Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 3 February 5 >

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. Bucketsofg 02:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Špaček

[edit]
Ivan Špaček (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete. Absolutely non notable blog owner and citizen. Article created long time ago by his friend and in the Czech Rep. notorious poisoner Ross Hedvicek. The article is currently undergoing AFD process on CS Wiki with overwhelming majority of votes for deletion The article was deleted on cs.wikipedia ( Cinik 09:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC) fixed), see [1]. Darwinek 20:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep - I do not think it is beneficial to Czech culture and Czech reputation altogether to organize these RAIDS on articles on currently unpopular emigres. You should be ashamed of yourself. Ross.Hedvicek 13:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Why some strange guys or who is trying to "edit" or even "clean" our recent history in this particular area ? One of others. 8 February 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.160.5.222 (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I resent another attack by Darwinek at me. I do not use other identities, as a matter of fact I am the only one here who uses his real name here - not anonymous nick. I request that Darwinek is called to order. Thank you. Ross.Hedvicek 20:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I second Darwinek's cancelation of that vote and reasons for doing that. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 20:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An emigration itself is sufficiently notable - otherwise it would not be submitted for VfD. Ross.Hedvicek 19:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean that everyone who left country should have an article on wikipedia ? Are you kidding ? ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 19:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, vice versa. Your ilk hates him, BECAUSE he emigrated. That'swhy you want him to be deleted. Ross.Hedvicek 19:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article about Ivan Spacek was expanded since AfD input. I suggest vote to be cancelled as a non-issue. It was ridiculous to submit it as AfD in the first place. And I also object to Darwinek's postings of derogative and offensive messages on my personal pages. Ross.Hedvicek 17:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to your typo, the sentence in the article "he actively participated in exile's communisty activities" doesn't make it clear if he was active in the community or active communist. Please fix. Thanks. --Fuxoft 17:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ross Hedvicek you are that one who attacks us, this is your addition at jan.kamenicek talk page:
To uz vam vsem mladym v Cesku uplne jebe? Ty vase neustale najezdy na emigranty uz nejsou ani ubohe, ani trapne - jsou vyslovene ostudne. Ross.Hedvicek 13:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Translation: Are all youngs fucked up in Czech ? Your permanent attacks on emmigrants are not only miserable and embarassing - they are shameful.
Stop personal attacks immediately, if you will continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 18:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tulkolahten: please handle personal attack by Dawinek on me. Thank you. Ross.Hedvicek 18:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which one ? That sentence full of irony about Paroubek ? ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 18:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that as personal attack. Ross.Hedvicek 19:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For all non-Czech users. Mr. Hedvicek is a well-known internet spammer, vandal, wannabe and Czech far-right exile living in the USA. See article on him on CS Wiki [2]. He is known for disparagement of the Czech Republic, his politicians, people etc. He hates country that gave him life and does everything here to damage its image. He thinks we all living here are communist indoctrinated filth and all exiles (even fraudsters) are heroes. - Darwinek 20:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is FOURTH personal attack by Darwinek within just a few hours! Ross.Hedvicek 20:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


By writing this, you are kinda lowering yourself to his level of filth. It doesn't matter if it's true. It's enough for anyone to have a logical look at the article and on the defense Ross uses for its existence, to see who is right and who is not. Even as a psychopath, Communist or Nazi, Ross could've written a worthy Wikipedia article. But it seems it didn't happen this time... --Fuxoft 20:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And another personal attack by Fuxoft. Hm. What is wrong with those young Czechs? Why they are so angry? Ross.Hedvicek 20:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To quote yourself: "That's only your personal opinion. Who made you a judge?" Yes, it sounds kinda stupid, desn't it? --Fuxoft 20:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where ? ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 20:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Up page. Ross.Hedvicek 21:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop all personal attacks against exiles! It is uncivilized! Ross.Hedvicek 18:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually attack came from you only. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 18:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any. Ross.Hedvicek 18:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's exactly the problem. You probably honestly think that you don't attack people. Which is kinda sad... --Fuxoft 20:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See comment above. You attacked jan.kamenicek. Any editor could nominate any article to AfD process and you can't send him offensive comments about that as you did. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 18:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see your patronizing comments towards me as a personal attack. Ross.Hedvicek 19:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put a notice on Darwinek's talk page to be upright, but his edit is rather uncivility but yours is an obvious personal attack. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 19:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's only your opinion against mine. Or somebody made you a judge? Ross.Hedvicek 19:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should report your personal attack and his uncivility to some administrator requesting your block, we will see ... ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 19:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do just that - and identify yourself correctly as a Czech with prejudices against exiles - so everything is clear. Thank you. Ross.Hedvicek 19:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do just that - and identify yourself correctly as a blatant prattler with predujices against nappies - so everything is clear. Thank you. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 20:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I admit having prejudices against local tyrants. Ross.Hedvicek 20:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really ? ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 20:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really. Ross.Hedvicek 21:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that Cinik, Aktron, AntOnTrack, Fuxoft and possibly others do not have enough editations on EN Wiki to qualify for vote. I am requesting their votes to be disqualified. Ross.Hedvicek 21:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. I have over 200 edits here on en.wiki. Just check the contributions list before shooting. --Aktron 21:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vote can be disqualified only and only if it is IP address, single purpose account, sockpuppet or if it was created after the AfD debate beginning. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 21:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is one of the RH's untruths. Like usually. A request to block him has been already written at the admins noticeboard. --Aktron 21:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's right man. My c. 40,000 edits is way too little. - Darwinek 21:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40,000 edits only ? No way, you are obviously singlepurpose account ... ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 21:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ross.Hedvicek edits stats:
User:Ross.Hedvicek
run at Thu Feb 8 21:59:29 2007 GMT
Category: 2
Mainspace 346
Talk: 24
User talk: 36
User: 63
Wikipedia talk: 2
Wikipedia: 26
avg edits per article 2.48
earliest 15:07, 3 March 2006
number of unique articles 201
total 499
≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 22:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Founder of Literary Cubism"?

[edit]

Do you still stand by this statement, Mr. Hedvicek? Although challenged, you didn't retract it from the article (while making other edits to the article) and you didn't offer any explanation as to how could anything be founded by someone who was born several decades after the existence of given movement was extensively documented. If you meant something else than "literary cubism", your correction is also needed, of course... --Fuxoft 22:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by it. Ross.Hedvicek 00:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Bucketsofg 02:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real Social Dynamics

[edit]
Real Social Dynamics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is where new discussion should go, not on an old page. Please continue here. Last version before I put it back to the archive was here (discussion is suppose to be preserved as an archive, not edited). No opinion -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Currently, my !vote remains as a Delete - however, there are two links that reference hardcopy publications, and if a weblink can be found such as a Google cache or a bugmenot, I will review the information and revisit my !vote from there. --Dennisthe2 00:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've revisited my vote, and have decided to give a Keep under the circumstances. User:SecondSight has done an...well, an amazing job of asserting notability on the two sources there that have been transplanted under the References section, which seems to be a much better home for them. My previous statement, though, still stands - a link to the articles, if you can find one offsite (i.e., not so COI-ish), will do wonders for the references. I'm thinking like a Google cache or something. --Dennisthe2 00:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not appear to definitively pass WP:CORP, one hit on Google News Archive in a more general article, no hits on Find Articles, etc. Just the book isn't really enough, and it only looks like it's part of the book anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 00:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. And Google New Archive and Find Articles are the only places to find sources since when, exactly? Also, you act is the book is the only source for this article, which is simply incorrect. See below. --SecondSight 02:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:CORP is merely a proposed guideline. As such you typically shouldn't be trying to force a deletion based on that. Though in any case it still meets the proposed guideline. Mathmo Talk 06:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nobody is trying to force the deletion here. This should be quite evident from the discussion that is taking place since this AfD was closed with a Delete consensus. Just because WP:CORP is not policy yet does not preclude it from being used as notability criteria. Luke! 07:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Two sources have been provided (I won't restart the discussion of whether two sources counts as "multiple") but they need to be checked for validity first. I am very concerned by the small number of Google hits for something that you'd expect would be overrepresented online. Also, not all sources are equal -- without seeing the sources, I would be willing to guess that these are tiny blurbs in a "News of the Weird" section or something like that. I agree with this quote, from the deletion review: "Is there no end to the overweening vanity of these "seduction community" people? The whole business is vanity built on vanity built on vanity." --N Shar 00:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Instead of guessing, why not look up the sources and actually find out? (See list of sources below.) Is it so much to ask that people review the sources before voting in an AfD instead of just following their preconceptions? With Google hits, I am getting 22,600; maybe that's small to you, but it isn't to me. As for the subject of vanity, I've already acknowledged in the earlier AFD above that "Part of the problem is that people affiliated with the company have often engaged in vanity-type whitewashing of the article." Yet disruption from those people doesn't mean that a balanced article cannot be written on the subject. --SecondSight 02:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have looked up the sources. The two sources provided are copied (probably illegally, but that's not the point) to the RSD website and seem only to be available there. I agree that they don't appear to be "News of the Weird" items, but since the context is gone I can't be sure. Incidentally, simply searching "real social dynamics" may return extraneous sources; I searched it with names of the founders and found very few hits. And the comment on "vanity" was not meant to be a valid argument for deletion anyway, though the possibility of a conflict of interest has not been ruled out. --N Shar 02:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thank you for reviewing the sources. The Edge Magazine article isn't only available from the RSD website; there is a link in my previous comment and on the talk page of this discussion. You say that the "context is gone." Could you explain exactly what context are you looking for? --SecondSight 03:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Would you like to provide some reasons why? --SecondSight 02:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would like to review the sources for this article so we can all be on the same page in this discussion. Some of the editors above either haven't reviewed the sources, or aren't addressing all of them. They might have just missed my comments on the talk page, and on the talk page of the closing admin. Here are the prospective sources for the article:
  1. The Times article
  2. The Game
  3. The Men's Health article (not linked to, though the text is available from the publication section of RSD's website)
  4. The Edge Magazine article (here's a link to a website that archives the magazine since it is now out-of-print)
  5. The San Francisco Magazine article[3]; it's only a paragraph, but I think this is nontrivial coverage, because it discusses the appearances of instructors for the company and it characterizes their methods:


The Times article doesn't mention RSD by name (it mentions Tyler Durden running a seminar, which can only be RSD), so let's throw it out for sake of argument. I agree with with an above comment that not all sources are equal, so let's say that The Game and the San Francisco Magazine article together are worth about one source (The Game is good for notability but not for verifiable information on the subject; the San Francicso Magazine coverage is non-trivial but admittedly small). Still, there are two other sources for the page: The Men's Health article, and the Edge Magazine article. The burden is on voters for deletion to explain how these sources are inadequate. None of the voters so far have done so. User:N Shar above "guesses" that they are "tiny blurbs in a 'News of the Weird' section," but admits not having read them. Yet if you read them you will see that they are both men's magazine articles (not "news of the weird") which both have RSD as the main subject.
I would like to point out that of the three users voting for deletion in the re-opened debate, none of them really address the sources in this article which are supposedly inadequate. User:Dhartung doesn't address sources for the article other than the book, User:N Shar admits not having reviewed the sources, and User:Soltak only offers a vague reference to WP:CORP without providing any explanation. I would ask that subsequent voters in this discussion fully address the arguments and sources offered. --SecondSight 02:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How could I have reviewed the sources? They weren't linked to. As for their reliability/applicability, the two cited on RSD's site seem good, though the context is now unavailable. The other sources have been critiqued by other users, and in general do not satisfy the criteria because they do not feature RSD as their subject. As I've said above, not all sources are equal. --N Shar 02:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What I objected to was the way you seemed to have judged the sources as inadequate prior to reviewing them. A link to the Edge Magazine article has been available on the talk page of this discussion, and a Google search for "real social dynamics" edge magazine found it as the first result. --SecondSight 03:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The notability of this article is not questionable, because The Game is usable as a source to establish notability (it just isn't a good source for facts on the company). Furthermore, there are at least two non-trivial sources other than The Game. Nobody voting for deletion has supplied any real arguments against those sources except for hand-waving about "puff pieces." --SecondSight 20:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.I've added an "Ideology" section. It took me a few hours to write it up, and it keeps getting deleted. After reading this whole thread of debate on the spammish tone of the article, I took it upon myself to offer some tangible content. When I first wrote it the entire article had been deleted, so I offered this content as the start of a new article. If you wish to revert the article back to it's previous state that's fine, but please leave up the "Ideology" section which I have spent my time to contribute. Thanks very much.

Comment Section was totally unsourced. Removed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge into Tyler Durden (pick-up artist) (and possibly articles on other principals). The reliable sources presented thus far establish Tyler Durden, and possibly one or both of the other principals, are notable as individuals, but they do not establish that their company, the Real Social Dynamics company, is notable as a company. The sources refer to the individuals, and they make clear that it is the individuals, not the company, who possess whatever notability/notoriety exists here. Tyler Durden currently redirects to Fight Club; Tyler Durden the PUA doesn't currently have his own article. Starting with that (and adding a disambig page) would appear to be solider ground for a Wikipedia article. --Shirahadasha 17:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've mended the link; hope that that's OK. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would support merging into a page on Tyler Durden, but first I would have to see that page created (and I do not have the time to write it myself). --SecondSight 20:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- there's just reliable source - The Times article about pickup artists. That article has 2700+ words. Tyler Durden gets 110 words almost at the end of the article -- see for yourself.[4] That's not enough for notability. --A. B. (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Of course it isn't. Nobody is claiming otherwise. See my comments above, where I list the other sources for the page, and I stipulated that the Times article is not the main sources the article relies on. How many times must I ask for voters for deletion to actually address all the sources for this article? Virtually none of them have done so, which is turning this AFD into a kangaroo court. --SecondSight 02:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then surely you acknowledge the necessity for notability, right? As far as the other stuff, I see a book on Amazon, and a blog. Nothing more. Come up with more and we have something, perhaps. --Dennisthe2 03:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are more sources, but either you are ignoring them or you haven't fully read this discussion. There are two more sources I mentioned about that have the company as their subject, the Men's Health article and the Edge Magazine article. There is also a third that I didn't mention, an article in the Sunday Telegraph (text is available at the bottom of RSD's news page). The Men's Health and Sunday Telegraph articles are cited on the page, plain for everyone to see. Of course I acknowledge the necessity for notability; both Siroxo and I have argued why the subject is notable in the above discussion. --SecondSight 03:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop with the accusations. Stating that I'm merely ignoring them does absolutely, positively nothing to prove your point to me, and is, quite frankly, offensive. For the links to MH and Sunday Telegraph, you might want to provide links to the websites that the articles actually originated from - hanging these on the website in question raises eyebrows, and tends to speak strongly of conflict of interest. Finally, I should point out that the book you site - The Game, &c - is itself lacking in resources to tout its notability. My vote, currently, stands, with my commentary above. --Dennisthe2 03:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Earlier in the discussion, I made repeated requests that people voting for deletion address all the sources involved, not just one or two of the weak ones. Your above comment failed to address the relevant sources (though I guess I shouldn't speculate about whether you were ignoring them, or simply missing them, or... actually, I can't think of any other reasons why you didn't address them). I can see why you object to my tone, but it comes out of frustration due to my perception that many voters for deletion either aren't reading this discussion, or aren't participating honestly by addressing the proposed sources. As for links, the Men's Health and Sunday Telegraph articles are not available on their websites (at least for non-subscribers). It's unfortunate the RSD's website is the only place those articles can be found, but nowhere does wikipedia require that sources be linked to on the websites they originated from. The Edge Magazine article is available online, and its text appears to agree with the text on RSD's website. --SecondSight 05:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For this, then, the important thing is that they're available - albeit with a membership. What I've seen traditionally is the link being provided, with a note on the side that membership is required - at least, that's on Slashdot. I wonder if there's a precedent for such a convention here.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dennisthe2 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
...and the bot beat me to it again. =O.o= --Dennisthe2 05:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another idea here - use of Google Cache and "bugmenot". If you can work around it with these, depending on the content, it may work. --Dennisthe2 06:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentStop removing the "Ideology" section. It's all common knowledge from the RSD community. If you like, I will email the RSD staff personally and ask if they ratify the ideology section as being, in fact, a synopsis of RSD ideology. If you want to delete it again, let me know what would be a satisfactory "sourcing" so that you would stop coming on here day in and day out and removing the section. The Mystery Method page has Mystery Method ideology on it and it has not been deleted. Shall we delete all ideology out of every seduction community based page? Why the double standard? Keep it neutral. Thanks.
Comment. To the above user, now is not the time to be adding any content to the article other than new sources. This is a deletion discussion. Hold off for now, because anything you add will just raise the chances of the article getting deleted. If the article is kept, then you can work on the article. --SecondSight 02:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is my belief, that there is no Wikipedia policy that prohibits other editors from editing any article that is the subject of an AfD in any way. Your preceding comments show that you inherently have a bias towards keeping this article. Furthermore, your preceding comment does not act in the best interest of fair process as AfD's are to proceed - it may be construed upon as influencing other users to argue in favour of keeping the article; hence the above warning template. Luke! 03:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I admit that I should have phrased my above comment as a request, not as an imperative. It was not intended as a reference to any kind of policy. You say I "inherently have a bias towards keeping this article." This fails to assume good faith, and is not an interpretation of my comments that you have supported. My comments show that I have a "bias" towards keeping long, unsourced, WP:NPOV statements out of the article during the deletion debate. The worst that can be read into my comments is an attempt to influence the user to not edit the page for now (which I have retracted), which is different from trying to influence people to keep the article. --SecondSight 05:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I always try to assume good faith. What I meant with my statement is that after previously taking a look at your userpage, the reader can gather the impression that you may lean towards keeping/creating articles relating to the seduction community. However, it is also noted on there that reliable sources are needed to support articles - of which I and most (arguably) editors believe this is one of the main issues surrounding this AfD debate. I hope that you haven't taken offence to this or my previous statement as it was not meant to come across as a personal attack. Luke! 20:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The way I read SecondSight's comments was that it is unhelpfull for everybody here on this AfD to have an unstable article, which is what is going to happen if that content keeps on trying to be inserted by that IP address. Mathmo Talk 21:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whether the existing content of the article is deleted or not is not my concern. I agree that it is somewhat spammish, which is why I took it upon myself to add some TANGIBLE CONTENT to this article. Why should a ceaseless debate about this article (some of which has been by people who shown emotional and possible commercial involvement) hold up the IMPROVEMENT of the article? Leave the "Ideology" section up. Unless you can offer me a valid reason for why it should be removed I will keep adding it. In the meantime I will email Real Social Dynamics and have them ratify this article so that it can be sourced. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.208.141.138 (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. See my comments on Talk:Real Social Dynamics. --SecondSight 05:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a couple of problems with this article. First, it reads like a promo piece, right down to discussing the services the company offers. Second, I don't see sources for most of it. The ideology section doesn't seem to have anything to do with the company and should come out entirely as failing WP:NOT an instructional guide. But, it does get mentions in some major media, so very weak keep and attack with an editorial chainsaw to get the promo stuff out of it. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Delete Obvious commercially motivated article, except cluttered with product information way beyond most of the genre. The arguments of its promoter demonstrate the nature of the article--he thinks the most promotional parts of it to be essential. if kept, it will be easy & obvious how to stubbify.DGG 06:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article does not assert notability. "Real Social Dynamics (RSD) is a dating coaching company based in Los Angeles. It was founded by two "pick-up artists", Nick "Papa" Kho and Owen "Tyler Durden" Cook. In addition to its claim to teach men how to be more successful with women, RSD provides image consultations and offers advice on a variety of social dynamics. RSD now markets its techniques and strategies through its website., via his book[1], DVD sets, audio recordings, and live seminars and coaching with various instructors, including Cook." BFW. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Unfortunately, the page has been in the middle of an edit war during this AFD. A user has been adding a massive section that is not written from a neutral point of view. Even without that section, I agree that the article reads as an advertisement. As I mentioned before, we have had problems with people affiliated with the company white-washing the page. Still, POV alone doesn't mean the article should be deleted, just that it should be rewritten. --SecondSight 08:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes but. It's not just that it's spammy, that the sources are a bit borderline, it's that it doesn't really say that they've done anything. They've had 5 minutes of fame in the press, but that's because picking up is interesting, not because they've made any great contribution to the art thereof.[5] Spam and NPOV we could fix if it was worth doing so. Notability, that's the issue here. I'd like to suggest a merge to somewhere, but I don't know where. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps merging to the article about "Owen "Tyler Durden" Cook"? Though really that isn't so much merging as renaming. I'd disagree greatly with your claim that they have not made "any great contribution to the art thereof". Plus having made "great contributions" is not part of what is required by wikipedia under notability. For the very good reason that what is a "great contribution" can be highly subjective. Instead notability basically requires coverage by others (newspapers, books, tv, etc...). Which this has.Mathmo Talk 15:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment I'll be continuing to re-add the "Ideology" section until someone can tell me why it doesn't add value to the article for the end reader. In the meantime, let's end the ceaseless debate and start improving the page. Come on guys, add some content. Don't be deleting the content that others like myself have spent time to provide. If you don't like it, edit it, improve it, add totally new content, but don't just go deleting it. That only hurts the end reader. Thanks.

