Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 10#List of RAS examples

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, so by default the article will be Kept. The result of the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mistle Thrush (band) also inclines toward a keep. DES ^(talk) 14:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notability. There are millions and millions and millions of under-the-radar bands and the thought of listing them all here will obscure the true informative value of wikipedia and reduce it to a record store's $2 bargain bin Toonot 16:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Wikipedia rule of thumb (per WP:BAND#Albums) is that if a band meets notability, then the band's albums also do. Since the band's article is also under AfD, I suggest waiting to see that outcome of that discussion. If not, please note that the album received positive reviews in the All Music Guide and the Boston Herald; and while Egg Records a is seemingly unknown indie label, it was actually bankrolled by Elektra during the fake-indie label craze of the late-'90s (reference from The Phoenix).) On a side note, this is the first instance where I've seen an AfD discussion also stuck on the top of the article's page (see article). Since I created the article and don't want to be accused of WP:COI, can someone please remove the {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Refraction}} tag from that page (unless, of course, it is actually supposed to go there)? (thanks Evb-wiki, for taking care of that.) Closenplay 18:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The outcome of the AfD for the band was "keep", so the album's article should be kept. Closenplay 10:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain - This discussion was created (and the article tagged), but it was never added to this log. I'm just doing housekeeping and have no opinion re this article, at this time. --Evb-wiki 17:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KrakatoaKatie 00:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

No sources and unencyclopedic Svetovid 23:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are Sir Robert Anderson's "The Coming Prince" where the term "prophetic year" is used and Robert Fleming's "The Rise and Fall of Papacy" where the term "prophetical year" is used. The sources are clearly documented so don't understand comment. One could comment that only two sources are given which would be true. And in which case more sources could be added beside these two, (which were added to help to illustrate the use of the term in literature). Googling "prophetic year" brings up so many sources that to not include the definition in "Wikipedia" appears to be unusual.Theporter 00:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- per contra to User:Svetovid, this is sourced & appears encyclopaeic to me. -- Simon Cursitor 13:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- references are in-line in the article, so maybe could be summarized in reference section at the end just to be clear. Capmango 17:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Resurgent insurgent 17:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Belgium in Ottawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE Svetovid 23:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is apparently either a mistaken nomination or an attempt to change policy. We have many hundred such articles. We have over 40 article in Category:Embassies and High Commissions in Ottawa alone. Many of them are quite substantial articles. If the nom would like to change this situation, the place to go is the Village Pump-- not by deleting an individual one . DGG 00:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Numerous embassy articles are already established e.g. Embassy of Israel in London, Embassy of Ukraine in Washington, etc. and should be considered uniformly notable. Picking and choosing particular nation-to-nation diplomatic missions for deletion would constitute WP:BIAS and therefore violate WP:NPOV. Dl2000 00:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned articles have some content. This one is just a travel guide entry.--Svetovid 00:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article needs to be kept. Perhaps it could be put into the needs improvement category instead, because there is nothing wrong with it, exept for the fact that its a stub. Greenboxed 00:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Needs to be expaneded however, maybe a photo. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Embassies are notable and just because some don't have long articles doesn't suddenly make them subject to WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. --Oakshade 07:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, embassies are notable, I would say uniformly. Each is a sovereign extension of its home country. Further, the content is brief but encyclopedic. --Dhartung | Talk 07:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep No reason to be deleted whatsoever as embassies are definitely notable.--JForget 23:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, definitely a notable article as embassies are notable and as mentioned there are already many embassy articles. Does need some work but nothing that can't be fixed or improved. Xtreme racer 23:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per all above. GreenJoe 01:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Embassies are definitely notable, and this is most certainly expandable if somebody puts a bit of work into it. Keep. Bearcat 21:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like WP:SNOW in here... 134.117.148.184 23:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 01:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Fitness Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

