famous monsters, but little-known monsters as well. To eliminate this makes no sense, especially when every Kinnikuman character is listed. There is nothing "hilarious" about a link to The Lesser Key of Solomon considering it is one of the sources from which Monster in My Pocket characters were drawn. Except for Warlock and Vampire, there really is not enough about the monsters that are unique to their MIMP presentations to make them more than supplementary information to the monster's main page. Had more materials, such as the announced live-action feature film, been made, that would be a valid argument. To delete this article is simply not thoughtful, as the whole point of the range is that they were "real" monsters, in the sense of all being pre-existing ideas in international culture before they were toys. Yes, it got sidetracked, but even the Super Creepies are based on real arthropods. --Scottandrewhutchins 15:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOT a toy catalog. Just because something is 'real' doesn't make it notable, encyclopedic, or even interesting outside of its fanbase. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 23:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article makes a mockery of the respectable field of pocket monsters. ~ Infrangible 02:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; there is already an external link to the excellent Toyarchive.com in the main Monster in My Pocket article, which has a huge list of merchandise, including images. If anyone wants to see a list of every toy in the range, they can click on that link. Masaruemoto 05:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this should in a template or a category instead of a listcruft article.--JForget 16:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the point is to link to the entires on the monsters in wikipedia, as nearly all of them have an article. You people all seem to be missing the point. --Scottandrewhutchins 15:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of internal links. If there are reliable secondary sources that discuss these creatures in the specific context of MIMP then great, write an article on them. Otto4711 12:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was not simply a collection of internal links until it was reworked by someone else. It was originally "Characters of Monster in My Pocket" and I was forced to concede the change under the three-revert rule. With User:Spylab's changes reversed, it would be a work in progress and not simply a collection of internal links. --Scottandrewhutchins 16:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as copyvio.

Disclaimer: Non-admin close by original nom. I did not tag the copyvio nor did I delete the article. — Coren ^(talk) 02:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Identification System in the Philippines

Large essay on a topic that arguably might be notable, but is currently unverified, unsourced and an attempt at mobilization. — Coren ^(talk) 01:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree that it might be notable, but this is a copy/paste of an essay [19] and blatant WP:SOAP. - Kneel17 01:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Kneel17. Copyright violation. Blueboy 96 01:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio, so tagged. Even if it's not a copy vio, it's still WP:SOAPy. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as WP:SOAP - if that isn't allowed, then speedy delete as db-spam. A real article on this topic would be nice, but this article isn't it. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 01:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NFL Rants & Raves

Non-notable podcast. Searches on Yahoo and Google turned up no reliable independent sources. Blueboy 96 00:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per Blueboy. - Kneel17 00:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability established - basically anyone can create a podcast and there's not much that sets this one apart Corpx 02:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. One of hundreds of NFL-topic podcasts; nothing sets it apart. Realkyhick 02:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable podcast.Montco 03:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete as the number 1 nfl podcast how is this non notable. 213.190.146.51 16:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, very unclear as to precisely define what a green handshake is. Sr 13 01:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green handshake

Apparent neologism. No sources at all. At best, a dicdef. Blueboy 96 00:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be a non-notable neologism. --Haemo 00:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki: change in thought... if it is not a neologism, it most certainly is a definition. - Kneel17 01:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - Actually, this term has been in use for many years in these industries and one's lack of knowledge regarding it does not make it a neologism. It has also been called duking. By these standards, terms such as Meme, in this usage, would also be a neologism. elipo 21:30, 20 July 2007

W:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument. Realkyhick 02:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. This is a dictionary definition. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sources about the term and not just use it WP:NEO Corpx 02:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently no one else has knowledge of this term, either, at least no one that can verify it. Realkyhick 02:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI think the appropriate template is {Not verified|date=July 2007}, not afd.
Delete Per above. Not notable neologism. Never heard it before, sounds to be made up, but even if it isn't, it's still not notable enough and doesn't meet the criteria to be an article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. This word is not a neologism, it has been around for a long time. But it belongs in a dictionary, not here. --Targeman 14:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitional articles are not appropriate for Wikipedia; this is definitional. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not transwiki. Most Ghits are other uses--a band[20], slang for pro-environment ("green") agreements[21] [22], descriptive phrases[23], or random word pairings[24]. Sohelpme 19:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I found similar results in Google News Archive ranging from an end-of-year bonus to a bribe. It's a fairly obvious phrase for transferring money, not so obvious why it would be so clearly limited to a certain usage within the restaurant industry, and no sources indicating it has been. --Dhartung | Talk 19:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per Dennis the Tiger as WP is not a dictionnary.--JForget 16:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wikitionary. A defintion, yes. An encyclopedia subject, no.--JayJasper 21:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to List of minor characters in Biker Mice from Mars#Mace. Sr 13 00:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mace (Biker Mice from Mars)

Minor characters are rarely notable, especially if they only appeared in three episodes. Clarityfiend 00:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge: a non-notable minor character, but could possibly be merged into the main article, Biker Mice from Mars? If so, needs some revision and additions. - Kneel17 00:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I dont think its worth merging as this character apparently has only appeared in 3 episodes. No notability of this fictional person (animal) in real world media Corpx 02:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor character, doesn't need an artical. Oyster guitarist 03:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough for own article. Should be redirected and merged with main article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of minor characters in Biker Mice from Mars. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Starblind -Flubeca^Talk 23:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with minor characters.