Hi, various people including myself, SecondSight, and Mel Etitis have explained why to you at numerous places (such as your various random IP's talk pages and the article talk page). If you still have seen any of them then I can always later link to them. Might help if you start of editing less heated topics? And read various pages such as Wikipedia:Bootcamp to get yourself up to speed in understanding wikipedia. Mathmo Talk 15:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Twenty pages of talking for a THREE page article? Is this a hobby or something? I understand that you want to be as accurate and neutral as possible. It's a valid concern. But I also understand that it shouldn't take this long to decide to improve upon an article. Let's start gathering sources for a new article and get this underway.

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

The result was Merge to Lim Bo Seng. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 21:24Z

Lim Bo Seng's Downfall

[edit]
Lim Bo Seng's Downfall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article reads like an essay or news report and is entirely unreferenced. It has major POV problems and is likely unverifiable. We could also question the need for an entire article on this man's "downfall." N Shar 00:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 21:25Z

Erlu

[edit]
Erlu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Possible CV (ordered list with creative effort in determining the order), on the other hand it's just a list of TC postures and if you've learned the posture (without which this is uninformative) you've probably learned the form that uses them. RJFJR 00:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. DanielCD 01:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Robertson

[edit]
Kelly Robertson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Reason Wirth.christian 00:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC) I am tired of people playing "GOD" on wiki.[reply]

Note Please try to fix up the article and give some additional indication of her notability. Why is she important? If you can make it into a solid article, it will likely survive the AFD. But as it is now, it really needs some work. --DanielCD 00:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 21:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward R. Thaden

[edit]
Edward R. Thaden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appear to be a non notable music teacher. No sources provided and I could not find any through the usual avenues. Daniel J. Leivick 00:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dr. Thaden is notable for many reasons if not the least of which as teacher of American composer Randall Poshek-Gladbach.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpgbach (talk • contribs) 00:42, 4 February 2007
Being the teacher of a a famous person does not make someone notable, in any case Poshek-Gladbach doesn't have a article so maybe we should start there. Please see WP:NOTE. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poshek-Gladbach is widely known in the world of New Music as found on the internet as well as Dr. Thaden is noted in the article on Ernst von Dohnanyi herein. It would be useful if persons who have at least a minimal background in music were passing judgment on Dr. Thaden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpgbach (talk • contribs) 00:52, 4 February 2007

Being mentioned in a Wikipedia article does not equal notability. Please read WP:NOTE and it will make everything a lot easier. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which recital/concert programs would you like? Would his 18 appearances with SLSO, 4 appearances with the LAPO, would his 11 appearances with the NYPO do? Or perhaps we should consider his recordings of the complete keyboard works of J.S. Bach and Couperin. Or would a list of his students since 1956 (including 2 Pulitzer Prize winning composers). Or would a list of journals in which his writings are published help? Again, it would be helpful if just one reviewer knew anything about the music world. I'm sorry, a degree in engineering does not qualify one to evaluate the notability of a musician. At the rate we are going, I'm surprised any musician has ever made it onto Wikipedia. And I'm rather perplexed by "I could not find any through the usual avenues." What are the usual avenues? Obviously, they are not music journal databases. Perhaps had Dr. Thaden pursued engineering instead of music he would qualify for Wikipedia. Fortunately for the music world, he did not do so. Perhaps we should re-evaluate Nadia Boulanger's article. She was only a music teacher.

  • Comment. Yes, it would help if you would provide a list of journals in which his writings are published. What are the music journal databases we should be searching? --N Shar 02:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Jelly Roll, as I said, let's delete Madame Boulanger and every other teacher of music.... the sources have been provided, JOST will provide you with every citation to every article of Dr. Thaden. So what if he changed music in America. And certainly having recorded the complete works of JS Bach and Louis Couperin is not important... so let's delete Rubinstein and Horowitz. In fact, let's delete every musician and artist starting with JS Bach. In the mean time, let us inform the mainstream media that only nerds and engineers need apply to Wikipedia. God forbid should we permit an article of a teacher who has changed music in the world. Again, it would be nice if someone who know what the hell they are talking about would evaluate entries in Wikipedia. As of yet, no one with any qualifications has reviewed the Dr. Thaden article. What a sad day it is to find the Wikipedia is controlled by those who have no qualifications to determine what articles are or are not posted to it.

    • It's called JSTOR.ORG.
  • Delete I have voted to save similar articles before, but I don't think this one is worth saving. Searching on Amazon and Alibris turns up no books by Prof. Thaden; Google Scholar has no listings for articles; searching on "Thaden Bach" and "Thaden Couperin" on Google comes up with no relevant hits, as far as I can see. I have a hard time believing he is more notable than the average long-time professor of music. --Brianyoumans 02:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


God forbid if we might look to RCA Victor or CBS or Bell Telephone Hour or Groves Dictionary of Music and Musicians.... I think the appropriate approach for me is to advocating the deletion of all musicians because they are of obviously no importance.... a Google, Amazon, Alibris search is only as good as the searcher.... it's interesting that I find 11 references on Amazon.... again, it might be helpful if we had real musical authorities reviewing articles rather than self-appointed computer nerds... thus far, no one with any creditials has reviewed Dr. Thaden's article.... In the mean time, I believe this discussion would be of great interest to the NYT or to John von Rhein of the Chicago Tribune who have both reviewed the performances of Dr. Thaden. Still waiting for someone who knows the difference between and accented grace note and an unaccented grace note in Bach's WTC to respond. At this point, I have to say my first experience with Wikipedia confirms everything negative published about it including its anti-arts bias.

  • Comment You need to provide links or citations! Every argument presented here for deletion will fall apart if links are provided, but without them the arguments make a great deal of sense. Please LINK to your amazon search results. Please LINK or CITE a NYT review! We would love to keep the article, but none of us know how to find sources -- we've asked for your help. --N Shar 03:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are provided. User Rpgbach needs to cool down a little (maybe read WP:CIVIL, I am not really up for having my engineering credentials come into this debate or being called a nerd repeatedly, if user Rpgbach would like I can create a new account and and write that I have a PhD in music from Stanford on my user page maybe then we can stop hearing about how no one knows anything about music. I have been nothing but friendly and civil with this user from the beginning. When he or she contested my first speedy by deleting the tag I nominated it for AFD and left a very friendly note on the user's talk page. I recommended then that Rpgbach take a look at WP:NOTE and did so again at the top of this discussion. It is obvious that this user has not read this or any policy as he continues to call into question the credentials of those who oppose him and refuses to offer any sources not to mention threatening to expose the monster that is an AFD debate to the NYT (I would like to see a story on this debate in the NYT though). Not understanding policy is very common problem for new users and I try to give them the benefit of the doubt, but Rpgbach hostility is not acceptable, if this user where to relax a little they would find Wikipedia to be a friendly and very reasonable place. There may well be a place for this article on Wikipedia, but there is no place for threats and hostility. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I should also mention that there is no such thing as "Western Kentucky State University" - WK State College became WK University, and searching their web site gives no hits for Thaden. And neither does the web site of the University of Missouri at Columbia (which is what I assume is meant in the article). I assume that Prof. Thaden did teach at these schools, but it appears he is not memorialized there by scholarships, chairs, etc. - the sort of thing a distinguished professor generally leaves behind. And since you are so enthusiastically calling us art ignoramuses, I suppose the assumption of good faith here is suspended somewhat and I can point out that the most obvious notability that Prof. Thaden has is as the teacher of Randall Poshek-Gladbach, who is "widely known in the world of New Music", according to Rpgbach. I understand that you may have a great deal of respect for your former teacher, Mr. Poshek-Gladbach, but we can't accept your word that he is worthy of an article, or your word on your own notability. Please give us references, ones that we can check. Mr. Thaden may have been a very well-known performer at one time, but it appears his fame has faded. --Brianyoumans 04:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable plain and simple. Randall Poshek-Gladbach is not a prominent composer by any stretch of the imagination, and even if he were it would take more than that bare fact to confer notability on Thaden. I don't feel the need to throw my credits around but I know what I'm talking about in this regard.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To keep the record straight: It is Dr. Poshek-Gladbach and Dr. Thaden.


  • Wait an extra week or so for reliable sources, delete if not provided by then. Wikipedia is run on the assumption that volunteer editors aren't experts in specific fields. To permit this, the folks proposing an article must provide sources showing that the subject is notable and verifiable. So instead of complaining that it's a sad day when a famous person is challenged by folks who don't know squat about the classical music world, the article's proponents should accept that yes, we ignoramuses and cultural dufuses (is that ignorami et dufi?) don't know squat, so please produce the sources needed to enable the article to be kept. If this individual is really this famous, they won't be difficult to find. On-line sources are preferable if available but not necessary. Citations to print publications would be fine. --Shirahadasha 17:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The reviews in the New York Times and Chicago Tribune might establish notability per WP:MUSIC, however I could not find them in the archives of those newspapers. If such sources are found and an article is written based upon them, though, I would be inclined to change my opinion. JChap2007 20:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. User:Rpgbach has had plenty of time to find us citations. I left a message here and on his talk page encouraging him to do so. Since the time I left those messages, the user has left an unsigned comment here to indicate that we should refer to the subject as Dr. Thaden (rather than Mr. Thaden), but has declined to provide citations. This is despite his assertions (see above) that they are easy to find. I, for one, am approaching the end of my good faith. --N Shar 00:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per CSD A1. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DefCon Delta

[edit]

If the article is about the upcoming book, then I do not think it is notable. If the subject is DEFCON then we should merge it there Alex Bakharev 00:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. --Coredesat 21:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation 3 launch

[edit]
PlayStation 3 launch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

As per the reasons why Wii launch and Xbox 360 launch need to go: better suited for a video game wiki. Just because it's a recent launch, doesn't make it more notable for staying here. Relevant information should be put on the PlayStation 3 article (if it's not listed already). Also: all 3 of these launch articles probably should be grouped together in an AFD, since they are similar articles. RobJ1981 01:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, not sure if any of them called themselves "7th generation" and I'm fairly sure not all of them did. Plus although they are all roughly of the same "generation" (remember another problem is this holds certain POV problems) their launch dates were all at quite significantly different times to each other. Mathmo Talk 16:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Bucketsofg 18:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark DeBono

[edit]
Mark DeBono (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod tag was removed. Sources don't back up assertions of notability. Claims about involvement with Lance Bass are completely unsourced. Fails WP:V and WP:N and has WP:BLP concerns. janejellyroll 01:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge to Marriage and delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 21:30Z

Marriage (post modern)

[edit]
Marriage (post modern) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article appears to be some form of POV fork. Post modern marriage does not appear to be a recognised concept. The article contains no information not already in Marriage and Same-sex marriage. WJBscribe 01:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you ask first? Nkras 01:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cyde (talk · contribs) deleted with deletion summary "CSD A7". James086Talk 06:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westgrove OGs

[edit]
Westgrove OGs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

quoting my removed prod: "unreferenced, non-notable, probably a recreation of a deleted article (see author's talk page), I was unable to verify the existence of this gang online." Brianyoumans 02:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 21:31Z

Pool Party House

[edit]
Pool Party House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
File:Pph street.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Hwc pph.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Rc pph.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

I do not think the short-lived venue house is notable enough Alex Bakharev 02:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jersey Devil 03:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death of a Band

[edit]
Death of a Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nonsense claims, can't find any evidence that anything mildly like this has happened RB972 02:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 21:32Z

Olaf Sporns

[edit]
Olaf Sporns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Olaf Sporns seems like a vanity page. This person is relatively unknown, has not made significant contributions to neuroscience, and is not notable per WP:BIO. Mnemopis 03:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge to Robots in Disguise. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 21:33Z

Dee Plume

[edit]
Dee Plume (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 05:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. --Coredesat 21:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The closing decision on this AfD was contested at deletion review. Per that discussion, the contents of the article were merged with President of the United States and the article was made a redirect to preserve the edit history. Jerry lavoie 16:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States Presidential trivia

[edit]
United States Presidential trivia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is a collection of trivia. All of the content is either already contained in the individual president articles, or it should be. Jerry lavoie 03:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first nomination for this article for deletion is available at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/United_States_Presidential_trivia
Please see the reasoning by editors on the current debate for a similar article for Philippine Presidential trivia: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Philippine presidential trivia. We obviously have a double-standard problem here. Please either vote for deletion of this article or keeping the other, or explain here why the duality. Thanks, Jerry lavoie 03:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Grouping them all into one article doesn't make them any more worthy of being kept than they would be if sent to their respective articles. If they aren't good enough for those articles, they're not good enough for Wikipedia, period. Other concern is indiscriminate information; that the trivia happens to involve presidents is a very loose thread. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 03:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to say Strong Keep because this AfD seems to have sprung out of the other AfD. Perhaps this article is inapppropriate for Wikipedia, maybe not, but nominating articles for AfD in response to other articles being nominated for the AfD process goes against WP:INN and possibly WP:POINT. Shrumster 05:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think you understand the WP's you cited. The first one says "If you think another article is of equal notability to one being considered for deletion, you are welcome to nominate that article as well". And an example of disrupting wikipedia to make a point would be nominating an obviously notable article for deletion to try to leverage your vote AGAINST deleting another article. Here, I am saying we should delete both, for the same valid deletion criteria. Jerry lavoie 06:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm going to let that first comment slide per WP:AGF. This AfD was most likely influenced by the other AfD. If you look at WP:INN, it clearly states that "If you think another article is of equal notability to one being considered for deletion, you are welcome to nominate that article as well, but please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point." Intent aside, it is clearly in WP's interest not to have this AfD while the other one is on-going as it may be interpreted as a spillover effect. Shrumster 07:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you for assuming good faith. My comment was indeed in good faith. Above you say "clearly" as if it was clear. It is not clear to me at all. We often nominate several articles at the same time, sometimes in the same AfD... each article stands on its own merit, but reasoning used by the editors is often a spillover effect. How is this counter to the best interests of the project? For us to achive consistency and to have standards for inclusion that make sense, would be a good thing? No? Jerry lavoie 15:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Chris, if you wouldn't mind, could you outline a bullet point or two that you are speaking of? You did not vote in the previous AfD, and several reasonings were outlined in the AfD discussion, most of which were countered by other reasonings. Which ones are you saying have merit? I would be interested in seeing your point of view on this. Thanks. Jerry lavoie 05:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Flakeloaf  Tuvok^Talk|Desk|Contribs  08:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is more than trivia about multiple presidents, this is trivia about the office of the president, with examples taken from particular presidents. It is therefore a valid subarticle of President of the United States, and while a merge would be obvious, the pages together are very long, so this should be kept separate. (Edit) Note: This is not just trivia as well, this is indeed notable information, organized for the context of the Office rather than the persons. (thereby failing to be considered trivia by Wikipedia) —siroχo 10:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let me try to follow that... "this is more than trivia about multiple presidents, this is trivia about the office of the president, this is not just trivia... thereby failing to be considered trivia?" Is that it??? Jerry lavoie 15:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please actually read the article you cited Lists of trivia. And read the talk page as well. This seems to be an "inside joke" among some editors. None Few of the lists on the page are actually trivia lists. They Most of them are subject lists. The person making the page move to "Lists of trivia" has a whole discussion about this on the talk page. That aside, it is an article, and not a policy or guideline document. Jerry lavoie 15:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, to me, means I don't have particularly strong feelings on the matter. I think it's justifiable, but it's not something I'm going to think about if it's deleted.--T. Anthony 03:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That said that list contains links to the following: List of Hot 100 (U.S.) chart achievements and trivia, Albuquerque Trivia, The Beatles trivia, and Pink Floyd trivia.--T. Anthony 08:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I revised my comment above (note the strikethrough text.) But the vast majority of the links in the article are to content lists, not trivia. Seems a strange article name, and even stranger to cite it, as if policy, in an AfD debate. Jerry lavoie 23:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for the same reasons I nominated the Philippine presidential trivia article, although this one does seem better structured. There are a number of other list articles relating to the US presidency where this information would be better housed, making this list redundant IMHO. Otto4711 18:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If there's any trivia about any American president that is honestly worth keeping, put it in his own article. Jcuk 19:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Having a centralized list of trivia is not a good idea; not really helpful to anyone (I simply can't see someone searching for such an article) Hobbeslover talk/contribs 19:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This seems to be a classic example of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. The very purpose of this article is to provide an indiscriminate collection of information about presidents rather than to provide meaningful summaries. --Shirahadasha 20:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Not a discriminate information. indeed. But I woudl also prefer several articles listed at the template "Lists of Presidents and Vice Presidents of the United States" deleted: like height, longetivity., etc. SYSS Mouse 22:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivia is inherently unencyclopedic. Whatever is encyclopedic can be merged into the articles on the individual presidents. Agent 86 01:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, these facts aren't entirely trivial, and they're probably worth putting somewhere, the problem is that this article is just a loose collection. I'd rather not lose them, but I'd prefer to disperse them to better places. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be fair to say, then, that your vote is really Merge then Delete? That's what your comment seems to say, but you put weak keep as your vote. Jerry lavoie 23:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the GFDL as it applies to Wikipedia is that the wikipedia editors who contribute the article text do not have a license, and do not have protections for being credited for sourcing on subsequent use of the text within wikipedia. The concern you mention would only be applicable if the original article cited external documents as sources, republished previously-sourced external GFDL information, and such source citation did not occur in the article into which the content is merged. As long as the merging admin is privvy to the policies relating to merging content within wikipedai articles, I believe this concern will be addressed. But as I said, and as you pointed out: if User: SallyJaneDoe contributed significantly to this article, and we merge the content into another article, Sally has no evidence that she ever worked on it, and the merging admin would get all the "credit". But getting "credit" is not what wikipedia is all about, so its really a mute point. Jerry lavoie 20:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure that this is incorrect (see Wikipedia:Copyright#Contributors' rights and obligations). I own the copyright on the material that I submit to Wikipedia as its author and I agree to lisence it under the GFDL when I upload it. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL. from the edit page. Thus Wikipedia is required to give me credit (in a history section) for any page in which my contributions occur. That this is a technical and pedantic requirement subject to de minimis exceptions is not in dispute, but it is still a requirement and should not be violated unnecessarily. Eluchil404 08:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 White hat. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 21:34Z

Anti-Hacker

[edit]
Anti-Hacker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not-notable neologism, no references Alex Bakharev 03:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC) I put reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WhiteJordan (talk • contribs) 03:38, February 4, 2007.[reply]

But are they the same thing? I thought a 'White hat' was a hacker who worked for a legitimate organisation, whilst a so-called 'anti-hacker' is someone who hacks other hackers. I could very easily be wrong though. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 12:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are not precise synonyms, but appear to share substantial similarities. Especially given the lack of context at this article and dismal prospects of expansion with currently available references, it seems the best I could offer. Serpent's Choice 12:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are similarities, as the last comment has said, but I think the terms are different enough that a simple redirect might be misleading. If the White Hat entry were expanded to include mention of an anti-hacker, that might be acceptable; but even then we are still dealing with a neologism. I still think deletion is the most reasonable option. ◄Zahakiel► 18:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 21:35Z

Acar (2nd nomination)

[edit]
Acar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination, in accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acar. The result of that AFD was to relist all Therefore I am relisting all the articles that were up for deletion on that AFD. I am clearly neutral as this is a Procedural nomination. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bucketsofg 18:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taco salad

[edit]
Taco salad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination, in accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acar. The result of that AFD was to relist all Therefore I am relisting all the articles that were up for deletion on that AFD. I am clearly neutral as this is a Procedural nomination. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 21:36Z

Ambrosia (fruit salad)

[edit]
Ambrosia (fruit salad) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination, in accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acar. The result of that AFD was to relist all Therefore I am relisting all the articles that were up for deletion on that AFD. I am clearly neutral as this is a Procedural nomination. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 21:36Z

Piyaz

[edit]
Piyaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination, in accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acar. The result of that AFD was to relist all Therefore I am relisting all the articles that were up for deletion on that AFD. I am clearly neutral as this is a Procedural nomination. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 21:37Z