"held annually, since 2003", "created by Rob Powell", "For the four years this event has taken place, Rob Powell has won it each time." However someone should create an article on Rob Powell as "the Greatest Athlete In History" 650l2520 23:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Can this event be sourced using information independant of the event, its organisers, and the people involved? (ie, reliable, third party sources). If not, the article should be deleted as unverifiable. The same goes for the person, if there's no independant sources, there's no article. -- saberwyn 23:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow delete hoax. hoax. hoax. Elaborate one at that. Guinness has nothing on him. Kwsn 06:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per saberwyn. Egocruft, and probably fake egocruft at that. Adrian M. H. 16:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of wide recognition for this event. No coverage from independent sources. A google news archive search returns only three entries and do not appear to be related to this event. -- Whpq 16:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, There does not appear to be such an event. The term World Fitness Championships does not appear to be sufficiently unique - e.g., the IBBF also makes use of this name in some of their major body building competitions, as may have the WFF. Mr. Powell claims to hold (and even to have shattered) a Guinness WR - physical fitness. This is despite the Guinness site not appearing to have such a record. Pever 23:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEPbut MOVE to Mormon cosmology. Under that name it would certainly seem to be a legitimate concept. Whether the article can be cleaned up and redacted to fit the title is now up to the editors. Herostratus 18:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon teachings about extraterrestrial life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Concerns exist regarding WP:N and possibly WP:OR SESmith 22:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It has references and if there is any concerns it can be rewritten or just simply remove what you think is OR and use the talk page first. Therefore, no reason to delete. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 23:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge some of the information with Latter-Day Saints or something. Not original research because there's lots of sources. Useight 23:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain — I have been too recently involved in the heated discussions on this article. Though, to give my opinion on this subject: There are great concerns about lack of secondary sources, links only from only two articles (in See Also sections), and a certain contributor owning the article. There are also concerns about the name of the article and the emphasis placed in the article. (See the article's talk page.) If I were to be pushed (by this same certain contributor) to change from an abstain, I would change my vote to at least rename but probably delete. Val42 23:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is well sourced, and since the actual sources are quoted, its fair. i think this is a valid use of primary sources. It is true that one of the eds. does seem to be animated by bias, but the present article does not reflect this. There was clearly no consensus on the talk page about a change. The objections to this article represent COI and the failure of some eds. to obtain ownership. DGG 00:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and resolve dispute at talk - I don't think AfD is the way to resolve this issue. It would be useful to try to thrash out a balanced article at the talk page (specific concerns will need to be stated rather than a vague "WP:N and possibly WP:OR") and perhaps consider renaming if there's a consensus to do so. However, since there are quite clearly reliable sources in evidence that at least some prominent LDS leaders have espoused these views, deleting the article altogether doesn't look like the right solution. --YFB ¿ 00:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I purposefully kept the reasons in the proposal "vague" to avoid reproducing the mass of material on the Talk page about these concerns. Ample detail can be found there on what the concerns are. -SESmith 01:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Sometimes Wikipedia has the unfortunate ability to evolve into a collection of personal blog articles or soap boxes. Though this started out as such, it can turn into a worthy article. The title needs to be changed and continued work on expanding the content will help. There are some definite issues regarding notability that need to be decided. Some of these issues probably have more to do with difficult relationships with an editor. I am rather Cromagnon like; to me editing is a priviledge and abuse should be given a very short leash. Those who abuse our policies just because of ease should be banned indefinitely because they add nothing to Wikipedia but abuse. Chances beyond the 3rd should be withdrawn; certainly those where the chances seem endless. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Rename - There has been some debates that the article should be renamed to something more along the lines of classifying the content as scientific theories of church leaders rather than prophecy by LDS prophets. I think it should be renamed and kept. There were some very good suggestions on the talk page of possible names. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Move or Merge to an article about obscure teachings by Mormon leaders - i think this could be quite an interesting article about obscure teachings, such as BY telling parowan stake youth to get married at age 16 - in the same instructions as telling widowers not to remarry. Or how about the hankerchief of Wilford Woodruff that was used by Smith to heal hundreds at Commerce (later Nauvoo), that was later credited with the healings of hundreds of others. Or the early dietary teachings of BY, including the OT-like abstaining from Pork. There are dozens of other teachings which could make an interesting articel, but how this one stands, it is simply a list of quotes that should be put on Wikiquotes. In any case, there are multiple connotation issues with the current title - it leads the reader to believe that Mormons currently teach about aliens, rather than the more accurate, "God's creations of worlds is numberless." And, the title doesn't follow current Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints) as this deals with the broader Latter Day Saint movement, and not just the LDS Church. Simply said, I don't think it has enough material to stand on its own. It is like an article on George W. Bush's pronounciation of "Nuclear." -Visorstuff 05:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Much of this appears to me to be original research because there are quotes that seem to be left open to interpretation, such as: "That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God." Given the article title, it is clear what the editor here is trying to suggest, but this is not appropriate. This is my first reading of the article so I am not commenting on whether to delete or keep yet, this is just my first impression. A large part of the other sourced material is quotes. This again leaves the suggestion to the reader to interpret the quotes, rather than citing work from an independent researcher. If there are no independent articles/books/journals about this topic this also makes me wonder about the subject's notability. Aside from these opinions, my feeling right now is the article is needlessly long and too quote heavy, and it would do well merged to an appropriate article. daveh4h 06:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There seems to be some serious original research problems here, at least the version I'm looking at (diff). The intro and entire first section make a number of assertions that have no references except for two quotations from LDS scripture (which are primary sources, and used interpretively, to boot). This would seem to be a clear-cut WP:NOR violation, as phrases such as "which can be read as implying" and "it is believed" demonstrate. The second section contains quotes attributed to Smith by a third party, which the text goes on to indicate have "strong doubts about [their] reliability", and of which no indication is given that they represent a significant school of thought in LDS teaching. It is followed by a long quote from Young, again with nothing to connect it with Mormon belief or anything else. Finally, a brief section of more recent quotes, as opposed to actual references demonstrating the article's thesis (and for what it is worth, the Maxwell quote could be attributed to Carl Sagan with little difficulty). Whether or not there is some core belief in extraterrestrial life in Morman teaching is moot - this article makes no attempt to properly document any such thing. If there is, there should be some solid references available either from LDS publications, or scholarly works on the LDS. This is an essay, not an article. Quietvoice 07:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admitted sockpuppet see User:Quietvoice. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, acknowledged alternate account (see WP:SOCK#LEGIT). I have no especial interest in (or edits to) LDS articles, nor what seems (from a quick glance at User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey) to be some sort of hubbub around the above editor. I came across this on AfD, followed back to the article, and found an essay as described above. Not wishing to get embroiled in potential religious zealotry I used my alternate account, as I have done on a few occasions in the past. For all I know Mormons do (or did) explicitly teach extraterrestrial life as church doctrine, but if so then there needs to be references to reliable sources reporting this, not an original research essay. Quietvoice 08:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a legitimate use of WP:SOCK#LEGIT. I doubt someone who is nefariously using a sockpuppet would announce it on their user page. -SESmith 08:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC) (nominator)[reply]

• Keep, notability of this topic has been readily addressed by Uncle G; title and content can be worked out on the talk page. John Vandenberg 11:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per reasons provided by the nominator, as well as WP:V issues. For the purpose of fair disclosure, I will openly state that I consider myself to be an long term less-active non-practising member of the church in question. As a non-practising past member of that faith, this article does not sit well with me (And even prompted me to do some serious looking into the information being presented within, even contacting other past and present members to obtain their views). After much consideration and research into this matter, I am openly prepared to suggest that the premise of the article in question is complete bollocks. Two of the references in the article cite an organisation known as the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research who state on their website that All research and opinions provided on this site... should not be interpreted as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice. Secondly, the article in any case lacks sufficient citations and references to support the assertion that the church in question per the articles