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

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

The result was snow delete by JodyB. Non-admin closure. Blueboy 96 14:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Trails Park

Since when are swimming pools notable? Clarityfiend 00:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I don't know what this is, but it ain't an article. Any way we can snow this garbage? Blueboy 96 00:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: Completely pointless and not notable. - Kneel17 00:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - is there a case for this to be speedied under a7? --Xorkl000 00:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a swimming pool. My neighbours have one. It doesn't need an article either. --Haemo 00:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete "...the lifeguards at the Trails Pool are some of the craziest people located on planet Earth" is an inadequate assertion of notability... <cough> --Malcolmxl5 00:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Come on! How did this nonsense escape a speedy? Blatant NPOV violations bordering on vandalism. This is a no-brainer. Drown this article. Realkyhick 02:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That's nonsense, it's a pool. Oyster guitarist 03:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Swimming pools are, in general, not notable. Everybody and their brother has one. This swimming pool is only slightly more notable than my cat. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 03:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Any article that asserts its notability by saying it's "the MOST AMAZING SWIMMING POOL ever" needs to be slapped with a deletion. How did this get past the NP patrollers and remain undetected for a week? Spellcast 04:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this 'shenanigans' version. Without prejudice if a decent, referenced version about the actual park shows up sometime in the future. Sohelpme 04:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Per above. Not notable. Pointless. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I mean just read it... not only does it violate WP:N it also stinks of WP:SPAM. MartinDK 09:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete mind-numbingly non-notable, paradoxically written as both spam ("the MOST AMAZING SWIMMING POOL ever") and attack ("opened in 1997 and has not been cleaned since"). Kill it quick. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted - per discussion, some kind of odd test page. Shell ^babelfish 03:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russia without Dostoevsky

Apparent content fork. Virtual carbon copy of Russia. Blueboy 96 00:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't even understand this page; it looks like the Russia page...but? --Haemo 00:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as a joke page. Haemo and Blueboy, you don't get it? The guy deleted 2 mentions of Dostoyevsky from the Russia article - scroll down to "culture", get to the bit about "Russian literature", and wherever the word Tolstoy appears, the Dostoyevsky that followed it was deleted. I infer that the page creator probably dislikes Dostoyevsky; but what do I know. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is the Russia artical without the word Dostoevsky. Oyster guitarist 01:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - DB-test ? Corpx 02:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 00:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Life of African Women

is there possibility of this becoming an encyclopedic topic? i doubt it Xorkl000 00:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - kind of original research topic. Miranda 00:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research and no chance of becoming encyclopedic. Oyster guitarist 01:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete - I actually think it is an appropriate topic idea, though I can't see how an author would be able to generalize across all Africa. If one could really perform that generalization, though, and if the external research is out there to refer to (and I bet there's all sorts of African Women's Studies stuff out there), I think it would be a fantastic article for Wikipedia to have. Unfortunately, this article isn't it. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if there were any National Geographic references included within the context of the article, then that would be a different story, since verifying facts are shown. Miranda 02:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Original research at best, WP:SNOW at worst. Realkyhick 02:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I don't get how this could possibly become a viable article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is virtually impossible for this article to be encyclopedic in nature. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 07:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To both of the above: There is a place called Africa. There are women in it. What experiences do African women share? Do they have a common condition? In what ways do African women's lives differ from each other, and do African women experience things that others do not? My suggestion is that this can be a referenced and encyclopedic article, because all those questions have (probably) been written about in Women's Studies programs all over. Although, like I said, the present article isn't doing a good job at all.AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 21:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could imagine an encyclopedic article under this title... but this isn't it, or even the start of it. Delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per AllGloryToTheHypnotoad and Andrew Lenahan. It could be a really fine article, but this is not the one. If deleted, please do not salt. "I have a dream ..." oh, you know what I mean. Bearian 16:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete talk about indiscriminate...this list could go on for billions of entries. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately. This would have been a very interesting article, although I think it would need to be completely re-started as there is OR and few sources. The lack of wikilinking, categories and poor writing would also justify the full restart of it.--JForget 17:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You can tell which people vote to delete or to keep without even bothering to read the article, since there's no "list" involved at all and no clue as to why it was so titled. I did read it, it's not just a matter of being mistitled, and it is somewhat arbitrary to generalize about half of the residents of an entire continent. For those who judge a book only by its cover, spouting Wikipedia slogans doesn't make up for it. Mandsford 01:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, erroneously nominated.

Disclosure: non-admin close. — Coren ^(talk) 01:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helenium virus S

non-notable, suspect hoax; prodded it, IP address user modified with a link to a livejournal page as a source NeilN 01:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Sorry, wrong page --NeilN 01:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was that's so deleted. Krimpet 03:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's So Pooshnik

This is a fictional television show mentioned only once at the end of That's So in the House, an episode of Cory in the House. It will most likely never be made into an actual television show, and doesn't merit its own article. Kalani ^[talk] 01:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Totally non-notable, doesn't even deserve a merge. I have no idea why a page was made for this. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fictional topic with no real world coverage Corpx 02:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. However, some of this information could be put into the That's So in the House article. Useight 02:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest delete possible. How did this ever escape speedy? Non-notable. Not even one scintilla of notability. None. Nowehere. Realkyhick 02:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What the? The idea that this page was created is bizzare. I'll WP:AGF though. Nicko (Talk•Contribs)Review my progress! 02:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete completly not notable and don't merge it. Oyster guitarist

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