Bonjan salad

[edit]
Bonjan salad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination, in accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acar. The result of that AFD was to relist all Therefore I am relisting all the articles that were up for deletion on that AFD. I am clearly neutral as this is a Procedural nomination. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Expand -- I could say to SD because of my aversion to eggplant ;), but this is a potentially cultural article that would complement the encyclopedia.  Tuvok^Talk|Desk|Contribs  09:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep. This dish is not from an English-speaking country, but the dish has made its way into the English-speaking worlds canon of recipes. I cannot find specific examples of notability for this dish, but so many recipes exist online, that I'd be hesitant to delete for worry of systemic bias. This dish seems culturally significant. —siroχo 10:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "for reasons similar to other salad articles". Mathmo Talk 12:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 21:37Z

Karedok

[edit]
Karedok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination, in accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acar. The result of that AFD was to relist all Therefore I am relisting all the articles that were up for deletion on that AFD. I am clearly neutral as this is a Procedural nomination. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 21:38Z

Fattoush

[edit]
Fattoush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination, in accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acar. The result of that AFD was to relist all Therefore I am relisting all the articles that were up for deletion on that AFD. I am clearly neutral as this is a Procedural nomination. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - strong component of Lebanese cuisine, and appears in "ethnic" recipe books fairly often. Yes it's a stub, but that's not grounds for deletion. Totnesmartin 17:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 21:38Z

Raheb

[edit]
Raheb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination, in accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acar. The result of that AFD was to relist all Therefore I am relisting all the articles that were up for deletion on that AFD. I am clearly neutral as this is a Procedural nomination. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 04:52Z

Urban Search and Rescue South Carolina Task Force 1

[edit]
Urban Search and Rescue South Carolina Task Force 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability in question. ghits: [7] NMChico24 03:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can appreciate your observation, however, all of the FEMA task forces are sponsored by localities or universities (Texas) and South Carolina's task force is one of the first to be declared necessary by state law (SC Law, Chapter 49, Section 23-49-10). Also, as one of the founding members of the State Urban Search and Rescue Alliance, which is a grass-roots organization with over 40 member states and Puerto Rico, this increases notability (especially as the inception of this organization happened as a meeting between South Carolina and New Jersey Task Force leaders). I also added references to non-TF sites to prove notability since this was all first posted. I am quickly learning. But thanks for the input.--Mick 23:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't he just do that? Look at the references provided. The team was created by an act of the South Carolina State Legislature, and is a founding member of SUSAR. What more do you want? If you look at my comments below, according to my reading of WP:GTD I don't understand what the problem is. Can you please be specific as to what the problem is? I think Mick has answered all of the concerns that have been raised. MoodyGroove 23:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
No, it doesn't prove notability - it just tells me that there is legislation that calls for the implementation of such a group. --Dennisthe2 00:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's one: "Rep. Bob Inglis page on SC response to Katrina". Rep. Bob Inglis. Retrieved February 9, 2007.. I'm trying to get some of the rest to come up so I can add them to the article, but I get the impression that these won't be good enough either.--Mick 04:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC) and here's one from when we sent our first big group of team members to Texas to train at Disaster City: "TEEX 2005 Highlights". TEEX. Retrieved February 9, 2007.. and here's another: "SLED Wants Money for Rescue Teams". The State. Retrieved February 9, 2007. I'll have more, just give me a few minutes.I'm not trying to be smart, but I used the template established by the 28 FEMA teams listed on here. Since they don't seem to be in any danger of having their articles yanked, I thought I met the notability question first posed and apparently there's not sufficient evidence. I'll move all of the references over to the article, but since there should be enough here (which exceeds many of the FEMA team articles) I won't be moving the references tonight. I'll send more if you like...--Mick 04:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's significant, but he did more than that. He showed that the group actually exists, and that the group was deployed to a national emergency: SC-TF1 was one of the first state urban search and rescue resources to be deployed into St. Tammany Parish and St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana, after Hurricane Katrina in September, 2005.[1] MoodyGroove 01:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
OK, provide your references. --Dennisthe2 01:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If what he's provided so far isn't enough (link to Title 23-49-10 and the WJWJ TV coverage of the deployment to Katrina), then I hope Mick can provide more. Otherwise, I guess we'll have to wait until SCTF-1 goes on more deployments or gets more press coverage. It's a shame because SCTF-1 is a very professional, highly trained, and well equipped state USAR team. Mick himself is Secretary of NFPA 1006 - Professional Qualifications for Rescue Technicians. MoodyGroove 03:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
I hate to say it, but that link isn't going to be enough, unfortunately. If we can find more - newspaper articles that mention them more than just in passing, that sort of thing - we'll have a winner. --Dennisthe2 05:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first and fourth ones will sort of work - the others can go into a references section. They don't mention the team by name, but...hmm... I need to ask questions. I'm going to switch to Neutral for now until we can build more of a consensus.
  • Thank you. I found out this morning that SCTF-1 was on Good Morning America while they were on deployment for Katrina. I'm looking for a proof source. If necessary I'll call ABC on Monday. MoodyGroove 14:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
  • Delete until such time as the non-FEMA SAR teams have greater notability. FEMA only underwrites a limited number of these as part of the national callup system, other municipalities that want one have to self-fund or operate on a contract basis (layman's interpretation & terminology here), limiting non-local deployments and thus notability. --Dhartung | Talk 20:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can appreciate that observation as well; because of the Emergency Management Assistance Compact, any asset that meets the requirements of the requesting state can deploy to that emergency and therefore, this state team (which was formed by legal mandate) can cross state lines to answer that request. The FEMA system underwrites those 28 FEMA teams, but there are over 40 states that are now members of the State Urban Search and Rescue Alliance, some of which have teams that meet the proposed NIMS typing requirements for task forces, and some who don't. If anything, this team does not respond to "local" incidents, because of the tiered response system; first the incident is handled by the local jurisdiction, then regional teams are summoned, then state, then federal. There are cases when the incident escalates quickly (a la Katrina) when federalization early on might have been more beneficial, but regardless, emergencies are supposed to follow that chain of events. --Mick 23:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would anyone want to delete a state USAR team? State sponsorship isn't enough? You have to be a federal team to be notable enough for the wikipedia? That's shocking to me. SCFT1 was deployed after Katrina and did a hell of a good job. I need to read the deletion policy and see what the problem is, but I think you should reconsider. MoodyGroove 22:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
  • Here's what it says in WP:GTD: Non-commercial organizations: 1. Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by a third party source. SCTF-1 has been deployed on a national emergency (one of the worst in US history) and this is easily verifiable. 2. Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable and verifiable sources. However, chapter information is welcome for inclusion into wikipedia in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included. SCTF-1 is a state USAR team, and not a chapter of a different organization. 3. Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable third party sources can be found. By definition, state is not local. It seems to me that your decision to delete SCTF1 is arbitrary and against the clear text meaning found in WP:GTD. I don't see the rationale, except perhaps a poor understanding of what FEMA is and what national v. state responsibilities are. MoodyGroove 22:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
  • You're actually referring to WP:CORP, not WP:GTD, which here, doesn't enter into the debate. CORP also states the following:
A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if:
It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company, corporation, organization, or group, or of the product's or service's manufacturer or vendor, itself, and reliable.
The stipulation per the non-commercial guideline therein still applies per said guideline. We still need verifiable proof of notability from reliable sources - and a piece of law doesn't prove that this particular USAR group is notable, it just proves that there is legislation calling for the implementation of the group. I'd also like to point out that lawyering isn't going to help prove notability, which is, per the nomination, what is at question. If you can prove notability, you will change my mind. --Dennisthe2 00:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, although Wikipedia:Help, my article got nominated for deletion! does specifically link to WP:GTD which specifically links to WP:CORP. These guidelines are confusing to new editors, and it seems a bit disingenuous to suggest that I'm lawyering when I make a good faith effort to read up on the process. MoodyGroove 01:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 11:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC) *Delete unless multiple, non-trivial, secondary sources are included per above searches. Addhoc 11:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The links you provide with the "findsource" command aren't exactly accurate. The news archive search yields 0 hits because it puts "urban search and rescue south carolina" in quotations instead of conducting the search with the + sign between search terms. MoodyGroove 14:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
  • Comment - if you're indicating that you've searched for references using different parameters and found reliable sources, then I would suggest including them in the article. Addhoc 15:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. MoodyGroove 18:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
  • Unfortunately, when I was writing this, I couldn't pull up some of these links and used the FEMA team templates thinking that those were sufficient enough to get those articles published. Thanks to all of you who have helped make this a good article. It's a learning experience, but even if the article doesn't get published, the links you all have been digging up are going to prove very useful. As it is, in a few weeks I will be speaking to the SUSAR group (all 40 states attending) and will talk to them about this and how to get involved.--Mick 20:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, due to lack of reliable sources. No prejudice against recreation once there are sources. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 04:50Z

Ashen Empires

[edit]
Ashen Empires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Webgame without reliable sources. A Google search only brought up one review. Not enough reliable sources for verification, doesn't meet WP:WEB Wafulz 03:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look for sources yourself and add citations for them to the article!
Ask other editors for sources using the talk page and various citation request templates.
If those don't work, come back here. If it is truly unverifiable, it may be deleted.
Later on, in the abuse section, it says an article should be kept if it is not original research, its central information is verifiable, and it is capable of achieving a neutral point of view with good editorship, which I believe is not the case here, because the material is not verifiable through reliable secondary sources. --Wafulz 16:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
firstly, you didn't follow wp:dp, namely, you didn't look for sources yourself, put anything on the talk page, or add any citation request templates. secondly, why do you say that the central information isn't verifiable? just ashenempires.com itself should be more than enough. Bob A 22:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Enough indents. I did look for sources - I did a Google search and did not find multiple independent reliable sources. I have asserted that multiple independent (separate from the subject) reliable sources do not exist. The only source you have presented is a personal weblog, which does not have an editorial process to make it reliable. The only way to keep this article from being deleted is to cite independent reliable sources. Every single other article must follow these rules. --Wafulz 23:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
independent from what? Bob A 02:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the website/subject itself. --Wafulz 02:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
from the subject itself? how is that possible? Bob A 03:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources cannot be derived from the subject itself. No press releases or on-site stuff. --Wafulz 04:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oh? and who said anything about secondary sources? not wp:dp. the information is verifiable. Bob A 06:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability criteria for WP:WEB (currently disputed because some want to tighten the allowable sources) and the fact that using almost entirely self-published sources is inherently non-neutral. --Wafulz 08:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
that has absolutely nothing to do with verifiability. Bob A 20:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as we've been having a circular argument for a week now, let me simplify: An article must meet WP:WEB, must be neutral, which is attainable from having multiple reliable sources from independent sources, and must not contain any original research. Directly from WP:V: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. . --Wafulz 05:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • _weak_ Keep: Ashen Empires was listed as Online Game of the Week at http://www.gameogre.com/onlinegames.htm (this page currently displays this weeks game, scroll down to Past Games of the week, you will find it near the bottom). Additionally there is a review at http://www.omgn.com/reviews.php?Item_ID=52, and a press release at http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/dransik/news.html?sid=6086405. It appears verifiable to me. Or did I miss something crucial, somewhere along the line?-- Balcerzak 00:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The OMGN review is already in my nomination. Press releases are really borderline since they're basically a reprint of what a reviewer has been told to say from the company itself. The Game of the Week thing is a selection of user-submitted reviews. If I were presented with another source, I would likely withdraw. --Wafulz 00:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Technicalities. The game does exist. It's even free to play, so it's not hard for many to find out themselves how real the game is. But, if it helps any... There used to be a review of this game back in '03 on a site called player2player.net. The site is still technically around but hardly maintained. Archives aren't available past july '04. I don't know if it can be called a legitimate source today, but it used to be an active site with news and reviews like any other gaming site back in '02-'03. If the admin can be contacted, maybe she'll put up the older archives. 71.113.30.183 04:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: [9], [10], [11], [12]. I would look for more, but I'm in a bit of a hurry here. VDZ 16:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, the only one of those links which is an actual article about the subject is the one I provided in the nom. The "feature" from MMOsite is copied directly from Ashen Empire's website. I'm starting to believe nobody is actually reading what I'm saying. --Wafulz 16:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to List of P. G. Wodehouse characters. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 04:48Z

Daphne Braythwayt

[edit]
Daphne Braythwayt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable minor character on Wodehouse books Wehwalt 16:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Cbrown1023 talk 03:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, WP:CSD#A7. - Mailer Diablo 05:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt dojny

[edit]
Matt dojny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I originally prodded this article with the following explanation: "Total, complete, utter nonsense and hoax." The text has since been changed, but the claims of notability seem to be gone. I couldn't re-prod the article (that's not allowed) so I brought it here. N Shar 03:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge to Huntington, New York. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 04:46Z

1946 Huntington Planning Map

[edit]
1946 Huntington Planning Map (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a map that was produced by the town of Huntington, New York in 1946. It's no more notable than any other map. I tried to explain to the author on the talk page how the article is original research, but was unsuccessful; I would appreciate it if someone else, who may be better at communicating, could try. However, this research may be useful, so I think this should be transwikied to Commons. --NE2 04:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at best, that would allow us to keep a description of the map. The conclusions about what it shows about suburban development patterns utterly fail WP:V. Without that, the map has no apparent significance outside of Huntington. Who, other than the author of our article, has deemed this a significant map? --Dhartung | Talk 17:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did anybody actually read the talk page before voting? Many people have voted to delete because there are no sources to support notability but the talk page clearly states that expert sources are available and were offered. The Huntington Town Historian and the Long Island History Museum have both stated notability so this shouldn't be an issue?. You don't delete an article that just needs a little fixing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fife Club (talk • contribs) 21:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment, yes I read your comments on the articles talk page and nowhere do you offer any evidence of notability. The fact that an organisation chooses to archive something does not impart or even infer notability. I advise you to read WP:V and WP:RS. Nuttah68 21:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I advise you to read it again. I did say that the LI history museum only chose to add it to the archives, but I clearly stated that the Huntington Town Historian (the most reliable expert on this subject you can possibly think of) has indeed confirmed the map's historical notability, in writing. Fife Club 14:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as Nardman stated, the verifiable description of a map does not constitute original research. If so, you would need to delete most movie articles for the same reason that they too are just describing the available source material they saw. Fife Club 21:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or 'transwiki' somewhere. To be 'notable' the map would need to have been written about in multiple publications. All we see is the map and someone's original research of examining it and writing about it. Having a bunch of real places on a map does nothing to make the map itself notable. Also, did the city grant permission to reproduce it? Otherwise it is a copyright violation, since a high resolution copy is not any kind of fair use exception. As for the previous comment about movie article having to be deleted as original research, feel free to nominate a bunch of them and see how it goes. Inkpaduta 22:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a copyright violation, since it was published before 1964 and its copyright was not renewed. --NE2 23:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WTF!? Who the hell do you think you are to override the copyright information with your own personal opinion? Here's the history of the original file I uploaded to the commons, and you see NE2 (the same user who began this debate) removed the actual reason it is public domain with his own "real" personal assessment. There was previous discussion on in the Village Pump about how it the file absolutely would have fallen under copyright. I don't know why you assumed the copyright ran out in 1974 because you tend to never explain your edit reasoning but it never expired. I personally got written permission from the copyright holder, that fact was clearly stated on the files copyright section, and you decided to remove it without any discussion, which is your M.O. This is why so many people are confused, because you keep giving false information and I keep having to explain the truth. Fife Club 14:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a place article. It's an interesting bit of local history. Everyking 07:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also, this article has the most un-interesting "interesting facts" section I've ever read. --193.166.15.251 15:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, should have been a speedy - this isn't an encyclopedia article. The image can be at commons, but all content requires sources. Addhoc 19:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Addhoc, Dhartung, and WP:NOR. "I've got emails from the Huntington Town Historian", as stated on the talk page, is the definition of original research. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 21:39Z

Hooty Sapperticker

[edit]
Hooty Sapperticker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - does not appear to be the subject of multiple third-party sources. The one source cited in the article, Dave Barry's column, mentions the song in passing in less than a paragraph. Otto4711 04:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another Comment, there seems to have been a range of similar names (i.e. hootie rather than hooty, or three words rather than two words in the title, etc...) this song has been called. Perhaps an alternative search would produce better results (though I do believe this is the most common/correct name that we have here already). Mathmo Talk 12:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 21:40Z

[edit]
Fight Club in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - a completely indiscriminate list of every time that a particular phrase or sentence from a book or movie was used in another movie or TV show is unnecessary. Something in the main Fight Club and Fight Club (film) articles along the lines of "the book/film has been referenced repeatedly in other popular films and television shows, especially in the form of a parody of the Rules of Fight Club" is more than sufficient. Otto4711 04:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I did look at the main articles before nominating this and I agree that removing large trivia sections from the main book and film articles is a very good idea. However, removing a trivia section from one article so that it may be relocated into another article is not a good idea. Passing references to every book or film or TV show that mention another book or film or TV show are not in themselves so notable as to require separate articles. Otto4711 13:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a list concerning notable works, especially relevant in this case as Fight Club is about popular culture. Any original research/fan interpretation problems can be cleaned up. Per Mathmo, if it is deleted then cultural references will be unknowingly added to the main articles, which is counterproductive. The scope isn't so big that the list will become an unmaintainable mess. The nom's example "...especially in the form of a parody of the Rules of Fight Club" does sound like original research - can you back that claim up without the list? Would you argue that any "in popular culture" or "cultural references" article is an indiscriminate collection of information as well? If someone could please guide me to a policy that discriminates between passing references and notable references, then I will work on improving the article in that sense. Pomte 14:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, yes, I would argue that any similar article to this one is an indiscriminate collection of information. I would categorize any article that seeks to capture every single reference to a film or a book in every other medium as indiscriminate. Otto4711 17:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the most notable -- and verifiable -- examples into either the novel or (more likely) film article. A quick glance revealed far too many speculative and/or NN examples. I mean, just because a character in Dead Like Me sort of dresses like a character in the film doesn't mean the film had any impact at all on that costuming decision; it's the same as suggesting that someone wearing a tuxedo in a film is doing so because of James Bond. 23skidoo 15:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bordering on indiscriminate, I'd like to see it pared down and possibly merged, but the fact is Fight Club has had a huge effect on pop culture for over 10 years now. When a movie does that, it is notable. This cannot be done away with without some merging, because the Fight Club article relies on this as a sub right now, so note to closer if this article is deleted, please find some way to notify those upkeeping the Fight Club article and give them a way to fix that section. —siroχo 16:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wizard of Oz has been a cultural influence for almost 70 years, including amassing a significant body of scholarship amongst film historians, yet that article manages to limit itself to a few references. Otto4711 17:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comparison is not a reason for a decision, not every article in Wikipedia has been "finished", let a lone created. If there were a long list of references to The Wizard of Oz, I'd probably vote exactly the same way, perhaps even allowing for a longer list considering the 7 decades it has influence pop culture. —siroχo 18:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not the sole basis for a decision, certainly, but when one makes the argument that a film's ten year history of cultural influence is justification for an article then it's reasonable to point out other examples of far more influential films who handle the issue differently. Moreover, I would argue that the article in question is not a documentation of the "cultural influence" of Fight Club. It's mostly a collection of one-liners from a variety of sources bunged together with things that likely have nothing to do with Fight Club at all (the aforementioned similar clothes item). Otto4711 19:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE as explained above by Krimpet and others. The policy says that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a trivia manual. A basic problem with this level of trivia is that editors can't possibly verify it. Whether a work alludes to another work is often a matter of interpretation, and editors' efforts to suppy their own opinions are essentially WP:OR. Can we manage this information reliably? --Shirahadasha 21:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable, split off content warranted. Everyking 07:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Fight Club is very influent in the modern culture, worldwide. I even think that the article should be expanded with more generic information, I mean, this article is like a trivia article, but need information of how Fight Club has influenced nowadays: philosophy, cult, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AVeRY! (talk • contribs) 17:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 08:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broken heart

[edit]
Broken heart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Due to the nature of the subject, there are no reliable verifiable sources, so the subject matter is not suitable for Wikipedia. Rosemary Amey 04:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirected to List of political parties in Aruba. Merge already completed by Black Falcon. Non-admin closure. Serpent's Choice 07:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aruban Democratic Alliance

[edit]
Aruban Democratic Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It's hard to argue for the deletion of any political party, but the Aruban Democratic Alliance (ALIANSA) really is not notable. The article itself says they won nothing in the election five years ago. An internet search turns up about 100 nonwiki ghits, which is too low even for a country where English is not the primary language. Maybe someone can check if there are notability criteria for political parties. YechielMan 05:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the information contained is verifiable (see [14] and [15]). The problem is that there is apparently no readily-available online source that treats the party in a non-trivial manner. Perhaps there is some information available in Aruban newspaper print sources (I will post a message requesting sourced information to the Carribean WikiProject). I really don't want political party articles to be deleted, but I agree with the nom that, as it stands, the article fails WP:Notability. Black Falcon 06:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have no moral problem with deleting the articles of non-notable political parties. The line has to be drawn somewhere; this party is worth at best a parenthetical mention in the page describing the election it lost. Flakeloaf 06:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, redirect to List of political parties in Aruba. The merge will require nothing more than typing the name of the party and maybe a sentence about its one-time participation in the 2001 elections. I can do this in 2 minutes if the idea is supported. Even if a merge is not supported, the article should be redirected rather than deleted. Black Falcon 06:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 21:41Z