assertions believes that persons on other planets are extraterrestrial life. In fact, the opening of the article totally contradicts such assertions, As such, it is believed that there are other worlds that are peopled and that they would also have been created in his image and after his likeness similar to this world.. I think that the interpretation of the beliefs, doctrines, statements or value systems of any religious order can be quite dangerous specially considering the ability of others to take such content out of context. I am even more concerned that the main contributor to the article in question, Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, which I have independently become aware of as a known long-term POV-pusher in relation to Latter-day Saint articles and has a long and documented history of doing so. This was to the point where he has actually banned from en.wp twice in the last 45 days, one for massive disruption, and despite mentoring assistance from some respected admins has failed to be more considered in his contributions (diff) (RFC. I do not mean to continue on discussing the user, but regrettably his previous actions necessitates their discussion in the context of this AfD. He previously has edited en.wp under the username Gadugi (block log} which was blocked indef on 15 Oct 2005. I also recall, which an admin who I converse with often, do recall the user in question making statements on talk pages relating to the speedy deletion (as an attack article) of one entry titled mormon men in black in which he claimed he had suffered some level of oppression in both personal and business life at what he claimed was the hands of Mormon interests. I have as yet been unable to find the diff in question regarding this, but regardless this goes to a conflict of interest in relation to his editorial activities. It is regrettable that even after multiple and continued opportunities to reform his act, a user such as Merkey continues to act in a manner on en.wp which does nothing to damage the reputation of himself, the community, and the encyclopaedia at large. Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These comments I categorically deny. They are inappropiate for a deletion discussion on the notability of an article. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment They are appropriate here as they go to the editorial leanings of yourself as core contributor to the article, and your rather colourful history of contribution to en.wp. Why is it you only ever comment on those who challenge you? On the information I have regarding your activities at the Cherokee wikipedia, you run the place with an iron fist and block anyone there who disagrees with you. If you're going to comment on my comments, address the concerns with the article and provide some meaningful input other than the constant Anti-religion rants that we've seen from you thusfar. Further, with due respect to the well intended contributions of UncleG, I don't think adding a further reading list of three books deals with the WP:RS or WP:OR concerns here, as they are just information on books, and they have not been cited inline to either support or disprove the core content. Thewinchester ^(talk) 22:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to debate with you on this. There's that anti-mormon accusation again. Personal attacks do not belong in discussions on article notability. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Eureka! Rename and expand to Mormon cosmology. Uncle G has satisfied my concerns about reliable secondary sources (thanks very much, Uncle G), so the narrowness and phrasing of the original topic are my only remaining concerns. I think "Mormon cosmology" is broad enough to encompass not only the notion of life on other worlds, but also various ideas about the Creation, ancient astronomy, Kolob, and so forth, and will accommodate a balance of viewpoints regarding these ideas. (I'm uncertain whether such an article should be LDS-centric or attempt to cover the range of denominations within the Latter Day Saint movement; if the former, then "LDS cosmology" or something like that might be more in line with established Wikipedia naming conventions.) alanyst ^/talk/ 14:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My concern about dealing with the broader LDS movement on this topic is the tendency to cut off discussion to topics prior to 1845, and uncertainty that there is much in terms of content by other denominations within the LDS movement. I don't know any CoC Science Fiction authors, but I do know some that are members of the LDS Church, just to give an example. Or astronauts for that matter (who get asked all kinds of weird questions about life in the cosmos and have responded in quotable public statements). --Robert Horning

• Keep and move per Alanyst. AfD is not cleanup, or the place to resolve content disputes. There are enough sources in this article to establish that it is notable and based in fact. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as to the move, two people can have identical views about extraterrestrial life and quite different cosmologies, so is "cosmology" an appropriate term here? Carlossuarez46 21:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep substantial topic. JJL 23:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Mormon leaders have made comments—some of them weird—about extraterrestrials. Do these statements constitute a doctrine or belief system for the church? The answer appears to be no; the article says, "the LDS Church has not explicitly adopted any official doctrines on the existence or absence of extraterrestrials." Lacking any underlying doctrine, the quotes are disconnected. For example, Brigham Young doesn't try to defend Joseph Smith's comment about people on the moon dressed like Quakers; instead he's got his own theory about life on the sun. All of these quotes are sort of strange, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Not every weird comment made by Joseph Smith merits its own article; surely the standard for notability needs to be that it mattered to the church and its adherents. Sanpete Slim 04:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename - I would have to agree that the current name of this article is certainly not the best one that could be used for a topic of this nature, although it doesn't need an AfD for that to be accomplished. There is sufficient material from a range of people including contemporary LDS leaders or even LDS astronauts that would make a broad article talking about LDS perspectives about the relationship of mankind in the universe something worthy of a Wikipedia article. Reliability of sources and POV issues are a huge concern, but I think those could be dealt with through normal editing processes. The idea of renaming to Mormon cosmology does sound like something a bit more appropriate in terms of a general theme. I would also point out that there are also some LDS scriptural references that are doctrinal which would apply in such an article rename and could help with maintaining an NPOV. And to help diffuse the problems of opening a back door to UFO researchers seeking legitimacy on Wikipedia. --Robert Horning 13:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep and rename The article is well referenced, and it appears to be a notable topic. Actually, I found it interesting, but of course, that is a personal opinion. The name is bad however. It should be renamed. Orangemarlin 23:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as non-notable. KrakatoaKatie 00:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - there do not appear to be independent sources attesting to her notability and her guest starring roles to date do not appear to qualify her under WP:BIO Otto4711 22:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as NN actress (much work through nepotism, apparently). At worst, merge with Kim Fields. --Dhartung | Talk 08:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as copyvio of [1]. Adrian M. H. 16:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and put some tags for expanding the article. She is not so insignificant. -- Magioladitis 08:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's not that anyone is saying she is insignificant, its just that she's not notable. Her fame does not rise to the level of warranting an article. For me, when the trivia section of an article contains almost as many words as the main body of the article it becomes, well, trivial. Sorry. JodyB _talk 20:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete – fails WP:MUSIC. - KrakatoaKatie 00:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

High school choir. Only possible notability is appearance in Lincoln Center, but I can't find anybody who noticed. Clarityfiend 22:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable. As far as I can tell from a web search (190 hits) there have been a few local performances, but little or no non-trivial coverage. Adrian M. H. 16:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MUSIC -Flubeca (t) 00:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contested prod. Violates WP:NOT#IINFO's "7. Plot summaries", WP:N's "presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." and WP:FICTION's "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" 650l2520 22:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other contested prods:

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

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

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all into Heroscape. Adrian M. H. 16:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all Heroscape.
• Merge all in Heroscape Magioladitis 09:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, non-admin closure. YechielMan 18:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ailurophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ailurophobia is if anything should be listed in wikitionary, not wikipedia. there are almost no sources and it does not seem to be a creditable article. -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talk) 22:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. This phobia is one of the more common ones, and it could easily be verifiable. It's no less valid than, say, acrophobia -- in fact, it's commonly known that Napoleon Bonaparte had ailurophobia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Needs work, but it's fairly new. I fear you haven't seen the scary number of articles on phobias (see -phob-#Psychological conditions). Clarityfiend 23:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep and close. Clean up the article. Very real, very notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Very real condition deserving article. Davewild 06:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but tag for sources and expansion. 