City Creek Center

[edit]
City Creek Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

removal of db because more info provided, but this article violates WP:CRYSTAL. With enough information and references provided, and notibility verified, I no longer support deletion. Wooyi 03:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Manhattan streets, 1-14. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 21:43Z

1st Street (Manhattan)

[edit]
1st Street (Manhattan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Redirect to Manhattan streets, 1-14 per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, WP:N. These pages have near identical information with no claims of notability. These are relatively unremarkable streets in Manhattan and very few edits have been made since they were created last October November, and it's unlikely that anything of note will be added. talk to Ytny 05:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that while the streets themselves are not notable on their own, the grid and the component streets as a whole are. talk to Ytny 14:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2nd Street (Manhattan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
3rd Street (Manhattan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
13th Street (Manhattan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


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

The result was Merge to Guinness World Records. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 21:44Z

Features of Guinness World Records Books

[edit]
Features of Guinness World Records Books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be nothing more than abandoned, unwikified list. Page has been unmaintained practically since its creation and is just a target for vandals now. RJASE1 06:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 21:46Z

Pickled punks

[edit]
Pickled punks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged for speedy deletion as 'in bad taste', which is a bad speedy reason. Google bears out the usage of this phrase, though not with any reliable sources that I can find, and it's non-notable in any case. Opabinia regalis 06:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 06:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long Lost Cousin

[edit]
Long Lost Cousin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nominated for speedy deletion, and does not appear to be notable, referenced, or even written at all. It is my guess that this is supposed to be a song, but given the poor writing and two SPDel noms, I say delete.  Tuvok^Talk|Desk|Contribs  06:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 21:46Z

Bin Shabib

[edit]
Bin Shabib (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article about a family makes no claim that they are notable and has no references. Inkpaduta 07:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 21:47Z

List of Lithuanian given names

[edit]
List of Lithuanian given names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:WINAD. This article is merely a list of names belonging to a language (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so it has been transwikied to Wiktionary (see wikt:Appendix:Lithuanian given names) and may now be deleted. See precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, etc. Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 21:47Z

List of French given names

[edit]
List of French given names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:WINAD. This article is merely a list of names belonging to a language (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so it has been transwikied to Wiktionary (see wikt:Appendix:French given names) and may now be deleted. See precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, etc. Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 21:48Z

List of Armenian given names

[edit]
List of Armenian given names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:WINAD. This article is merely a list of names belonging to a language (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so it has been transwikied to Wiktionary (see wikt:Appendix:Armenian given names) and may now be deleted. See precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, etc. Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 21:48Z

List of Portuguese given names

[edit]
List of Portuguese given names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:WINAD. This article is merely a list of names belonging to a language (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so it has been transwikied to Wiktionary (see wikt:Appendix:Portuguese given names) and may now be deleted. See precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, etc. Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 04:43Z

Chen Ji

[edit]
Chen Ji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No refs to show whether this is a hoax, has been tagged as 'possible fiction' for some time. No references, could be just mentioned in another article about the period if he actually existed. Inkpaduta 07:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see talk page of article creator [22], who is blocked indefinitely, and where someone noted that this article was based on a novel, but is presented as history and fact. Inkpaduta 20:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, for same reason as Mathmo. --queso man 21:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that the search by Mathmo leads to a novel and/or game called "Romance of the Three Kingdoms," hardly a reliable source for a claimed historical character. Inkpaduta 22:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep RTK is not "a novel"; check the WP article-- it is one of the great masterpieces of world literature and widely acknowledged as such. As for the history/fiction aspect, it's an historical novel, and its characters are the same as the historical ones, and the descriptions of their role apply to both the novel and the history. The game references appear because multiple games, video series, manga, etc. have been based on the story. It's quite a long WP article, with a long subsidiary article on the characters. Chen Ji is in the list. Most of the characters have separate articles, though it some cases they lead to other people with the same name.
I wish people would not conclude that things arent real or important without at least searching Wikipedia. For further edits or changes, someone who is more familiar with the Chinese sources is obviously needed--I know only the English translation, which is not enough to disambiguate Chinese names. DGG 07:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Robdurbar 10:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shahriar Pedram

[edit]
Shahriar Pedram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability in question. Page author disputes deletion by repeatedly removing the speedy tag, so I've decided to bring it here for community consensus. ghits: [23] NMChico24 07:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn PeaceNT 09:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uberfic

[edit]
Uberfic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about a category of fanfiction. No reliable sources (WP:RS) for the article, fails WP:V and is original research (WP:NOR). Article was kept in a previous AfD and was later deleted by WP:PROD. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I list all these sources because they may meet some people's keep criteria. My own !vote is for a merge to Über, where there's already a short section on the term's use in fanfiction. —Celithemis 14:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may make more sense to minimize the piece in Uber and move most of it to this article (assuming it is now kept due to sourcing), as that has little to do with that article a whole. —siroχo 16:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I can't seem to find a mention of uberfic in either one of the thesises you've supplied. Searching for "uberfic" or "Überfic" in the pdf of the Master's thesis comes up with nothing (mind pointing to specific page it's on?) and while I admire the reason the doctorate thesis is laid out the way it is, I can't seem to find a mention of the term in it. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that; found couple paragraphs about uberfic in the master's thesis. Almost there; if there is something about uber fic in the doctorate thesis, I'd be willing to withdraw the nomination (since there would be multiple independent reliable sources). NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the dissertation is hard to navigagte. The direct link is here; it's definitely a nontrivial discussion. —Celithemis 22:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. If it's been discussed in two peer-reviewed thesises, I can't argue against that. Withdraw nomination, but this article definately needs some major work to intergrate these sources into the article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 21:50Z

Sympatheon

[edit]
Sympatheon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about a non-notable neologism. No coverage of this word in reliable sources. Fails WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NEO. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge to Focus (band). —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 21:51Z

Cyril Havermans

[edit]
Cyril Havermans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable musician. Speedied once already. adavidw 08:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as copyvio. W.marsh 01:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark D. Poindexter

[edit]
Mark D. Poindexter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable, original research, autobiographical, prod tag was in place for more than 5 days and removed by anon, possible copyright vio (see talk page Nardman1 08:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting autobiographical content is not OR? :P Self-publishing material in a non peer-reviewed forum and then copying it to wikipedia is still OR. Nardman1 09:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not all autobiographies are OR and this seems to be one of them. MER-C 10:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

Girard Tecson

[edit]
Girard Tecson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Only assersion of notability ("Critically acclaimed") is completely unverified, and verification was not provided before prod was removed, so I'm nominating for deletion i kan reed 08:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Robdurbar 10:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just The Shoe Of Us

[edit]
Just The Shoe Of Us (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

a youtube movie with no assertion of notability. i kan reed 08:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about for being unremarkable web content, then? MER-C 08:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 21:52Z

Kjata

[edit]
Kjata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Minor summon in one Final Fantasy game. Nothing can be merged, because we don't cover every single magical spell or summon; if we do, it's as an example. — Deckiller 08:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Let Go. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 21:53Z

Let Go (song)

[edit]
Let Go (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Candy-Panda 09:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 21:54Z

The Way (band)

[edit]
The Way (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band, unsourced claims such as "Their dual guitar solos could have given the Allman Brothers a run for their money.". Candy-Panda 09:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 21:55Z

Verbs (rapper)

[edit]
Verbs (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Action Figure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unlocked (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced stub article about a non-notable rapper. Unsourced claims such as "has achieved respect in the industry". Candy-Panda 09:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A note on the nomination, an article being unsourced is a case where deletion may not be necessary. Unsourced claims within the article is not a reason for deletion at all. This artist satisfies WP:MUSIC by having multiple works released through Gotee —siroχo
  • Decided to dig around a little, came across this:
In 1994, Knowdaverbs moved to Nashville to link with Gotee Records' hip-hop group, GRITS, as their dancer and hype man. He soon began guest appearances on several of GRITS' songs and videos including "Hopes and Dreams" and "Plagiarism" the latter of which charted to #8 on BET's Rap City's Top 10. His talent caught the eye of Gotee Records CEO, Toby McKeehan, who soon approached Knowdaverbs to record an album.
The video for the title track received a great response with rotation on Fish TV, BET's Lift Every Voice, Jam Zone and Rap City.
  • Would appear that it does too meet what is required. There is probably a lot more out there that can't be found easily through use of google because this is from pre-internet days (or at least the widespread use of it). Mathmo Talk 10:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per G12. Not quite your usual copyvio, but it still is. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Muslims studying overseas

[edit]
Chinese Muslims studying overseas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

nn and limited interest Nardman1 09:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The text there is better placed in the main Islamic education in China article. Galanskov 09:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CJLL Wright per CSD R1. BryanG(talk) 06:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese muslims studying overseas

[edit]
Chinese muslims studying overseas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

per above Nardman1 09:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the deletion proposal. I moved the page to Chinese Muslims studying overseas, as failing to capitalize the word 'Muslim' is disrespectful to the followers of Islam. It really dosen't have any value as a redirect because nothing links to it and it's unlikely that anyone will type the phrase into the search bar. Galanskov 09:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 21:57Z

Titus (band)

[edit]
Titus (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band, the fact that the "official website" is their Myspace page is a dead giveaway... Candy-Panda 09:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral - Striking my recommendation after Mathmo's comment below. There are various news stories at the link he mentioned, but I'm not sure whether they're Reliable Sources or not. It would probably improve the chances of keeping this article if someone would sort through these news stories and add links to one or two of the most reliable. FreplySpang 17:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Bucketsofg 18:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage (Judeo-Christian)

[edit]
Marriage (Judeo-Christian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

From WP:POVFORK: "A POV fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines.... POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be nominated for deletion."

And, in fact, this article was created at the same time as Marriage (post modern), about 15 hours ago, out of a content dispute at Marriage, and the content needs no separate coverage besides that main article. The article author has said: "To re-iterate, the article is NPOV within it's own context.... I will edit the article to protect it's credibility, and will remove any edits that are attempts to push a POV and violate the NPOV of the subject matter."[28] Apparently WP:NPOV is going to be different inside of this article, and the article author will enforce this. Wikipedia does not allow walled gardens, nor article ownership, nor unnecessary content forking. The content of this article can and should be handled at Marriage, instead of creating yet another minor battleground. Delete. — coelacan talk — 09:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Edit conflict) There's no need for a separate traditional marriage article unless and until the coverage in the marriage article becomes so large it needs a subarticle, per Wikipedia:Summary style. As John Kenneth Fisher noted in the previous AFD, such an article "would involve same-race only, 10 year old brides, spouses meeting each other only on their wedding days, no divorce, kidnapping, spousal parents paying off the other, etc."[29] We have barely begun to approach such coverage, so a subarticle is far too premature. If such coverage does eventually need separate articles, traditional marriage is still the wrong title, as it's a neologistic POV-loaded term. There's no reason to give a neologistic term like traditional marriage undue weight by pretending it addresses a clearly defined concept throughout history. A (set of) timeline(s) of marriage practices in different regions would probably be much more encyclopedic, and an appropriate title for one of these might be marriage practices in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. I agree with Shirahadasha about the "Richard Dawkins Foundation" example, and accordingly I'm changing the redirects back to marriage for now. — coelacan talk — 21:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per A7. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Base camp india

[edit]
Base camp india (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is pure spam (see edit history). Author removed db tag twice and made half-hearted effort to make it encyclopedic but failed. Nardman1 09:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 21:58Z

Kalanidhi Maran

[edit]
Kalanidhi Maran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable advertising. db tag has been removed twice, so on to afd Nardman1 09:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also Kalanidhimaran if this isn't proof this is just pure spam, I don't know what is. Nardman1 10:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
* Keep, additional sources should suffice [WP:BIO], needs additional work though Alf photoman 15:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. --Coredesat 21:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada

[edit]
Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems like a completely useless and unencyclopedic list: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Doubtless completely true, but that doesn't mean this list should exist. I suppose there might be some justification for existence if all of these children were notable in their own right, but the vast majority of them aren't. There is no reason to create lists of non-notable people. Moreschi Deletion! 10:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom: unencyclopaedic, notability concerns. Also see List of Philippine Presidents by children and its AfD debate). --Folantin 13:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Hut 8.5 16:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems we have tons of lists about US presidents, but when it comes to lists about Canadian Prime Ministers we must delete? Give me a break. There's nothing wrong with having a list of children of Canadian Prime Ministers. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopǣdic. However Earl Andrew does have a perfectly valid point.....p'raps we should start sorting the garbage out as far as US presidents are concerned. Jcuk 19:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I see nothing wrong with either list. There are people out there who have an interest in Presidents and Prime Ministers and would like lists of Prime Ministers based on these things. For instance, we have tons of articles on members of the royal family and its lineage, because there is a tremendous interest in the royal family. For instance, the World Almanac has a many sorts of lists of Presidents, including one that lists the spouses and number of children. Surely we can include a similar list on Wikipedia? I mean, Wikipedia is not paper, while the Almanac is! -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it is a useful and interesting list. --YUL89YYZ 19:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - not a rationale for keeping, see WP:ILIKEIT. Moreschi Deletion! 19:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although I often defend lists (seemingly hated by AFD regulars), I see no rationale for grouping these individuals. Merge if necessary to notable parent's article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic listcruft. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, and not a collection of everything that has happened in history. I think that people who come to AFD and go "keep, useful/interesting" don't actually get it. Wikipedia is not a collection of everything that is useful or interesting. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the same reasons the the Philippino children list should be deleted. I'm very much enjoying these AfDs because at least one person responds to each of them by suggesting another list that's every bit as egregious, and that list ends up nominated. Keep it up! Otto4711 00:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no need for a list of mostly non-notable individuals. Anyone who is interested in the children of any given Prime Minister (or President, for that matter) can look in on that specific Prime Minister's article. Resolute 02:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - various issues:
    • Families of heads of state by their nature attract significant attention and are in normal practice featured in various non-trivial published journalistic and historic works. Therefore children of Prime Ministers automatically inherit some degree of notability;
    • The list also provides an at-a-glance view of the families, which would otherwise have to be tediously researched by hitting every PM's article on the WP server;
    • The list is less prone to cruft than most - Prime Ministers and their families don't change extremely often;
    • List of Children of the Presidents of the United States is tolerated;
    • So are plenty of other kinds of lists on less important subjects.
Dl2000 02:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of you saying "keep" on the basis of the US Presidents' children list do understand that that list has never been nominated for deletion, right? I hope you also understand that the existence of one article is not an excuse for the existence of another. The question is not whether some article exists; the question is whether this article should exist. Otto4711 03:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I suppose the issue is whether the list is useful or not. Insofar as it compiles a list of the children of a highly notable category of people - the heads of government of Canada - it saves time and effort scrolling through all twenty-two names to retrieve this specific item. There are thirteen lists related to the persons of the Prime Minister of Canada. There is no reason to suppose one is any more (or less) notable than another. Such lists are ubiquitous for heads of government for various countries. My question is whether or not the criteria for retention or deletion is random. Are the children of Canadian PM's any more or less notable than those of the United States? Is the category of children any more or less notable than the birthplace of the PMs? My concern is that deleting this article creates a slippery slope for a mass deletion of lists that many people who are, for instance, compiling bibliographal anthologies, find useful. In the absence of clear criteria, deleting this article is random and gratuitous. Fishhead64 04:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The issue is not whether the list is useful or not. See WP:USEFUL. Shrumster 15:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Regrettably, WP guidelines always point to what it is not, not to what it is. Regardless, usefulness is a valid arguement, because it suggests something will be used - see WP:9W for a useful refutation of your suggestion. Usefulness is precisely the issue. Fishhead64 16:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Actually, per WP:9W: "Compilation. Wikipedia is not a simple collection or list of facts." I see nothing in WP:9W that states just because something is useful means it should get an article. The phrase "to ensure that the resulting articles are as useful" states that articles must be useful, not the converse that useful stuff be articles. Shrumster 17:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response: I agree - cruft like List of First Ladies of the United States by longevity is perfectly useless in all respects, but you have discounted arguments that lists of children of PMs would be helpful for comparative purposes or in research concerning, for instance, biographical anthologies. And yet you defend lists of spouses of heads of government, which seems inconsistent (another one of my complaints for nominating this list in particular). Why, there even exist lists of spouses of deputy government leaders. My argument is not that because these exist, so too should Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada, my argument is that this list is useful in terms of it being used by Canadians, which is the criteria you cite, while others are considerably less so. Fishhead64 18:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, good luck trying to delete the list of children of US Presidents. The reason why there is no AfD is because it would have no chance of actually being deleted. There are enough American Presidential trivia-buffs to vote to keep it. Now you may put it on AfD, but I warn you now it would be a colossal waste of time. Not to mention the fact that is actually highly encyclopedic in content. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AfD isn't a vote, so it doesn't matter how many "trivia buffs" turn up to say "keep". If they don't make arguments based on Wikipedia deletion policy, the admin will simply ignore them. Worth bearing in mind in this debate too. --Folantin 08:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fishhead64. GreenJoe 05:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It would be very difficult for the casual researcher to gather this information from individual articles; it would be undesirable and inadequate to do it through categories; and this is the sort of research issue that an encyclopedia of political biographies might well be expected to have. --lquilter 06:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The casual user who is looking things up about political biographies. For instance, a 12 year old trying to find out information for a report about political families. "Compare and contrast" is one of the things kids are taught; this list would be helpful for them. Or for example, someone in college doing a paper in sociology about political families, power, and democracy; could easily work through the list of children of PMs / presidents, note the ones who are notable & the ones who are not; find out a bit of info on the ones who are not. These are "casual researchers". These people are disproportionately notable, in some part because they often are part of political families or with inherited wealth; and the fact that some of them end up being not notable is what makes a list useful -- because it will gather the folks who have wp pages and the folks who don't. --lquilter 14:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Once more, I point you towards WP:USEFUL. BTW, as an educator, I must say that someone who needs to make a report about "political families" would do best to research each family independently rather than rely on a "list", in the same way that someone doing a report on a character in a book should not rely on a "list of chracters in book X". Being the child of a politician doesn't make one any more notable than the child of a notable scientist or a notable author. Neither does inheriting wealth make one notable. Oh, and please read WP:USEFUL. Shrumster 15:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have read WP:USEFUL, thank you. You asked for some examples of what "casual research" might look like, and I provided them. Pointing me to WP:USEFUL is conclusory; you're saying that this is merely useful rather than encyclopedic, but you're not giving an explanation of why it's not encyclopedic. I've pointed out (below) that this very topic is a subject of academic research; hence a potential topic for casual research. ... As for how a kid might write a report, the list is an index; it serves as a sorting & collecting function. A kid trying to decide which families to write about could look through the list (repeat: it's an index), make some basic assessments about which families look interesting, and then move onto the individual president, first lady, and children articles as appropriate. Please see WP:CLS which explains in greater detail the organizational function of lists in wikipedia. --lquilter 16:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say that Wikipedia is an index; I said that the list fulfills an indexing function within Wikipedia. Your point about WP:NOT#DIR does not support your argument, as a list is, in fact, an "article" which would "mention" less well-known people. --lquilter 18:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say yes. Why? For all the reasons people have mentioned. It's a great resource for people needing information on the chilren of Prime Ministers. Encyclopedias are about providing information to people, and this does just that. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Until/Unless we create a separate Wiki-Almanac stuff like this belongs here. It's of valid Almanac interest as families of world leaders have significance at certain functions or funerals.--T. Anthony 07:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. They are "significant" at functions/funerals concerning their own families, that's about it. Almanacs are called almanacs and not encyclopedias for a reason. Shrumster 13:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In many countries, "first lady" is a official/semi-official position. "First ladies" usually have done significant things that make them notable by themselves, regardless of their relation to their husbands (that they got to do those things by being related to their husbands is irrelevant, what they did usually makes them notable by themselves). "First children" on the other hand, do not warrant their own articles just by being "first children". George W. Bush is notable because of his time as a president/governor, not because he is the son of George H. W. Bush. Shrumster 13:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: This is what I mean about randomness and gratuitousness. You've just finished arguing that individuals should stand or fall on their own merits, not on their relationship to a notable person. Now you're defending a list for spouses of presidents of the United States, even though - despite what you claim - it is not an official or semi-official position (unless you are prepared to cite the enabling legislation). Fishhead64 16:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. List of spouses of presidents of the United States? Where did I mention that? That country is not the only one that uses the term, "First Lady" you know. :) BTW, that's exactly what I said. Most (if not all) First Ladies are notable because of actions they themselves performed, and not just because they were related to heads of state. I highly doubt that you could say the same about children. For example, the last two on the list in question are most likely 11 and 8 years old. I doubt they've done enough to fulful WP:BIO standards. Shrumster 17:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: First point taken. As I said, the consistency of your argument would be that relationships do not establish notability. The article about Julia Dent Grant, for instance, does not suggest she did anything notable outside of her relationship to her husband. If one can achieve notability by virtue of one's relationship to a notable person, then WP standards are fulfilled. And speaking of kids, what's Tricia Nixon done lately? Fishhead64 18:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • His access to governor/43-ness stems in large part from his proximity to 41, so I think it's a bit difficult to separate the two -- and in fact shows what children of presidents / PMs share that is in common. --lquilter 14:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. [34] has links which will source the entries so the list is verifiable. Deleting this while keeping the corresponding US list will only contribute to systematic bias. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep good reference, I'm sure many of them were more notable then the ones who wish this to be deleted realize. How many notable Canadian Prime Ministers can you name of the top of your head? Me? About four. Just because the whole world doesn't care together doesn't mean it should be deleted. This is excellent info, whether big or small, for someone who wants to learn Canadian history. As long as it is accurate it should be kept as well as expanded. Jjmillerhistorian 14:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - speaking of systemic bias, I would note that the topic of children of US presidents has been studied in historical and sociological literature. (Hence suggesting that the kind of topic is relevant.) --lquilter 14:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Articles on these people would be a bit much, but the list is quite useful. - SimonP 14:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful index for other articles, and many PMs' children are indeed notable- several have been MPs, public speakers, filmmakers, etc. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 15:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the list is useful for reference. Media references, biographies, etc. could all use this. Homagetocatalonia 16:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dl2000. Mathmo Talk 17:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lquilter and others above Johnbod 18:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dl2000. Jord 20:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I can understand the argument that it's not hugely encyclopedic, it is a useful reference list on something that is of interest and research value to some people. I certainly don't think that every child of a Canadian PM would deserve their own separate article — but a straight list is completely harmless, and as anyone can see, the only names that are currently wikilinked are those who are independently notable in their own right in addition to their status as children of PMs. And as has been wisely pointed out, it's not overly prone to needless expansion since it's a list with very specific and tightly defined parameters that isn't really subject to change all that often. Keep. Bearcat 22:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have to agree with the nominator; I see nothing being said in defense of this article that goes beyond it being "useful" or "interesting". Many useful, interesting things are not encyclopedic. To me this is more a specialized genealogy directory or something that belongs in the (literally) parent article. For those individuals who have achieved some sort of notability in their own right, beyond what their parents have done, having a separate article is enough. Agent 86 20:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the relationship is itself notable, an article on the individual should only spring up if the individual should in turn become notable, which seems to be the case on over 1/3 of those named here. Someone who is exposed to the public eye in their formative years is probaly more likly to end up in the public eye leter in life. cmacd 20:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This list of Canadian Prime Minister's children is important, not just in terms of names, but in terms of Canadian politics. SFrank85 23:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is this important? Why? To whom? Agent 86 23:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because you don't like it, Agent 86, doesn't mean it isn't important. Lists like this are hard to find on the internet. There are a lot of things on Wikipedia I don't think are important, but there is no reason for them to be deleted over opinion. I just don't view pages I don't care about. The page just needs more detail with information on the missing PMs. They probably didn't have kids like King. Being a child of a PM or a president of any country can put one in the spotlight which makes this list important. See all the 'Keeps'? Jjmillerhistorian 00:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • My comments have no basis in whether or not I like the article or not. I think it's fair to ask someone to substantiate a bald assertion that something is "important". Just saying it is does not make it so, just as the number of "keeps" (or "deletes") does not make something encyclopedic (or not). Sidestepping the question does not make it any less a relevant one to be answered. Agent 86 01:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can easily see myself finding this list useful as a quick reference. Off the top of my head, I might wonder how many other PMs had young children while in power like Stephen Harper does. This list would let me find out. It seems silly to make me read 22 biographies to answer those kind of simple questions. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. Category:Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada is sufficient.--Vsion 06:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A category based on parentage is a bad idea; if you read the CFDs you would see that this is wrong; not because it's not notable, but because categories are overused and non-navigable unless strictly controlled. But if you think the fact of parentage is notable enough for a category, then you should think a list would be okay. A category is nothing more than a list: an automatically-generated, alphabetical list, without annotation or reference. --lquilter 16:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some of these children become more notable then others, especially those put in the spotlight or have a political future because of their political parent's status. They would most likely be considered 'nobodys' if they were not children of PMs. They play an important part in the life of the PM. Look at the Bush twins, they have done nothing notable, yet because their father is President of the U.S. they have become notable. Take away his Presidency and his daughters wouldn't even have an article in Wikipedia. Same goes for Chelsea Clinton, no Bill and "who's that girl?" Being a child of a PM or any world leader is notable. Jjmillerhistorian 14:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete move this information back onto the subject's page and waste this list. — MrDolomite | Talk 15:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable Avi 20:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Again, if children of government leaders are non-notable, why do such lists exist? I assume, for the sake of consistency, you'll be voting "delete" on List of Children of the Presidents of the United States. Fishhead64 20:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Comment It appears that nobody here or at the AFD for Children of US Presidents has even bothered to read Wikipedia:NOT#Indiscriminate. For those arguing deletion on the grounds of indiscriminate consider that these are the categories that "Indiscriminate" includes:
  1. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions.
  2. Travel guides.
  3. Memorials.
  4. Instruction manuals.
  5. Internet guides.
  6. Textbooks and annotated texts.
  7. Plot summaries.
  8. Lyrics databases.

Which of these categories does a list of the children of some of the most important people in the world possibly fall under? Is Chelsea Clinton a song lyric? Is Michel Chrétien some sort of travel guide? Please read a Wikipedia policy before using it to justify a deletion, instead of assuming that the policy sorta probably applies.--JayHenry 20:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The meaning of "indiscriminate information" is not limited to the things on that numbered list. You hit it on the head with "children of." A list of the people themselves would not be indiscriminate information. However, a list of their children is, per WP:NOT Six Degrees of Separation. Since the children are not famous in their own right, this is a list of trivial information, or as they say around here, cruft. JChap2007 00:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm referring specifically to wikipedia's policy — Wikipedia:NOT#Indiscriminate. The policy simply does not apply to this debate. I'm not arguing the denotations and connotations of the word "indiscriminate." The policy doesn't say that anything that a reasonable person could consider indiscriminate has no place in wikipedia. The policy is clearly defined and not applicable here. And, correct me if I'm wrong, "Wikipedia is not Six Degrees of Separation" is not a real policy either. As for fancruft while you personally may not be interested in the children of world leaders, the media has in some sense made the decision for us. The children of world leaders are incessantly covered in newspapers, political magazines, television, biographies and the history books. You might not like it, but the children themselves, their role as children of world leaders, and the common bond they share as children of world leaders are notable topics, not to mention easily verifiable. Per the policies of wikipedia, this isn't even a close call.--JayHenry 03:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You seem to be confused on the interpretation of that policy. It says that "indiscriminate information" includes the things on that list, not that it includes and is limited too the items on the list. The list is merely exemplary, not an exhaustive listing, of what is considered indiscriminate information. It has not been esablished that most of these people are indeed notable; most do not have their own articles. However, even if they were, that doesn't necessarily support collecting them in a list. I never said I don't like the topic and as for my reference to Six Degrees of Separation, you may want to review the article on humour. You might also want to look at WP:LISTCRUFT, which offers a good rule of thumb: Lists should only be created if the subject of the list is itself encyclopedic. Or, to put it another way, Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada is not a valid encyclopedic topic, so a list of all the children of Canadian prime ministers is not a good topic for a list. JChap2007 13:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The collection of this information into a single article is indiscriminate. -- Alan McBeth 00:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I believe that every article on a US President (or Canadian Prime Minister) should list that person's family (spouse and children). If the children are notable in their own right, then they should get an article. However, this list has no justification for existence. --Richard 02:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incorporating by reference all my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Children of the Presidents of the United States, excepting only the cites to US-specific articles. Suggest that where US-specific cites exist, Canadian-specific work is also a likely study of subject, but would be less likely to actually have published work. I append the last proposal for convenience. --lquilter 14:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article creation comment - A couple of people have now suggested that the (US) list is appropriate if an existing article is there to support it. I initially preferred a single article, with text and an incorporated list, and I wrote two paragraphs at the top of the current list that could serve as a stub. But now I see perhaps the virtues of a separate article: One article could explain the sociological aspects of being a child of a political leader, placing it into context with inherited nobility, economic class, personal life outcomes, and so on; and there could be short sections that discuss any specific national effects, national political history, or other specific national research that have been done, which would link to the relevant supported lists (children of Canadian PMs, children of US presidents, and so on). (Heck, we could probably cannibalize some of the arguments on this page to flesh out the text.) --lquilter 14:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 21:58Z

Alabastrite

[edit]
Alabastrite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable proprietary building material that shows up only in two product catalog descriptions. The Wikipedia article on Alabastrite is in Google rank #3. CyberAnth 10:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 22:00Z

Saber's Beads (2nd nomination)

[edit]
Saber's Beads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete per previous afd [35] Nardman1 10:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should add, vanity term by Mr. Saber (who is the article's author and has added two vanity links to the article), only 37 Google hits, and so-called "sources" are not peer-reviewed, they're just places he convinced to add some text about his neologism. Nardman1 11:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence just keeps rolling in. Look at what he posted on my talk page. [36] Nardman1 11:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does it bother you it's vanity by Mr. Saber, including two links to articles about himself and not the so-called phenomenon? Nardman1 11:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 22:01Z

2006 J. League Division 1 results March

[edit]
2006 J. League Division 1 results March (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2006 J. League Division 1 results April (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2006 J. League Division 1 results May (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2006 J. League Division 1 results July (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2006 J. League Division 1 results August (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2006 J. League Division 1 results September (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2006 J. League Division 1 results October (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2006 J. League Division 1 results November (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2006 J. League Division 1 results December (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

De-prodded with a suggestion to move to WikiNews. Last time I checked we can't move things to WikiNews because of license incompatibilities. (Would they want these entries anyway?) So, delete because:

Wikipedia is not a soccer statistics site/collection of information/database/news service, see relevant and overwhelming precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NHL Results October 2006, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fußball-Bundesliga - August 2006 and September 2006, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Football League Championship results August 2006, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FA Premier League results December 2006‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ligue 1 results August 2006. Punkmorten 10:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Scottmsg 17:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Scottmsg 17:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Resolute 06:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suggested transferring them to Wikinews. WikiNews would seem to be a good place for them, since newspapers and news web sites carry loads of sports results including season outcomes. I apologize for not knowing that we can't do that. If that can't be done, let's put them in the user's space; maybe he can repost them in WikiNews. (User:Sirasu is the only editor of all of these articles prior to the deletion proposal.) Fg2 08:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment User:Sirasu apparently speaks very little English (en:0 on his user page). So, any suggestions about relocating this data would best be handled by someone who understands Japanese and the WikiNews criteria. Neier 13:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 13:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The major issue with these articles (and the others cited in the nomination that I also tried to save) seems to be the format of the information. Several "season of XYZ team" articles exist, and have normally withstood AFD. Admittedly, those articles also include info about a particular team's personnel changes, streaks, etc; however, they include the scores of games too (see Rangers F.C. season 2005-06 for one example). Sports leagues are notable, for the same reason that sports teams are notable. Articles on a particular season of a profession sports league are commonplace as well. League tables are in those articles, and by extending the decision to include a team's scores on a team's season article, it is not unreasonable to include all scores from a league on the league's season article. However, that is unwieldy, and probably more than the 50KB recommended size. I don't know how big each of these monthly articles is, but, they can probably be merged to a single article for the whole season, and referenced from J. League - 2006. It is not logical to delete the information just because it is compiled by week (which is a rational way to look up such info), when if it was separated by each team and split across (18 teams in J. League) differnt pages, it would be "acceptable". Neier 13:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Liga 2006/2007 results December 2006: For plot summaries (see WP:NOT) we require that "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot." Why should we require less of sporting events? Pure data without an explanation of its significance would seem to fall under WP:NOT as indiscriminate information. This vote pains me a little as a possible WP:BITE (the main contributor doesn't really speak English and earned a barnstar for his efforts), but I should and will be consistent. Dekimasuが... 06:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think you need to worry about WP:BITE, as you can see on his talk page, I warned him (in sloppy Japanese) in December about the other leagues' results pages getting deleted, and he stopped creating them (I'm pretty sure he was headed for 2005 next). I'm basically resigned to the fact that I won't see eye-to-eye on the concensus of these, but, I might as well add my dissent to every discussion that comes along. The barnstar was for the sheer amount of work he had put into Japanese soccer pages in general (before any of these results pages were created). Neier 08:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As to the transwiki to WikiNews, since User:Sirasu is the only editor (pre PROD and AFD) of these articles, wouldn't they be eligible for the move, with the appropriate byline? Neier 08:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Result was Speedy delete by Tom harrison. WJBscribe 19:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twila Reid

[edit]
Twila Reid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable high school band, see [37] Nardman1 10:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 22:02Z

Thomas Dessalet

[edit]
Thomas Dessalet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

autobiography (compare name of author to earlier version of article talking about marathon running. Also non notable Nardman1 10:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result was Speedy delete by Siroxo. No assertion of notability. WJBscribe 19:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mahesh kothamangalam

[edit]
Mahesh kothamangalam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable Meno25 10:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Luke! 18:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbuthnot Road

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

A road with some buildings on it. Not even a claim of notability let alone sources. Prod contested by author. Nuttah68 11:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. There are numerous links to this article. But it is agreed that the article could be enhanced by somebody in Hong Kong. - Kittybrewster 11:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are lots of roads in London with articles, which are easily enhanced by those living in London. This article is as important as them and could be improved by someone from HK. We need to stop looking at the article from a UK/USA centric view. Couter-revolutionary 11:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a major street with important and historical buildings along it. Has around 12900 hits at Google. ~~ Phoe talk 19:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]
  • Keep. I'm an American who knows little about Hong Kong, yet even I've heard of the place thanks to the tourism media. The article just needs some work. Beginning 19:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article currently fails the general notability guideline, and it includes speculative info that should be sourced or removed. If the road is notable, then the article should establish it with sources. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To address the nominator's rationale for nominating this article for deletion: 1) This road is notable for firstly being the historic location of the first Magistracy of colonial HK, and secondly for being a popular tourism location. 2) One source has been provided since the nomination, however, lack of sources is not a criteria for deletion anyway, so this should have been a non-issue. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Hong Kong has this problem of someone went through and made independent articles for every street, intersection and overpass. This information should be keptbut should be merged into a district or something. SchmuckyTheCat 03:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important and historic road in a major city. --Oakshade 03:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The cited reasons are false.—Gniw (Wing) 04:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the reasons stated in the other 'keeps'. Major thoroughfare in Hong Kong with historic significance. David Lauder 10:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - needs some more expansion but definately not deletion. The road is the subject of a considerable amount of notability that could be improved through local Hong Kong editors or experts in the subject. Luke! 23:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Former Central Magistracy - one of a very few Delcared Monuments (Colonial) located at Arbuthnot Road is still remaining in Hong Kong. Worth keeping & expanding! Alfeewusy 11:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a no brainer. Buildings and streets in Hong Kong can vanish so quickly that articles like this should be in greater demand. Yes it is Mundane, of peripheral interest, but the information is valid. As part of the Hong Kong project I feel strongly that this article should be kept. Also someone noted that some streets in London have Wiki entries. More pressingly streets in London aren't acustomed to being bulldozed overnight. See Star Ferry for further examples. --Peej 16:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to Phex. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 22:03Z

I2Phex

[edit]
I2Phex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Possible vanity/spam, does not appear to be notable. As ever, I am open to being proven wrong. J Milburn 11:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i2phex is still not phex, it is an own release and we want to expand this article, soon i2phex is coded in phex, then the articles can merge, but till now they are own branchesof clients. if you have not tried it, you cannto say, the software is not descibed, it is just a normal gnutella client working over i2p. so remove the deletion mark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.234.135.232 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment: Although I do not quite follow what you are saying, I started this debate by saying that this software was non-notable. If a merge is innappropriate, then I can see no reason for this article to be kept, as there is no assertion of notability. J Milburn 19:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 22:05Z

Australia's 6.30pm current affairs ratings war

[edit]
Australia's 6.30pm current affairs ratings war (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not an encyclopædia of everything. A ratings list for a topic that barely warrants a mention in prose in other articles is not a sound basis for an article cj | talk 12:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'll be the odd one out. I don't see how this is an indiscriminate collection of information per above comments. Its verifiable and well laid out as far as I can see. Stats like this are not everyone's cup of tea but I'm sure there are media students for one that would find the article useful and interesting. Article could be improved with some interpretation of some of the data and more detail on the source of the information. The time slot immediately after the news IS incredibly important to network profits and media analysts DO dissect this type of data. Merging the data into either or both of the two current affairs programs misses the point as the comparison over an extended period is what's important. —Moondyne 13:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no doubt it is of interest to some people (indeed, it wouldn't have been created if it weren't), but it's simply not Wikipedia's purpose to be a repository for everything. This information can be hosted elsewhere.--cj | talk 13:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where? Why NOT Wikipedia? I wouldn't see this article as a thin end of the wedge if that's what's being suggested. It's an article about one of the prime television advertising slots for the national audience. —Moondyne 13:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to Carmen Sandiego. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 22:06Z

V.I.L.E.