236 Google Books references show that it has usage in the real world. --Dhartung | Talk 08:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, lots of ways this article can be expanded. John Vandenberg 11:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or speedy keep, whatever. The topic is notable and holds encyclopedic merit. Sources do exist, and plenty of them. RFerreira 06:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 01:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qumsieh's syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a description of a rare form of headache that doesn't respond to a painkiller. All very good, until we find out that it has not yet been published, and there is a reasonable chance it will not be accepted for publication. There is also a reasonable chance it will not be named after the medical student who claims to have discovered it. Delete, WP:NOR. JFW | T@lk 22:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:V, and a previous version said that there is only one documented case. BassoProfundo 22:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Indomethacin resistant hemicrania continua has been discussed in several journal articles the primary example is this pubmed article: Kuritzky A: Indomethacin-resistant hemicrania continua. Cephalalgia 1992, 12:57-59. View the PubMed notation for this reference. In addition, your correct, Qumsieh's syndrome is yet to be accepted by peer review jourals, but will be submitted in July, this condition exists and at very least an article comparing and contrasting or describing the condition should be allowed. Your not basing your judgement on science as it seems you don't know anything about headaches. This particular headache does not respond to painkillers completely. At first there is a decrease in the magnitude of pain then resistance develops. This particular patient continues to have the same headache described under Hemicrania continua but is not responding to indomethacin. In addition, no autonomic features are present. I don't care if the medical student has his name on it or not this is an issue of describing a disease variant. Describing, not diagnosing or treating. Please be reasonable user jfdwolff. vote for no deletion. thanks Hitman123 22:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I submit that your statement "it seems you don't know anything about headaches" constitutes a personal attack. Substantial arguments have been given in addition to whether it is your interpretation that this syndrome exists. Why call it Qumsieh's syndrome (is that you?) if Kuritzky already gave a good definition? JFW | T@lk 15:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Kill it. This is an encyclopedia. Bring it back after it makes it to a review article or medical textbook. alteripse 23:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. There are 0 (zero) PubMed hits for "Qumsieh's syndrome". Which means that, medically speaking, this syndrome doesn't exist. Violates Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When it's been published somewhere reliable, then it could be considered for inclusion. Also, syndromes are not usually defined based on 1 patient; no evidence that this eponym is going to be used, even assuming that "indomethacin-resistant hemicrania" is someday accepted as a separate syndrome (there's a general move away from eponyms these days); zero reliable sources; I'd go on, but I'm getting an NSAID-resistant headache. MastCell ^Talk 23:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• By admission there are no peer-revied scholarly sources on this article. The minimum borderline for an article's inclusion is that information on the subject must be verifiable through the use of reliable sources. Delete until such a time as peer-reviewed scholarly sources are published in medical journals. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your findings. -- saberwyn 23:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - no WP:RS yet published, presumption that it will (but I do wish you luck) and more likely would be named after the descriptive name than the initial researcher. Even if published, I would disagree with Alteripse, in that as just a single case report I would not have thought it would meet the criteria for being WP:Notable; instead might warrent an additional paragraph in hemicrania continua, along with IRHC. David Ruben ^Talk 01:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - per nom & others above. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 03:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Feel free to rewrite this article after it has been covered in multiple reliable, scholarly sources. Also, as the nominator and David Ruben above, I doubt this will be eponymous, (if) when it becomes a recognized entity. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If and when the peer-reviewed article is published would have been a good time to write this up; better would be when the follow-up study confirms the result. Until then this fails WP:OR. -- MarcoTolo 01:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 so the article is kept by default. DES ^(talk) 23:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contested speedy A7. Nonnotable film figure; article is a clear violation of WP:COI (which is how I found it). YechielMan 21:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - Tag with Template:Db-bio. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep and not speedy. IMDB page has quite a few major programs, albeit as bit-parts. Certainly needs improvement. --h2g2bob (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak keep pending cleanup and satisfactory sources. Adrian M. H. 17:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DES ^(talk) 14:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Fall of Mahkinoc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An article on a self-published book. Fails WP:BK Victoriagirl 21:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not self published, since tate publishing is more than just Frank Wacholtz, but I supose it really isn't peticularly notable either, since it's not to popular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLAF (talk • contribs)