[edit]
V.I.L.E. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article on a plot device in Carmen Sandiego. Lacks any sources, reads as WP:OR. Redirect is probably the right result. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 12:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kevin Smith. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 22:07Z

Ranger Danger and the Danger Rangers

[edit]
Ranger Danger and the Danger Rangers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

"an upcoming science fiction film to be written and directed by Kevin Smith" - First off, it's not really Wikipedia's place to commission a film. Ranger Danger is but one of the many story ideas occasionally entertained by Mr. Smith's fertile imagination, there was never any sort of official announcement or studio backing of the project. This article is comprised entirely of speculation fueled by random comments that Kevin Smith posted on an online forum. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 12:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is not enough reliable information on the project to add any sort of useful summary to the Kevin Smith article (which is messy enough as it is). Smith's comments basically add up to "[Ranger Danger being] something I've noodled with a couple of years." ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until there is some creedence to the actuality of a future for this film or until it is in production, but at least more than being just an idea in someone's head.--Tainter 14:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 12:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or whoever wrote it into the template can do it. Totnesmartin 20:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 22:08Z

DigHayZoose

[edit]
DigHayZoose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable music group. Google search returns only 1,690 hits. Candy-Panda 12:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 12:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 22:09Z

Return to Sender (band)

[edit]
Return to Sender (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. Candy-Panda 12:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 12:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 22:10Z

Maksim of Orenburg

[edit]
Maksim of Orenburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Maksim of orenburg.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

This appears to be a spoof article. I've looked, and I dont't think that Maksim of Orenburg existed. The reference given, "Riasanovsky, Nicholas V. and Mark D. Steinberg. A History of Russia. 7th ed. Oxford University Press, 2004, 800 pages. (ISBN 0195153944)", certainly exists, but Maksim of Orenburg is not in the index. ArglebargleIV 13:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tentative delete. Nothing I have been able to find, either. The stub article makes this sound like Maksim was a city-level ruler (a mayor or something like one), which makes his titling as "Czar" suspect in my eyes. This city history gives some names of provincial governors and the like, but nothing from 1757-1800, inconveniently enough. Maybe This would have some information for someone who reads Russian? However, this link in a wiki for NationStates makes me wonder if this isn't a WP:WAF problem rather than "just" a hoax. Even if not, he seems little more than a late 18th century mayor or provincial governor, and I don't think that meets WP:BIO anyway. Serpent's Choice 14:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax, I try to find Maksim in the book A History of Russia but Maksim is mentioned nowhere. --MaNeMeBasat 16:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. All edits by creator of this article is nonsense or adding false information to articles. Hevesli 18:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I too have looked for both Maksim of Orenburg and Maksim romanov and combinations thereof. The fact that the article states he was a prince, doesn't that mean he wouldn't be "Czar" anyway? But nevertheless seems to be an article on a fake topic, either intentionally or accidentally. SGGH 23:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax, created by vandalism-only account. --Henrik Ebeltoft 02:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Aborted; article stubbed. Consensus here is that the subject is notable but the article is not NPOV; therefore I have simply stubbed the article so that it may be rewritten. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 22:13Z

Cobra Group (Marketing)

[edit]
Cobra Group (Marketing) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is unreferenced, and is comprised primarily of unsourced criticisms. John254 14:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 22:15Z

White pearl

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 21:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexualist

[edit]
Homosexualist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a term coined by a character on a TV show. The only source is Urban Dictionary, which lists two different definitions, but both cite the TV show as their source. No reliable sources. Even ignoring that, it's a dictionary definition at best. Term gets a bunch of hits in Google, but no discussion of the definition of the term. Word doesn't appear in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Collins English Dictionary, or the Oxford Dictionary of English. eaolson 14:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the section in the article that linked to Urban Dictionary was removed as a copyvio. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Any way you dress it up, this is a dictionary definition of a neologism that has absolutely no sources. The sources suggested here seem to define the word differently than the article does. The article, it seems to me, defines a homosexualist as a person who, while not scared of homosexuals, discriminates based on sexual orientation, while it does not make it clear whom that person discriminates for or against. The sources here describe a homosexualist as a person who supports homosexuals as "the Elect" versus the "the Damned" who do not support them. I don't see any of that in the article. It would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to be kept, and even in that case I would suggest a merge into something else, possibly homosexual agenda. The argument for speedy keep is clearly untenable, and the sources mentioned as "evidence" seem to be sources for something else. --Tractorkingsfan 23:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Tractorkingsfan here; the current article is always going to be unreferenced, and the article that could be written from Dhartung's sources would probably be an unnecessary content-fork of homosexual agenda. — coelacan talk — 04:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as silly. Artw 23:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NEO. The National Review article seems to define the term differently than this article, and that is one of the issues with neologisms and one of the reasons articles on neologisms are generally not a good idea.--Kubigula (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism with no stable definition. —Angr 07:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-09 08:37Z

Desk on a chest

[edit]
Desk on a chest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Desk on chest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Not been touched for yonks this article. I find it hard to believe that so many sorts of desks can be notable, but maybe that's because I am not particularly excited by desks. Still, the title "desk on a chest" sounds somewhat wrong - I can't describe why Montchav 13:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep just because antique furniture titillates you there's no reason to delete this article. Nardman1 15:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source the term: It sounds made up. If it's actually used, keep. If not, delete. Now we just need articles such as Chair on a table and Stool on a counter....--SeizureDog 17:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nardman. However, I agree that the article needs sources. Walton monarchist89 17:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced as unreferenced, potentially original research. A search on the term turns up little but wikipedia mirrors and coincidental phrasings; the couple of minor sites that use the term have inconsistent definitions. Night Gyr (talk/Oy)
  • Rename to Desk on chest: If you do a Google search with the exact term option with "Desk on chest" you'll get a better idea of what I was reading about in a specialized book on antique furniture when I wrote that article. If you want to actually see one then do a Google image search on "campaign desk chest" . The first two in that image search are desks on a chest or desks on chests,(do a google image search with just "campaign desk" to see real campaign desks) the other ones are Secretary desks, Pedestal desks and Slant top desks that have been mis-tagged for a variety of reasons. I don't know why I forgot to put a ref at the bottom of this one when I put them for all the other antique desk forms in the List of desk forms and types when I wrote all that three to four years ago. I wrote up the first versions of all the articles in that list, save one. All of them are based on my readings in published books or in Web pages for the desk forms (such as an armoire desk) which are not antiques, so they do not constitute original research. Original research would have meant going through manuscripts, going out in the field and taking photos of desks and measuring them and doing interviews with people. I've done nothing of the sort, always using Web pages (including antique dealer sites which you will not get if you just do a basic Google search, but which you will find useful if you do advanced Google searches) or printed books only. --AlainV 02:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So moved. Thanks for the clarification. Nardman1 02:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lacking reliable sources (4 of 5 sources refer to badboylifestyle.com, the other to Google video); fails to assert notability. —Doug Bell talk 08:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Badboy Lifestyle

[edit]
Badboy Lifestyle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable corporation Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the second nomination, an earlier nomination failed, it is here. Mathmo Talk 13:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP. Article seems to be just a list of someone's ideas about seduction. (Were it not for the sources, I would have had difficulty believing that this was even a real industry. "Seduction guru"!?) Walton monarchist89 17:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mentioned the sources that are there, that is what is needed for an article to stay. Your intial disbelief that this exists shouldn't effect your end view of keeping on this AfD. Mathmo Talk 21:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. How about actually providing some reasons why the article supposedly fails WP:CORP. It has two sources, plus a link to a TV segment. How is that non-notable? (Also, there are more articles listed on their media page in magazines like Playboy and Cosmopolitan that could be incorporated into the page.) As for being a "list of someone's ideas about seduction," that "someone" is the founder of the company. Don't you think his ideas about how seduction works are relevant to this page, considering that the company makes money by teaching them? Walton monarchist89 says "Were it not for the sources, I would have had difficulty believing that this was even a real industry." So you admit that the page is sourced, but you don't seem to feel any need to explain what is wrong with these sources that makes the article fail WP:CORP. Personal dismay at this industry is not a reason for deletion. --SecondSight 22:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP, WP:SPAM, and the desperate grasping for sources. Let 'em take their walled garden elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 07:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, at times I can't believe the heavily POV ladden language used in AfD by those against this subject. Grasping for sources when Loaded is mentioned?!?! And then saying this is a "walled garden". Let me guess here... you believe Loaded, for instance, is in on all of this?! Yeah right. Mathmo Talk 12:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did I forbid you from a POV? Course not, humans by their very nature will have one. However what you should be discussing in this AfD is how the sources make this a "Non-notable corporation" as the nominator claims. Other than one of the editors you listed (obviously SecondSight) none of them are active anymore. Which is what I was referring to. Even worse, one of the editors you listed doesn't even exist! (Mooft (talk · contribs)). Also, WoodenBuddha isn't my "old pal". Oh, and don't claim "single-purpose editor" when I'm not that. I edit to an extremely broad range of articles, in a variety of roles. Mathmo Talk 21:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Wish the nominator had stated specifically why they believe it is a "Non-notable corporation". You can't reply to the nominator's specific accusations when there are not any! I suspect this is a bad faith nomination with the nominator merely being disruptive. Of course, I would rather that I'm wrong in what I suspect about this. So I'm looking forward for a more detailed explaination from the nominator. Mathmo Talk 21:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, certainly. The article contains no assertion of notability - the size of the corporation is not discussed, and it's relevance to an encyclopedia is dubious. I also note that you are stalking me. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See SecondSight's comments for why it has notability. Secondly since when is the "size" required for an article to be notable?! (and I'll add that, "size" is a very vague term that can have many many possible meanings) As for you accusing me of stalking, this is not the place to re-hash out your accusations and my responses. For that, go here: User_talk:Mathmo#WP:STALK. I'll also recommend that you read No personal attacks. Mathmo Talk 11:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete cruftvertisement, non-notable, based on trivial media coverage of an unencyclopedic topic. Pete.Hurd 04:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: Seems to be a spam article. The only external source is YouTube, and that's not a reliable source. Furthermore, the YouTube link does not seem to be a "documentary", but rather an advertisement piece. (Either that, or it's a really, really favorable documentary.) It was also uploaded by this organization, so it's not a true third party link (just more material created by this organization.) For those reasons, it's non-notable. .V. [Talk|Email] 18:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, there were many more sources mentioned than just Titan Tv. Secondly you are wrong in saying it was on YouTube, it is on Google Videos. Mathmo Talk 23:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I guess I was thinking Google Video but put down YouTube. Anyway, the other sources are from this company. What we need are reliable, third-party sources. There are none, so there's no indication of notability. .V. [Talk|Email] 03:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the company did put the Titan TV segment up on Google Video, it doesn't change the fact that the segment was made by a third party. Hence, it is an independent source. Do you think they fabricated the video entirely and are lying that it was ever a segment on TV? Or are you arguing that the company edited the segment or something to make themselves look better? Also, the article has two more sources. The fact that independent links aren't available to these sources doesn't mean that the sources don't exist or that they are not independent. Sources don't even need links anyway (many books are cited in wikipedia that don't have the whole contents linked to online). We could just cite the sources, and remove the links to their text on the company's website if that would make you happier. --SecondSight 06:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Is there any proof at all this video was made by a third party? It doesn't have any logo on it that says "Titan TV", and the only source that says this is from Titan TV is Badboy Lifestyle. Also, this is not a documentary. This is a promotional piece. It shows the corporation talking about their infallible method, it talks about being a "player", it shows the price of the seminars, and then it closes with an advertisement screen: "Seduce any girl - badboylifestyle.com". This is an infomercial. If you were to remove the links and rather just cite the articles, it would still not fix the problem that the articles are unverified. Several of the sources are from Badboy, and two links are the same video. This hardly meets WP:CORP. .V. [Talk|Email] 15:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you watch the segment all the way through, Titan TV's logo comes up. This is obviously an evening TV segment, maybe news. I don't think it's strange that it shows the website of the company. --SecondSight 06:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiable and notable. --Ryan Delaney talk 16:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliably sourced from third party publications per this search. Also, none of the sources in the article are entirely third party. Addhoc 19:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep essentially per SecondSight. I nominated this for deletion in the ill-conceived first go, but my views have changed. As SecondSight points out, there is plenty of third-party coverage with the full-text available at the website [53] [54] [55] Loaded, Playboy, and Cosmo are all well-established magazines that are clearly reliable sources, even if not in the same league as the NY Times, for example. The coverage is extensive, especially in the first two, so Badboy meets CORP (no one has really offered an explanation for why these should be disregarded).--Kchase T 13:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the key phrase here is "at the web site". In my view, sources from sites other than Badboy Lifestyle are required. Addhoc 13:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't understand that criticism at first, but now I get it and think it's fair. That said, the piece from Loaded includes a scan of the article. That's pretty strong evidence that the article actually was published as it's found on Badboy's website.--Kchase T 13:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (unless the truly unexpected happens and genuinely reliable sources, multiple in number, happen to be found) per nom and Calton. This is part of a walled garden of seduction vanispamcruftisement, no two ways about it. It has no place in an encyclopedia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete with salt. No notability. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. --Coredesat 21:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PickUp 101

[edit]
PickUp 101 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable corporation - fails WP:CORP Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When this AFD began, the article had two sources, one USA Today and the other in San Francisco Magazine. Furthermore, the article mentioned that the company was profiled in CNBC's On the Money. Yet for some strange reason, the page was still put up for deletion, with only a vague allegation that it is "non-notable" per WP:CORP. Neither of the two voters for deletion seem to feel any obligation to explain why the page fails WP:CORP, or what is wrong with the sources that article has which do establish notability. In case anyone has any doubt as to the notability of the article, I just added a link to the On the Money segment, and I added another news source[56]. --SecondSight 21:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The first reference is to a general "lifestyle" (i.e., glossy puff) article which mentions this company among a number of others. The second is to a similar (if more nauseating) article in a local magazine, though it does concentrate on this company. The third (by the PR Manager of a local student magazine) is the same sort of thing, more general than the second, but focussing more on this company than the first.
    So the two references that focus more on this company are local mags, and the national newspaper mentions it as one among many. I'm not impressed; others may be. (Oh, the Cable television programme; isn't it more a mark of notability not to be mentioned by at least one of these? There are so many of them, and so little of real significance for them to talk about.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The USA Today article mentions other companies, but it is clearly about PickUp 101 primarily. It has a sidebar with advice from them, and only them. It describes one of their workshops, not the workshops of other companies. It even has a picture of the founder of the company. This is an article in a national publication, and clearly establishes notability of the subject. As for the other sources, WP:RS does not exclude local magazines nor student magazines. (WP:CORP currently excludes student publications, but the policy is still under development and this exclusion is controversial if you read the talk page. Even if the student published article was excluded in establishing notability, the page still has enough sources, and WP:CORP still says that student publications can be used as sources.) Terms like "glossy puff" and "nauseating article in a local magazine" are merely your personal characterizations of the sources. As for the news segment, just because you don't like those programs doesn't mean that it doesn't add to the notability of the subject. --SecondSight 03:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not referring to guidelines like WP:CORP, but to common sense. And none of the sources was a news item; they're all "features" (and some are ill-disguised plugs; I wonder if the company advertises in any of the publications?). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP, WP:SPAM, and the desperate grasping for sources. Let 'em take their walled garden elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 07:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article has multiple independent sources. Hence, it passes WP:CORP. Because the sources are independent, your walled garden doesn't apply. --SecondSight 07:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, at times I can't believe the heavily POV laden language used in AfD by those against this subject. Grasping for sources when USA Today is mentioned?!?! And then saying this is a "walled garden", let me guess you believe USA Today for instance is in on all of this?! Yeah right. Mathmo Talk 11:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As has already been pointed out to you, the News McNuggetsUSA Today mention, no matter how you spin it, isn't about the company, it's about the phenomenon.
I can't believe the heavily POV ladden [sic] language used in AfD. As opposed to the grasping at straws, aggressive attacks, and vigorous handwaving that some people are indulging in. And God forbid I should have an actual point of view in a debate. --Calton | Talk 15:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did I forbid you from a POV? Course not, humans by their very nature will have one. At least you are now finally getting down to the point of what this AfD ought to be about. The sources themself. Naturally each of the sources mention PUA in general because the whole concept is completely foreign to most people. Thus the mention of pick up in needed for the context. However... all of these references mentioned start of by mentioning PickUp101/Lance Mason first and have them as the focus of the article. The mention of others in no way makes this less of a source for this article. Mathmo Talk 20:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 22:16Z

Brummel brew

[edit]
Brummel brew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Wikipedia is not for things made up at Microsoft one day. Also, no sources are presented and "Brummel brew" gets no Google hits ([57]). KFP (talk | contribs) 15:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge to Nova (English school in Japan). —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 22:16Z

Nozomu Sahashi

[edit]
Nozomu Sahashi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article does not contain any information that cannot also be found at Nova (eikaiwa). Seems to exist primarily as a destination for jokes from Nova employees (see this talk page edit). Almost no good-faith edits since page's creation. RJASE1 15:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 04:41Z

Jane norman

[edit]
Jane norman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No real assertion of notability, the number of stores prevented me from speedying it. Willing to withdraw if notability is asserted by whatever means. J Milburn 15:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this. If someone wants to start a new article with correct capitalization that asserts notability and gives more than the price of their products, then we can revisit it. -R. fiend 16:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in a way it needs to be kept. However, it must be moved to Jane Norman and be completely re-written. I know that this make of handbag is very popular with teenagers for school books... lots of my friends have them. (I know this couldn't be written in the article, but it is just re-enforcing it's notability). If someone was willing to re-write it then it would be a useful article. Asics talk 16:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I basically agree, but the problem is moving the article and rewriting it completely isn't exactly "keeping" it, is it? Deleting/rewiting it from scratch and removing the text/rewriting from scratch are almost the same thing here. Far too often people vote "keep but rewrite every single word", resulting in the article being kept, but not necessarily rewritten. In cases like this the keep should be contingent on a rewrite. -R. fiend 16:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Rather than arguing about the system, why don't we try and work out what to do with this article? If we can have some proof that it meets the primary notability criteria, (and perhaps WP:CORP) then it can be moved and rewritten. The fact that you know people who have items made by the brand does not make it notable. Until we have that proof, and, preferably, someone willing to rewrite the article, it should be deleted. J Milburn 16:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep This is definately a genuinely notable high street chain. According to an article in the The Times 25th January 2007 it has 106 stores in the UK and plans to open 100 more in 2007. I cycle past one every day on my way to work (possibly not enough of a reason to keep the article!). That said clearly the article as it stands is pretty poor and lots of the information in it is not really relevant for an encyclopedia article. It needs more sources, more relevant information and generally needs tidying up / wikifying. I can't agree that it should be deleted for non-notability though. Jules1975 12:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That is one article, one more and it passes the notability requirements. Just to counter the argument being used by everyone else, I am English, and I have never heard of it. On the other hand, I live in a forgotton corner of the country, and I'm not exactly fashion conscious. Looking for more sources, I found this, the majority of Google hits are directory entries, and a few hits of various people of this name. Does anyone want to work on the article? J Milburn 18:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It genuinely does have 106 stores. Is this not notable even if no-one has written about them in the press? One is in Bluewater shopping centre, one in the Metro Centre in Gateshead. A quick search on Yell suggests there are at least nine stores in London. In any event there is also reference here to an article in the Independent on 30th July 2005. Definately notable. Apologies, I don't have time to write a proper article for this!Jules1975 14:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Ok, notability definately established, I will clean it up myself in a little while so that it is at least an acceptable stub. J Milburn 16:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but could use improvement & capitalization SUBWAYguy 22:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-09 08:35Z

Haymaker (Pokémon)

[edit]
Haymaker (Pokémon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is completely unencyclopedic - not only that, it's got an awful lot of POV and OR in it. Cipher (Yell) 15:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge somewhere: I'm actually pretty sure that I've heard of this deck type way back in that day. Which is saying something considering that I didn't even play the game. --SeizureDog 17:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as copyvio. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Indian High School, Dubai

[edit]
The Indian High School, Dubai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This high school is not notable enough for an article. It neither meets the criteria in Wikipedia:Schools nor does it meet the criteria set in Wikipedia:Places of local interest. Through my Google search, I could not find any sources that assert its notability. The school was merely mentioned in this Khaleej Times page, which is not enough to make it notable. Furthermore, the article violates copyrights (see here). And if that wasn't enough, the article is written from a biased point-of-view and sounds, to me, like an advertisement. -- Anas Talk? 15:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 22:17Z

Linux User Group of Mauritius

[edit]
Linux User Group of Mauritius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A little stubby article organisation about a little 7 year old forum group in a little island in the middle of the ocean. Do we care? Hell no! Article has lasted unnoticed for 3 years on Wikipedia! That is terrible Montchav 14:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; either nonsense, or a guide for some RPG (no telling which one). - Mike Rosoft 18:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shinesmith

[edit]
Shinesmith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not sure what this is- nonsense? Hoax? Wikipedia is not a how-to guide? In any case, as far as I can see, this needs to be deleted, and possibly sent to BJAODN. I may be wrong. J Milburn 16:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 22:19Z

Xtorrent

[edit]
Xtorrent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Xtorrenticon.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Non-notable bit torrent client. Recreated a month after deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xtorrent. SakotGrimshine 16:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 22:22Z

Alodia Almira Gosiengfiao

[edit]
Alodia Almira Gosiengfiao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability is suspect. Most online references to this person are all from self-published sources (by her or on other people's blogs and message boards). Won a contest that might not be considered a general-interest contest. In addition, one of the contributors in this article (mikeabundo) appears to personally know this person based on some entries in his own blog (mikeabundo.com). I would say, unencyclopedic. Tito Pao 16:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - unsourced, not enough independent coverage. Her modelling career might make her notable, but right now there's not enough evidence for this. Walton monarchist89 17:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Delete. Absolutely no sources at all for a lot of the info (personal info) about subject of article. Non-notable and quite unencyclopedic. I mean, on-the-spot poster-making contests? I doubt that demonstrates notability. While she has won a lot of cosplays, that's hardly a reason for inclusion in wikipedia. Notwithstanding WP:BEANS but, how many articles do we have for cosplayers? That is her claim-to-fame (I'm willing to state that's her only real one) and that's no reason for a highly-detailed article. As for the art awards, three of those are for an in-school contest. Delete per WP:V in concert with WP:LIVING's rules for non-public figures and WP:BIO. Shrumster 17:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and since we don't have to create articles for every cosplayers. --Howard the Duck 06:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from my own knowledge, and my peers in Ragnarok and cosplayers, she is well known but I agree that for Wikipedia she does not fit the standards currently. Although I think the article could be salvaged if the articles from Manila Times, Philippine Star and etc. are properly used as references to establish her notability as a famous and winning cosplayer. Berserkerz Crit 07:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. But she isn't really famous for being a winning cosplayer. She's just famous because she's one of the prettiest ones we have around here. :) As an otaku in the Philippines, I REALLY like looking at her. :P~ But honestly, she's not WP material as of now. Shrumster 09:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Delete. this page is probably just a fanboy's handiwork -Darkwind FA
yes she's not famous. she must stop dreaming to be one. she need a lot of years to work hard on it. there's a lot of talented cosplayers around and she only depends on her sponsors. without them she's nothing.:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-09 08:34Z

Nilgün Gülcan

[edit]
Nilgün Gülcan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No notability whatsoever. A Google search gives hits to the person's web site and shows that their article on Turkish wikiepdia was deleted with consensus. A Google image search indicates that the person is a man (in contrast to what the Wiki article says.) Bertilvidet 16:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-09 08:33Z

Arzu Celalifer

[edit]
Arzu Celalifer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Arzu Celalifer.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

No notability whatsoever. A Google search gives hits to the person's web site and shows that their article on Turkish wikiepdia was deleted with consensus. Bertilvidet 16:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Turkish dictionary at [58]. Silinsin means let it be deleted. She is assisting editor, not editor, see [59].Bertilvidet 22:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. So Süheyl Batum is one of the editors? That should help assess this Afd on a locality basis. I'm leaning towards delete on this and Nilgün Gülcan's Afd; except that this publication appears to be pretty notable. John Vandenberg 23:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Süheyl Batum is one of the editors. I have however my doubts about the notability of the journal. It is published by the International Strategic Research Organization, whose director Sedat Laçiner has written a number of articles on Wikipedia about several publications and employed in connection with his organization (including himself). It is difficult to asses which subjects are notable, but at least I find it obvious that the two persons nominated for deletion are not. Bertilvidet 15:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to be as notable as Süheyl Batum. If someone can provide evidence of which newspapers, or better yet TV shows, that have interviewed her, I'll reconsider. John Vandenberg 23:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fad (ix) 17:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


there are some links of newspapers she has been covered: http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=91008 http://www.mehrnews.ir/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=559528 http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=90583 http://www.iranatom.ru/news/english/version1/5/e097.htm http://www.voanews.com/turkish/archive/2006-07/2006-07-16-voa4.cfm http://www.mehrnews.ir/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=558131 http://www.mehrnews.com/fa/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=556612 http://www.tehrantimes.com/Index_view.asp?code=153637 http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=153801 http://sabah.com.tr/2007/06/09/haber,A1F4381949D14287902C50188087B539.html http://www.20minutes.fr/article/148967/Crise-Iran-GB-Ankara-se-positionne-comme-un-pont-entre-Orient-et-Occident.php http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=MTY2NTUzODY4Mg== http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/060327/2006032705.html

she also joined TV programs in many Turkish channels. such as CNNTURK / TRT / Kanal a / Haber 24 / TGRT Haber /SKYTÜRK and many radio programs

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arzu_Celalifer"

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn PeaceNT 08:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Andersson

[edit]
Stefan Andersson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be non notable, but it is borderline. I would just speedy it, but I think it says that they had a top five hit in Sweden. The text isn't awfully coherent, I presume it was written by someone whose first language is Swedish. J Milburn 17:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing nomaintion. Notability established. J Milburn 18:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've stricken the weak part of my vote and attempted to clean some new information presented in the article by its creator. It's still a stub but he seems to pass WP:MUSIC, although my ability to sort through sources for this article's expansion is hampered by my lack of knowledge of the Swedish language. GassyGuy 17:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 22:24Z

Killer Instinct 3

[edit]
Killer Instinct 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:KI3.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Killer-instinct-3-gbtg.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Killer-instinct-3-conker.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Well if this isn't WP:CRYSTAL, I don't know what is. Full of lovely comments such as "It's no secret that fans want a sequel, and Rare knows this." As it is, it's nothing but a rumor. Only if and when Rare officially annouces that they're working on a Killer Instinct 3 should this article be made. SeizureDog 17:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not Delete Stop this damnit, there is more than enough RELIABLE sources that have reported about this being a rumor, WTF is wrong with people, why cant a page exist if there is more than enough talk about the subject at hand, this isnt me speculating or wishing it will happen, its reporting on the rumor that is Killer Instinct 3
    also since when is personal dislike a reason to wanna delete it, who the hell cares if you didnt like KI2 THAT DOESNT MATTER also this exists on Killer Instinct 2's page but it briefly explains the situation, how is this any different except for it being an elaboration on its own page?
    I am getting very frustrated with Wikipedians.
    oh and I suppose by these standards Silent Hill 5 should be deleted tooPseudoKirby 12:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd like to point you to WP:INN. Oh, and the fact that SH5 is actually in development, backed up by an interview with its chief designer. The KI3 page, on the other hand, is pure speculation. Shrumster 13:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No SH5 IS NOT confirmed, its still just a rumor and hearsay by the developers, no more than the hints and teases that Rare has given on KI3, if you wanna talk speculation and only posting things that are official, SH5 is FAR from official, and thats all that should be posted then PseudoKirby 03:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • From Famitsu[61]: FM: We have missed the Tokyo Game show chance to see Silent Hill 5 trailer, will we see any new informations on it next?
      Akira: I cannot say when or where we will make the idea public but it is in production.--SeizureDog 12:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 22:24Z

Andrae Gonzalo

[edit]
Andrae Gonzalo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable losing reality show contestant. No claim to notability outside of appearing on the show. Few references available aside from PR and blogs related to the show. Mikeblas 17:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-09 08:31Z

St. Stephen's Mar Thoma Church

[edit]
St. Stephen's Mar Thoma Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is about a local church in New Jersey, founded in the year 2000, which is apparently non-notable, as it generates only 2 Google hits [62]: the church's own web site and a Xanga page. Thus, it would not appear to warrant an article under the proposed guidelines WP:CHURCH or WP:ORG. No sources are provided other than the church's own web site, and the article is written in the first person plural, thus raising concerns about conflict of interest and bias. The article was previously submitted for proposed deletion, but the PROD tag was removed with no other changes made. I recommend a delete. --Metropolitan90 17:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-09 08:31Z

Susannah Mills

[edit]
Susannah Mills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable film-maker: career consists of one yet-to-be-released short film. Article is an autobiography. Pascal.Tesson 17:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, although I'm the one who placed the prod... Pascal.Tesson 20:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 23:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Britting

[edit]
Jeff Britting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • delete. This is the second nomination. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Britting for prior vote. This gentleman, while being an associate producer and having edited one book, has not done anything definitive and does not meet wp:bio or wp:author as best as i can judge using google. The author of this new version does add some citations, but book reviews and small articles don't count much for me. Buridan 00:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bahhhh, I munged this somehow.... need better directions for a second nomination:(--Buridan 00:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the nomination was munged, and the bot overwrote the old nomination linked above, so i removed it from the page. --Buridan 15:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. Addhoc 16:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Majorly (o rly?) 17:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 04:39Z

Kestrin Pantera

[edit]
Kestrin Pantera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Likely autobiography. Fill-in actress and fill-in musician. Career as a filmmaker consists of a single unreleased short. Pascal.Tesson 17:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 11:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 22:25Z

Phillious

[edit]
Phillious (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable radio character. Nekohakase 17:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn PeaceNT 08:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reina (cattle)

[edit]
Reina (cattle) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a very vague description of a 'sub breed' of cattle that one farmer has developed. I am not sure what policy will cover this, but surely, it can't be notable enough for an article of its own? J Milburn 17:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing nomination. Multiple, good sources found. J Milburn 19:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this was a very succesful breed and bred by an institution in Nicaragua that barely exisits anymore. It was not developed by one farmer. During the Nicaraguan revolution (or just after) a great deal of this breed was sold to a National University in Venazuela. I have just learned that they might still maintain this breed in a herd there. I will get some more information so we can add more support. It was an important breed to Nicaragua and very well developed. Economic strife has caused it's reduction. Let me know thoughts please. Thanks!--Agrofe 18:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Agrofe (talk • contribs) 20:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]


Let me work on it a bit to see if I can come up with more detail. My source was the former Undersecretary of Agriculture in Nic. The first article loosley translated:

MANAGUA.- El gobierno de Nicaragua y la Universidad Nacional Agraria (UNA) acordaron un programa de mejoramiento genético del ganado reina, una raza bovina nicaragüense que fue declarada patrimonio nacional.

MANAGUA - The government of Nicaragua and the National Agrarian University (UNA) agreed to a genetic improvement program of Reina (Queen) Cattle, a Nicaraguan bovine breed that was declared National Patrimony

El propósito del acuerdo es elevar el rendimiento de esta raza criolla, explicó el rector de la UNA, ingeniero Telémaco Talavera, mediante implantes de embriones en los mejores vientres disponibles.

The agreement proposes to elevate the yields of this Creole Breed, explaned the dean of UNA, Engineer Telematico Talavera, through the process of implanting embryos in the best utersises available.

“El ganado reina tiene características especiales para el trópico, posee genes que le permiten resistir el calor y puede ser ganado de doble propósito: carne y leche. La UNA trabaja para mejorar los transplantes de embriones de este ganado”, dijo Talavera.

"The Reina cattle has special characterisitics for the tropics, it posesses genes which permit it to resist heat and they can be dual purpose: meat and milk. UNA work to better the transplanting of embryos in this cattle", Talavera said.

Financiado por el Ministerio de Agricultura, el Instituto de Desarrollo Rural y la Agencia de Cooperación de Japón, el proyecto incluirá capacitación a los productores y la distribución de ampollas de semen de mejor calidad

Financing will come from the Ministry of Agriculture, The Insitutue for Rural Development and the Agency of Cooperation with Japan, the project will include the training of producers and the distribution of ampules of better quality semen.

I'll still look for more information. The breed started in decline just as the internet was taking off (that could be why there is not much there).--Agrofe 18:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 22:25Z

Piekenhof

[edit]
Piekenhof (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A community that doesn't even exist yet. Nekohakase 17:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 21:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Cruisers

[edit]
Alternative Cruisers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested WP:PROD. "An alternative cruiser is a motorcycle cruiser that isn't quite in the big 5 category (yet)" is hardly an encyclopedic definition. Judging from the low number of Google hits (323) for "Alternative Cruiser", it doesn't seem to me that the phrase has an established meaning. Delete unless cleaned up. - Mike Rosoft 17:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • KEEP IT !! It has a lot of imformative information about motorcycles "under the radar".

A lot more can be added if it is allowed to get started. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.87.152.230 (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I have cleaned it up and added more detail. I can add more, but the effort will be wasted if you ax the page. Bill Ramby 19:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC) Bill Ramby[reply]

And it is not spam!Bill Ramby 20:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment If a manufacturer is notable, there is nothing preventing an article about that manufacturer, which may be linked from appropriate motorcycle-related articles. Creating an article that is basically "motorcycle brands you may not have heard of" and dressing it up with a name like "alternative cruisers" is promotional, which falls under our definition of WP:SPAM. --Dhartung | Talk 01:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia has increasing power" What an interesting and profound quote! I thought wikipedia was supposed to be a source of information, not an information broker. Statements like that tend to make one think that you like the power trip that moderating wikipedia gives you. You know what, just delete the page. Fighting you guys to put information on a supposed information site just isn't worth my time nor the frustration. Good day.Bill Ramby 21:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QUOTE: ""users want to use Wikipedia as a portal for knowledge creation"" Is this NOT the reason for an Encyclopedia ? To use as a source of KNOWLEDGE ? The comments made by the "EDITORS" make me wonder if many are nothing more than Harley Davidson "snobs".From the opening statement that has been added, to all the "editors" comments makes it clear that you do not really want anyone elses opinion. You should then just make this area unaccessable to the users of this site as it will and has made a bad impression about this site as a way to create and find information.

Happy bigoted editing !! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.87.152.230 (talk • contribs). — 71.87.152.230 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The definition of "Alternative" is "Existing outside traditional or established institutions or systems" and "Espousing or reflecting values that are different from those of the establishment or mainstream" Dictionary.com Alternative Cruisers would thus be motorcycles that are not part of the mainstream brands everyone thinks of when you think of a motorcycle. Having a page for "Alternative Cruisers" would be beneficial as a source of knowledge for the general public who are not familiar with the alternatives. I understand that the reason you are requesting deletion of "Alternative Cruisers" is because there are not enough hits on a google search. However, as more and more people look into other options for motorcycles, "alternative cruisers" will become a more popular search. As an information resource, I would think Wikipedia would want to be the first to have this information available. In response to your quote, "it seems as if users want to use Wikipedia as a portal for knowledge creation, which isn't the purpose of wikipedia." This is not a "creation of knowledge." The knowledge already exists. It is just not readily available on the internet. Wikipedia can change that. In response to the quote, "If a manufacturer is notable, there is nothing preventing an article about that manufacturer, which may be linked from appropriate motorcycle-related articles. Creating an article that is basically "motorcycle brands you may not have heard of" and dressing it up with a name like "alternative cruisers" is promotional, which falls under our definition of WP:SPAM." This is a discriminatory statement. If you put brand names in your pages then ALL brands should be allowed. The fact whether or not they are notable is irrelevant. It is either considered Spam or not. Under your topic on Motorcycles you include many brand names including Harley, Honda, Suzuki, BMW, etc. Is that not spam? It is a list of motorcycle brands. Wikipedia needs to keep up with the trends. According to an article on TheAutoChannel.com, ""Motorcycles and scooters are simply better than ever, in performance, style and variety, and still very affordable," he said. "The latest Cycle World Buyer's Guide lists more than 400 models. And it's not just sportbikes and cruisers and touring bikes. There are emerging niches between these broad categories, appealing to a wider array of personal taste in bikes. There's a fun little $3,000 sportbike that gets 74 miles per gallon. There are beautiful big cruisers that cost $12,000 or less. There are many desirable bikes at these prices and beyond that Americans aspire to own and enjoy." One of these "emerging niches" are "Alternative Cruisers." I implore Wikipedia to keep up with the trend and not get left behind. Muriel Russo

Muriel Russo, I'm sorry that you do not understand. Wikipedia has a responsibility to its own policies, not to "keeping up with the trend" or allowing non-notable material simply out of some fairness guideline (we do not have a fairness guideline). We only allow notable topics in the encyclopedia (guideline), and notability must be verifiable (policy) through reliable sources. A few google results does not meet these guidelines. All you've done is present evidence that there are lesser-known manufacturers of bikes, but you have not presented anything that verifably proves that they are known as "alternative cruisers" generally or that this is a meaningful classification for any type of vehicle or product. We are not objecting to the brands listed in the article, we are objecting to the fanciful grouping of them, apparently for promotional purposes. We are not a webhost for essays or would-be magazine articles. Please familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines. --Dhartung | Talk 22:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 23:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colloquial standardization requirement

[edit]
Colloquial standardization requirement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Reminiscent of my experience with Secure Democratic Democracy back in December. Exact term receives a goose egg on Google and hence may comprise original research. Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 18:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 10:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 23:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Hart (judge)

[edit]
Edward Hart (judge) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person. No evidence of anything that would satisfy WP:BIO Valrith 18:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — CharlotteWebb 10:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Middle La Have, Nova Scotia

[edit]

Middle LaHave is a very small community and comprises nothing to make it notable enough to have an article. Thomasiscool 18:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and rename to List of current BBC newsreaders. - Daniel.Bryant 23:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Newsreaders

[edit]
BBC Newsreaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article contains a list of the main BBC News bulletin presenters, something which is achieved within the articles of the main programmes, together with Category:BBC newsreaders and journalists and so effectively makes this article redundant. The fact that this article has very few links to it also makes it seem obsolete compared with the articles already in existence that serve the subject matter. Wikiwoohoo 18:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/merge to American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 04:39Z

Historical Bibliography of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions

[edit]
Historical Bibliography of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This appears to be an indiscriminate list of books about the American Board of Commisioners for Foreign Missions. It does not appear to have any encyclopedic value, as it conveys no useful information about the organization or anything else. Moreover, Wikipedia generally does not contain pages devoted exclusively to references. For these reasons, I suggest deleting this article. Dr. Submillimeter 18:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if this is a candidate for deletion, then most or all of the category of "Bibilographies by subject" should be, too. Bibliography_of_the_Penguin, Category:Bibliographies by subject. I just separated this out of the article American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions because it was more about how the items are archived. Brian0324 14:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - blanked by author, User:Bobobalde. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-09 08:29Z

Eoghan O'Dea

[edit]
Eoghan O'Dea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Eoghan o dea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Professional poker player . Is he notable? Article has been speedied once at Eoghan o dea. -- RHaworth 18:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is about a well known young Irish player who plays in Dublin and plays some of the biggest online poker games. He is the son of a very famous Irish poker player and regarded as being a good prospect.

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-09 08:29Z

History of the guillotine in Russia

[edit]
History of the guillotine in Russia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
History of the guillotine in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
History of the guillotine in Belarus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

The Russia article is a spoof article. All edits by creator of this article is nonsense or adding false information to articles. The reference given, "G.P. Maximoff, The Guillotine at Work", certainly exists, but doesn't mention literal guillotines. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maksim of Orenburg and Deletion log for History of the guillotine in China created by same user. Hevesli 19:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 04:36Z

Shadowclan

[edit]
Shadowclan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable except in the small communities with which they interact. A "consensus" by members of the guild shouldn't outweigh the fact that they fail nearly every aspect of Wikipedia:Notability (web). Their references seem to be a mixture of self links, a "screenshot of the week" style site, a gaming site (Ultima Online) with 150 such articles about the same types of events with different groups, an "interview" by a member of the group with their leader (The Only-War link) and an article on a minor WoW fansite. A quick google search brings up 534 for "shadowclan guild" (no quotes), 1440 for "shadowclan warcraft" (no quotes) and 1380 for "shadowclan ultima online" (no quotes). If we are going to allow a group with no mainstream coverage, what's the point of having notability guidelines at all? Chad Hennings 19:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- been interviewed for a commercially-published book (a "...for Dummies" book, no less). [68]
- been written into the official documentation of at least one game in which it was involved, Dark Age of Camelot. [69]
Arguably, this group isn't under the auspices of WP:WEB, but it meets it anyway: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Now brace for impact of a deluge of single purpose accounts from Shadowclan itself and groups that don't like Shadowclan. Simões (talk/contribs) 20:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added Simões's two points into the article. If there are any more non-trivial sources that assert notability, please add them so these nominations are less likely to go on. I am neutral. Pomte 03:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 11:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- This article has been up for deletion twice before - for the same not-notable "argument". The result from both discussions was to keep.
  • Discussion One - [70]
  • Discussion Two - [71]
- This article has at least four, what one might consider strong, references from third party sources.
- Shadowclan is also mentioned, as though the reader will know exactly who they are, in well-known game development discussion sites, gaming fansites, gaming forums and gaming magazines such as Terra Nova [76] and Massive Magazine [77].
- I wrote the bulk of the article. Over the past few months, I have edited and rewrote the bulk of the article. I am a former Shadowclan member and current fan. Yuut 20:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read WP:COI? It's fascinating. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have. Just as everyone monitoring this discussion should. Thank you for the sarcastic response.Yuut 21:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have issue numbers for the two magazines and the nature of the Shadowclan references? If so, it would probably help fence sitters lean more to one side. Simões (talk/contribs) 21:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-09 08:26Z

The Delta Rags

[edit]
The Delta Rags (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, virtually no Google presence aside from this article's content. Beginning 19:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Slipknot (band) in lieu of deletion. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-09 08:26Z

Crowz

[edit]
Crowz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Album that was never released and, according to the article, may never have existed at all. I see no reason that this article should exist. The article also contains 0 citations, is rather poorly written, and is likely original research. --Wildnox(talk) 19:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Although mainly from tabloids, the present sources - given their number and diversity - appear sufficient to support the current noncontroversial content for the purposes of WP:V. Sandstein 23:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angie Phillips