Comment The publisher in question, Tate Publishing, appears on a list of vanity presses within the Vanity press article. That said, per WP:BK "self-publication and/or publication by a vanity press is indicative, but not determinative of non-notability". Victoriagirl 16:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am inclined to agree with the point about notability, if web hits are any indicator. I got primary sources, retail listings and trivial mentions. Adrian M. H. 17:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Tate publishing appears to be a publish on demand press. They make claims that the reject 95% of books, they invest lots of money in advertizing etc., but what is clear is that they charge authors $4,000 to publish. [2]. Presses that charge to publish are not reputable in my book. Putting that aside, I cannot find any reliable sources covering this book; it's ranked at 2,631,478 at amazon; and I failed to find it at the Library of Congress or on Worldcat, despite locating its isbn (1598863932).--Fuhghettaboutit 14:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Keep. — Caknuck 16:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Moorings, New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is nothing significant or relevant enough about the Moorings that it should have a page Saneno 21:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC) — Saneno (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep This is an extremely exclusive upper-class gated community of a few dozen homes in an already wealthy part of Long Island. There were no real refs, but I added two from the NY Times, that confirm the information in the article.DGG 00:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG and the references they added. And I just notice that this AfD is the nom's very first edit. [3] --Oakshade 07:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Two small articles in 10 years do not make this area noteworthy. Delete or integrate it into another article on Long Island. It is only a few dozen homes on a couple of streets. No need for its own article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.11.135 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 11 June 2007 — 72.192.11.135 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Actually being the subject of 2 small articles, particularly if they include something like The New York Times, do demonstrate notability per WP:N. There's too much topic specific content in this article to be merged to the already long Long Island article. --Oakshade 16:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This not applied universally. Just because there were articles does not automatically make it notable. See the discussion of Allison Stokke. Even though she was on the front page of the Washington Post among other newspapers. It was decided that she was not notable enough for a wiki entry

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Moorings as other guard-gated communities have a place on Wikipedia. After all there is a Catergory Page with lists of many US guard-grated communities and if The Moorings is removed, what protects the rest? Refer to Harry Havemeyer's book Along the Great South Bay for more information on the topic. Long Island's South Shore has faced a wave a regeneration from time to time and area in which The Moorings exists is particularly significant. It was home to H. B. Hollins, a famed Wall Street Banker. In the fall of Hollin's firm, he subdivided the property and sold it off to Charles Lanier Lawrence.--24.186.83.117 14:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't remove the AfD tag from the article when the AfD is still running. I trust you did it in good faith, but this can be seen as serious disruption. Malc82 21:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per above. Just looked it up on VisualEarth, it seems clearly notable enough for an article. Apart from that, since current consensus on WP is that every settlement deserves an article I would also include every neighborhood and every gated community. Malc82 21:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not like to be interpreted as advocating that. Gated communities are not inherently more notable than other real estate developments, unless they receive significant coverage--as some do. Nor is everything that is called a "neighborhood" by a real estate agent. We should always want more documentation than just advertisements. This one has it, DGG 00:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at List of Manhattan neighborhoods and countless others to see what I meant by neighborhood. While some of them may be the brainchild of real estate agents, they usually are notable. Gated communities, as the name suggests, are usually not very integrated with the surrounding locations, so they kind of form a settlement of their own. Malc82 07:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Moorings, New York is significant in the New York Society as the land was originally owned by a prominent family of New York Society, J. Mainwaring. Eventually, the Mainwaring family later sold the estate to the family of Harry Hollins, a prominent New York investment banker and a notable family in the Anglo-American Aristocracy. During the demise of H.B. Hollins & Co, the banking firm which Hollins formed, his estate was subdivided and sold to Charles Lawrance. The Lawrance family was also world renowned, Charles himself for architecture marvels (a graduate of Ecole de Beaux Arts) and for major aviation contributions. He invented and perfected the Wright Whirlwind engine which was utilized by the most famous of aviators including Amelia Earnhart and Admiral Richard Byrd. After Lawrance's death the estate once again was sold and subdivided with the intention to maintain a level of affluence. Advertisements in every publication catering to Long Island and New York's wealth mentioned the formation of this community. It highlighted its previous notable owners and boasted its creator’s vision. The Moorings was able to attract very prominent families who desired to live in lavious homes behind a veil of privacy and security. However, this former estate is important in the history of Long Island and the once tony South Shore. The Moorings epitomizes wealth and opulence, an ideal the South Shore was once known for. And although the homes are no where as elaborate as the 30,000sq foot estates of days before it is still an icon to the past. Yet, its seclusion leads to it being unnoticed and leaves this ideal of wealth to be forgotten.