[edit]
Angie Phillips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

To be honest, this is speediable, as no claim is made for significance. As, however, someone "prodded" it, and an anon removed the template without making any attempt to improve the article or discuss it at Talk, but claiming that it ought to be discussed, I've brought it here. One of many weather-forecasters, not significant enough for an article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FPBot (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It was requested at DRV that this AfD be relisted to allow more debate after edits made by Oakshade. -- A Train take the 19:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have changed my earlier vote; the improved sourcing constitutes adequate evidence of coverage by third-party sources. Walton monarchist89 20:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Covered only by the tabloids, mostly in The People, the News of the World's lagging competitor, I'm not sure that the bottom of the barrel of British journalism counts as a reliable source. The articles required a fee to view them but the only one that seemed like it was a true article rather than a brief blurb was the one in The News Letter, but even if you consider that a reliable source, it still doesn't get us to the multiple requirement. JChap2007 03:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if you feel like discounting the mulitple The People articles (WP:BIO does not ban "tabloid" from its "published works" clause), the Daily Mirror, The News Letter and the Fresh Magazine ones easily qualify as "multiple." --Oakshade 04:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, but WP:BIO says the sources must be reliable. Qua re if the worst of the British tabloids qualify. Anyway, the article in The News Letter is the only one that is longer than a mere blurb (a trivial mention), so the multiple requirement still wouldn't be satisfied. JChap2007 04:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not true. The News Letter is more than a "blurb" or "trivial mention" as the free preview shows 262 of 1,759 characters. Plus The Daily Mirror article is also more than a "blurb" with that free preview showing 94 out of 677 characters, and the Fresh Magazine article is even more than both. And The People is still a published work satisfing WP:BIO notability guildlines - "The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries except for the following: Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing, telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths." Whether it's a tabloid or not, it's still a published work. --Oakshade 04:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Right, the News Letter is the only source of any length for this. 677 characters is under a hundred words. Fresh magazine is put out by the Health Promotion Agency and its brief interview was about her childrens' eating and exercise habits. And you are ignoring the part of WP:BIO that says that the sources must be reliable. JChap2007 13:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are confirming that the News Letter article is more than "just mention[ing] the person in passing." 100 words is well beyond "mentioning in passing". And the Fresh Magazine is a published work under WP:BIO and doesn't fall under any of the "exceptions". Who publishes the magazine is irrelevant as the "source is independent of the person." As for the reliable sources, that refers to accuracy of content, not notability. If the National Enquirer writes several article about someone, that someone is notable, no matter how light weight the articles are. And there are two new published works from the national charity Woodland Trust that are primarily about her [89][90]. We're up to eight published works about the subject. --Oakshade 16:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I confirmed it in my first post and in each subsequent post. The problem is we still don't have multiple articles of which she is the subject that are longer than blurbs (and yes, 100 words is just a blurb). The Fresh magazine piece is just one in which she, along with other minor celebrities are asked questions about their children's diets. A typical example is "Do your children like fruit and veg.?" It doesn't provide any information about her. Honestly, how are we supposed to use that as a source to write the article: "Angie Philllips, whose children like fruit and veg., is a weather presenter for the BBC"? The Woodland Trust pieces similarly do not talk about her, but contain quotes from her in support of its mission. JChap2007 19:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Thanks for the confirmation of the confirmation :). A 100-word peice, whether someone labels it a "blurb" or not, is beyond WP:BIO's "passing mention." Even if you feel like excluding all three of The People articles about her, plus the Fresh Magazine and the Woodland Trust articles, there's still two published works (i.e. "multiple") cited that are primarily about the subject.--Oakshade 21:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Everyking 06:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep even the delete !vote above states she's had repeated media coverage... so what if its a tabloid? It is not our job to judge whether or not what a source says is true.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, sources are supposed to be reliable — but more importantly, many of those sources are saying no more about her than that she had a third baby... If this were an article about someone notable for having three babies(!) then I suppose that those sources would provide verifiability and notability. Any presenter on local radio or television is likely to have been the subject of mini-article in newspapers on slow news days (I've been the subject of a couple — one in the Times, one in the New Statesman, because even academics get this sort of thing — should there be an article on me? Articles on academics are constantly being deleted on grounds on=f non-notability, because it's deemed that what they've done doesn't raise them sufficiently above their peers. Apparently they don't need to have written a successful book, just had an artcile about their child-bearing capabilities in the Sun); are we to have articles on every such person? They're not even micro-celebrities. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe there should be an article on you, Mel. :) (unless your real name is different, you didn't come up on a G-news Archives search like Angie Phillips did several times). Articles on academics are also constantly being kept because they pass WP:BIO. But you're missing the point. WP:BIO is passed here. Whether an editor is assuming a news outlet is "having a slow news day" is irrelevent. How do you know that major events weren't occuring on those days anyway? It's 100% speculation and that is in no way a basis for deciding if a subject is notable. And as stated above, even if you feel like discounting 3 of the published works about Angie Phillips you don't like, there's still 2 more non-trivial published works about her that are not just "passing mentions". --Oakshade 10:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I do come up (my real name is a dark and deadly secret, known to a very few...). The point is, though, that those articles on me wouldn't demonstrate my notability (and neither or them was a passing mention). Note also that WP:BIO only offers guidelines; editors are free to delete an article that meets the criteria there, and to keep an article that doesn't. (And I wasn't saying that my belief that it must have been a slow news day was grounds for ignoring it, incidentally.) Do you think that she's more notable than all the other presenters, newsreaders, weather-reporters, et al.? If not, should we have an article on each of them? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But the primary criteria of WP:BIO is met. If you want to arbitrarily ignore official policy guidelines on specific subjects you don't like, well, editors are free to have their opinion, but that's not in line with WP:NOTE or WP:BIO, with the exception of WP:IGNORE of course. And many news anchor persons and weather reporters/metorologists do have their own articles when they fit the notability criterion. --Oakshade 18:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Nardman1 16:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the documentation provided by Oakshade, this individual appears to meet and exceed the bar set by our current WP:BIO guideline. (jarbarf) 16:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete unless reliably sourced, although this search appears to indicate notability, the sources are unreliable tabloids... Addhoc 19:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you only referring to The People newspaper? Or also the The News Letter and The Daily Mirror newspapers also cited? --Oakshade 21:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the UK press there is widespread acceptance that publications such as The Times are reliable, while The Sun isn't. Essentially, I would suggest The People and the The Mirror are fairly similar to The Sun and therefore unreliable. Addhoc 22:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just confused. Do you feel that if this person is the subject of an article in The Daily Mirror which has a circulation of over 4 million, that doesn't make the person notable? Or are you concerned with the content of the article about her being reliable? --Oakshade 22:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Have a look at WP:N, notability isn't newsworthiness and sources must be reliable. Tabloid journalism doesn't, in my view, qualify. 23:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    But if someone is the subject of multiple non trivial published works, whether it's from a tabloid or not, they qualify as notable under WP:BIO. If a extemely popular tabloid-like newspaper such as The Daily Mirror has an article about her, she's notable per WP:BIO. --Oakshade 23:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In the second paragraph of WP:BIO it very clearly states that sources must be reliable. According to WP:RS a reliable secondary source is "the informed and expert interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation or corroboration of primary sources to synthesize a conclusion". For the avoidance of doubt that isn't a description of UK tabloid journalism. Addhoc 23:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oakshade seems to be arguing that being in a tabloid isn't evidence of notability, it creates notability (or else I don't see the relevance of the circulation figure, popularity, etc.).--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's evidence of notability. And that she's the subject of a published work from a newspaper with circulation of over 4 million per day is irrelevant?? Sorry, but it's VERY relevant. That the editors of a newspaper that millions of people read every day chose to run a story about this subject is not only evidence of notability, but strong evidence. --Oakshade 00:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vegaswikian. MER-C 08:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SRF Architects & Associates

[edit]
SRF Architects & Associates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

db contested, so move here to discuss. Wooyi 19:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete and protect from recreation. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-09 08:23Z

Peacehealth

[edit]
Peacehealth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page has been deleted 4 times already (1x for non notability and 3x as copyvio), and recreated every time by a single user. I doubt the notability. The latest rewrite varies from the source [91], but I am still unsure about its notability. Chris 73 | Talk 20:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CJLL Wright per CSD A7. BryanG(talk) 06:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah higgs

[edit]
Sarah higgs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Should have been speedied as a non-notable bio but someone claims that she "might" be notable. -- RHaworth 20:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Changed my mind. I have a bad head today and I obviously haven't relised what I was doing. The article is infact a Blatant advertisement for their own website plus the chance and pride of having their own article on wikipedia. delete. Retiono Virginian 20:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-09 08:22Z

Episode 13 (band)

[edit]
Episode 13 (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Hılhıo.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
Tabula Rasa (Episode 13 album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
File:Tabularasa-cover.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

was deleted 4 times so far for lack of notability, always being recreated by the same user. A recent prod was removed. Only one album two years ago. Delete, possibly speedy Chris 73 | Talk 20:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge to World Economic Forum. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-09 08:20Z

Forum of Young Global Leaders

[edit]
Forum of Young Global Leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Advertisement masquerading as articles. Looks like being copy-pasted from a website, include "we"s. I have no clue if the subject would be notable after being rewritten. Propose deletion until someone will rewrite with NPOV wording. Bertilvidet 20:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A merger seems fine to me. Bertilvidet 09:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-09 08:20Z

Cfg2html

[edit]
Cfg2html (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Totally unencyclopedic article about some Unix shell script. Vanity: "I wrote it". -- RHaworth 20:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Vanity and unencyclopaedic. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 23:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nomination. Turgidson 00:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the article makes me say "It's some random script or other", it's not good. No indication of whether it's even used in Real Life. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its a real tool that sys admins who seldom to never contribute to Widipedia use. It does need editing, but assuming an encyclopedia should cover the world, then this is very much part of sys admins world. Google for Cfg2html produces a page of results. The question is what should the authors and users (a small group) do to make this encyclopaedic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.8.109.254 (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Yes, we cover the world. Yet, we've decided we cover only the part of the world that everyone needs to know about and that everyone knows. This article a) doesn't explain why the thing is notable, and if we remove all of the stuff you normally won't find an encyclopaedia article, there's really no reason we should even have a stand-alone article about it. I've been a Linux user for over a decade and have never heard of this program - and I can't quite find it if I do apt-cache search cfg2html. (nope, external apt repos don't count.) Inclusion in a major Linux distro might make this utility sound a lot more interesting, don't you think? At best, it's mergeable material: I don't really think that random bits of infrastructure are necessarily worthy of their own article either, but they may be comment-worthy somewhere else. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not the author, I have just removed the usage and patching information. I will try to find refrences to add soon. I believe that I originally found the tool via a then DejaNews search --User:LinuxStorm 15:53, 6 February 2007
      • So far I have only found DejaNews, now Google Groups refrences as far back as 2001. Is this enough? How would I cite them, maybe an article that faced a similar problem? --User:LinuxStorm 16:09, 6 February 2007
  • Keep cfg2html is not only a real tool but - as the article is trying to say - the "Swiss Army Knife" for any system administrator when it comes to system documentation of any server running one of the OS'es covered. However, as previous comments suggest the article doesn't meet yet wikipedia standards I'd be more than happy to adjust where neccessary. Any pointers to existing articles covering a similiar topic highly appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tbrix (talk • contribs).
    • Well, take a look at any of the articles about *nix utilities. You'll see we don't have a whole lot of usage details in articles. But most importantly, it needs some claims of fame and sources that document them: Magazine articles? Inclusion in a major OS distro? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep cfg2html is really useful. The only things I don't like are the License and the Homepage of the tool: It's not GPL, and you must register at Yahoo to download. SCC (System Configuration Collector, http://www.openeyet.nl/scc/) was inspired by cfg2html, as mentioned at http://www.linuxsecurity.com/content/view/117330/49/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.26.226.4 (talk • contribs).
    • Please see WP:ILIKEIT "It's useful" is not really a particularly good reason to keep an article. Also, the case of SCC is irrelevant here. (A rhetoric example: We have an article about Thomas Edison, but not the guy who said "damn, it's dark here", thus inspiring Edison to do something about it. =) And even if it was, I can't seem to find any indication SCC is really all that notable either, but that was just a cursory check. LinuxSecurity.com article appears to be mostly about SCC in any case and the reference to cfg2html is a trivial mention. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep cfg2html is an extremely powerful tool for building, templating and rebuilding systems from scratch. I use it with another project - cfengine - to give me the ability to spot abnormalities in systems that should otherwise be identical (with the help of some shell scripts). -- Peecee 14:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC) — PeeCee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Some references have been added, but so far, none are particularly awe-inspiring. If the LinuxJournal bit was actually in print, that may be significant, but the blog posts are by default suspicious, and most of the references seem to be quite trivial anyway. Just being listed at some directory or other is not really enough (or even good material to be added to the article, actually). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it's not notable. --Tunheim 22:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-09 08:18Z

List of Muslim Christianity scholars

[edit]
List of Muslim Christianity scholars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Clearly a POV topic. We don't have a List of Christian Islamic scholars. It also violates Wikipedia:Listcruft (because there isn't an article on this topic). Sefringle 20:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Consitering that there are only 4 notable Christian Muslim Scholars, I'm not sure having a category is a good idea. It almost seems to be a waste to include a category to mention only 4 names.--Sefringle 23:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the top of that page, it says it is an essay and not a guideline.--Sefringle 03:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so maybe you can cite the policy or guideline that supports deleting an article because an editor doesn't like it. JChap2007 03:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep "extremely limited interest" amounts to IDONTLIKEIT and is not a criterion. It's an essay because its merely one of a great number of inappropriate reasons, so inappropriate that it has not been necessary to make a guideline out of it, or any of the 100s of other other inappropriate reasons that have been offered from time to time. As JChap says, find a case where limited interest was used as a criterion and supported by the consensus. If there is real content, RN, V, and someone to write the article, that is enough. DGG 04:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, valid topic, supports the Islamic Christianity studies article and contains no POV at the moment. Nuttah68 14:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-09 08:08Z

Adam Jury

[edit]
Adam Jury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable game designer. Possibly meets speedy criteria. GregorB 20:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Insufficiently notable, and inadequately referenced. And the article's author appears to exist only to create and edit this article, which leads me to suspect conflict of interest. Bye-bye. WMMartin 15:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 3 (band) in lieu of deletion. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-09 08:07Z

Half Life (3 album)

[edit]
Half Life (3 album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No refs to show the albums are notable, Google hits are primarily Wikipedia and its mirrors. Does not satisfy WP:MUSIC. Wikipedia articles are not a medium for promoting albums which are not otherwise notable. I am also nominating the following related pages because those albums have the same lack of evidence of notability]:

Paint by Number (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Summer Camp Nightmare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Inkpaduta 20:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-09 08:01Z

Dattapeetham

[edit]
Dattapeetham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Recreation of deleted material; though it was deleted by PROD before so I took it here. No references, not notable. Cúchullain t/c 21:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 〈REDVEЯS〉 10:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TeleAsty

[edit]
TeleAsty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is about a media company which is of only slight notablility and consists only of completely unsourced original research attacks. Does not meet WP:N, WP:V, or WP:RS and may violate WP:BLP. Inkpaduta 21:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-09 08:01Z

Personal Structures

[edit]
Personal Structures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Rene Rietmeyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article does not assert notability, nor does it seem coherent. Also seems to be an advertisement. Hobbeslover talk/contribs 21:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article on the artist may have potential if improved (both references and grammar--and I do realize that the main author is not a native English speaker, so others should go in and help). The "Personal Structures" movement or group is more of a problem--it is mainly speculative at this point, and has not been established as anything notable (the first symposium related to it is from 2005). Can we separate the two within this AfD? I'd vote for a Weak Keep on the artist, pending improvements, and a Speedy Delete on "Personal Structures". Freshacconci 23:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to Green Party candidates, 2003 Ontario provincial election. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-09 08:00Z

Peter V. Tretter

[edit]
Peter V. Tretter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete. Seems this article only survived the 1st AfD (No Consensus) because it occurred in the middle of a by-election this candidate was running in. Being a candidate in an election is not enough to satisfy WP:BIO and the only references currently in the article are to his own website and a press release issued by his party which does not meet WP:N in my opinion. Ccscott 21:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Bearcat makes a good point. Since there is no independent media coverage of this candidate I do not think it appropriate for this article to remain. However, the fact that he did run is easily verifiable and therefore I have no problem with him being included in such a list recording his candidacy with a redirect. Ccscott 11:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-09 07:59Z

Innatrance

[edit]
Innatrance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band, no assertion of notability. Created back in August of '06, though, so I feel it might deserve a proper AfD than a speedy deletion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 BanyanTree under CSD A1. BryanG(talk) 06:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Lantz

[edit]
James Lantz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nonsense, Hoax Nv8200p talk 21:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-09 07:59Z

Andrzej Filipowicz

[edit]
Andrzej Filipowicz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability tag and prod tag removed by the creator without explanation. Besides bad CV-like formatting, attending some art festivals and having some of one's paintings exhibited doesn't make one notable - or does it?  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-09 07:58Z

Amy Reid

[edit]
Amy Reid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article as it stands now does not argue notability per WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Tabercil 21:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, only four films are mentioned in the filmography section in the article. A check on IAFD shows 52 films to her credit, which is still well shy of 100. Tabercil 23:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to North Rocks, New South Wales. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 04:34Z

Westfield North Rocks

[edit]
Westfield North Rocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, fails WP:CORP. One Night In Hackney 22:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boilerplate text does not significantly improve a deletion debate. Please enligten us on which of the content is contentious and worthy of challenge or removal? Somehow I doubt the depth of your knowledge of the Sydney retail market.Garrie 10:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if you looked at the article at the time Elonka made that comment, it looked like this. One Night In Hackney 12:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant shopping centre within the northwestern suburbs of Sydney. I tend to hold the view that corner stores and neighbourhood centres, unless highly notable, should not have articles at all, while regional shopping centres, often critical to the growth and development of a region, should have articles written according to WP:NPOV and other appropriate Wikipedia policies. Alternatively, we can have a Wikipedia devoid of interesting content which presents the facts in other articles without context. Orderinchaos78 15:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Orderinchaos78 17:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rebecca & Orderinchaos78. And as opposed to what Elonka claims, the article should not be deleted if it's not notable enough, but should be merged to the North Rocks, New South Wales article. JROBBO 05:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rebecca, Orderinchaos78 & JROBBO, if that fails then merge to appropriate suburb article. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 08:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rebecca. In the Sydney market, Westfield North Rocks is notable for it's presence so far from train/ferry services. Elonka, remove the unsourced content don't delete the article. We've been here before... go re-read your own conversation at The Westfield GroupGarrie 10:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a newspaper article somewhere that mentions the problems that this mall has due to its distance from train or ferry services? Saying it's 26 km from mass transit is one thing, but better would be to have a source saying why that's an issue, if that is intended to be part of the assertion of notability. -- ArglebargleIV 15:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there is. If I had been asked at either the article itself, or even at List of Westfield Group shopping centres in Australia, I may have been convinced to find a source for you.Garrie 03:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep per this search. Addhoc 11:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gogo Dodo as a repost. BryanG(talk) 06:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander, Larry

[edit]
Alexander, Larry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject fails although WP:V appears to be met (everything he ever created is sourced}, still fails WP:N. The article is studded with phrases like "as far back as he can remember," suggesting that the article was written by the subject or somebody with a relationship to the subject. janejellyroll 22:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete G4. So tagged. Previous AfD is here. [100]. Deletion was endorsed on review. You might wonder how we know they are the same subject: see this talk page post by a contributor to the current article. Given that there's clearly sockpuppetry going on, perhaps someone will file a RFCU (or simply block). --N Shar 22:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should have realized it was a repost, seeing as how I argued for deletion of the previous incarnation of this article. I feel sheepish. janejellyroll 23:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 21:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sabese

[edit]
Sabese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Sabesevillagers.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Joke article. Nothing can be found to verify the existence of this creature. The Arabic translation does not occur in any Google pages, if it's really a word at all. The source given is a dead link. Contested prod. Delete. ... discospinster talk 22:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IA has no record of the source having ever existed. 68.39.174.238 22:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-09 07:56Z

LAIMONDO LEE

[edit]
LAIMONDO LEE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability is not clearly established, prod removed by creator. FisherQueen (Talk) 22:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-09 07:56Z

Pike Milger

[edit]
Pike Milger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

He only began recording last year, completely unsourced. Fails WP:MUSIC. janejellyroll 22:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-09 07:55Z

Waqfuna

[edit]
Waqfuna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about a website claims it is "a very distinguished website" but links only to the website. Appears to get 20 Google hits. Website appears to be in Arabic, so others will have to investigate further into its importance. Does not appear to satisfy WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS or WP:N Inkpaduta 22:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 BanyanTree. JChap2007 04:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quocirca Ltd

[edit]
Quocirca Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Contested speedy of original spam article (which has been since trimmed down.) Leuko 22:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless notability is established. J Milburn 23:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you can't tell what they make or do from the company name. . . . - Smerdis of Tlön 23:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete It's still an ad: "Quocirca is a primary research and analysis company based in Berkshire, England. Specialising in the business impact of ITC. With world-wide, native language reach, Quocirca provides in-depth insights into the views of buyers and influencers in large, mid-sized and small organisations." [emphasis mine] It then list the services it provides. It could be from their brochure. I don't think that it's necessary to negotiate with spammers to make their spam less spammy. Just assume they're confused about what WP is and leave a polite note on their talk page explaining all this. I've restored the speedy delete tag. JChap2007 00:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - BanyanTree 04:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HighSchoolSports.Net

[edit]
HighSchoolSports.Net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a procedural nomination as I appear to have attempted to place a prod tag after one had been removed. This article reads like an advertisement and would seem to fail WP:NPOV Based on the original editors ID it would seem to have WP:COI problems as well Jeepday 22:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted as vandalism -- and even if not vandalism, as non-notable. --Nlu (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Ma

[edit]
Joey Ma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A somewhat obvious hoax. Check the external links and notes. The image should be deleted, too. --Conti|✉ 23:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — CharlotteWebb 01:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yab Yum

[edit]

article seems intended to promote the brothel. Doesn't seem to be particularly notable in and of itself. Somebody removed db-spam tag. IPSOS (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ "ETV's WJWJ-TV Reporter Holly Bounds Report on South Carolina Rescue Efforts After Hurricane Katrina". South Carolina Educational Television Commission. Retrieved February 5, 2007.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_4&oldid=1081099413"