--LongIslander 22:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. I would probably have opted to delete or merge personally, but the consensus is clear in this discussion. The Merges and Moves suggested by some in the discussion are editorial issues, and can be proposed and discussed on the relevant talk page. DES ^(talk) 14:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Races in the Warcraft universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is full of OR and cruft. It's one of the longest pages on the entire encyclopedia, and it's not even referenced. Any sort of minimal value that this article presents would be better off in the main World of Warcraft article. ElbridgeGerry t c block 21:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Moderate Keep While the current page may not be referenced, that doesn't mean that the concept of the page is OR. It's not. Conceptually, this would merely recount the races in the setting, which would be reasonable in terms of WP:FICT, especially since World of Warcraft is distinct from the Warcraft universe. That said, I'm certainly not enamored of the contents of the page, and if you want to suggest starting over from a blank page, I won't object. Nor to a redirect section on Warcraft universe. FrozenPurpleCube 23:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• There is also Humanoid Races in the Warcraft universe, Demonic Races in the Warcraft universe, Animal Races in Warcraft universe and Miscellaneous races in the Warcraft universe but I couldn't find the Superfluous races in the Warcraft universe. 650l2520 23:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that probably does need to be deleted, since I'm not sure that it's a good concept as it stands. It would at the least, have to be re-purposed. FrozenPurpleCube 23:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is a reasonable article and I split it into smarter (Sorry typo meant to say smaller) articles making it smaller.--St.daniel ^Talk 20:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect It should be moved to World Of Warcraft
• World of Warcraft != Warcraft. It's a subset of the setting, just as Forgotten Realms is a subset of D&D setting. Merge the lists mentioned by User:650l2520 into this main article (and split when necessary), but this article should never be a redirect to World of Warcraft. Keep - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 12:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I am sure that there is official Blizzard documentation about those races, making it not OR. However, it should be split into several distinct articles since it's too big.--Kylohk 16:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. This is not OR, merely a compilation of various details and information. There is no reason to discard or delete this, as it does contain significant information. --Sm8900 17:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per Sm8900.IP198 14:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wow this is the biggest violation of WP:NOT a indiscriminate collection of information I've seen in a long time. Whispering 12:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as unencyclopedic list. - KrakatoaKatie 00:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of RAS examples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Content taken from an earlier revision of RAS syndrome. As it stands, I see no real point in having such a list - people are smart enough to check if an acronym is redundant or not and the 3 (as of now) examples provided in RAS syndrome are more than sufficient. Verifying entries also poses a challenge - it's easy to see that something is redundant (PIN number, for example), but it'll be difficult to find sources showing that X instance of RAS is commonly used. mikm 20:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Unencyclopedic list. DaveApter 09:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-encyclopædic list that is very hard to WP:verify and is redundant next to the parent article. Adrian M. H. 17:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 01:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

NN musician. Ms. King has no label and the only sources are her own website. The author of the article is JessKingMusic who admitted on my talk page that she is Jess King's manager...which is a serious conflict of interest and after being warned of this, the editor recreated the article (it was originally deleted as a copyvio). Blatant advertising. IrishGuy ^talk 20:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails both WP:BAND and WP:BIO. Also is WP:SPAM. --Evb-wiki 22:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. It reads like advertising and offers no reliable sources. A web search can't turn it as copyvio—but that also means the quotations have no sources! Notability not established per WP:BAND, claims not verifiable. —C.Fred (talk) 04:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per SPAM, and per WP:A Ohconfucius 08:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 02:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Craig-Paul Sinclair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Likely hoax, originally tagged for speedy deletion by Xn4 (talk · contribs). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless verifiable sources are added as almost certainly hoax. Cannot find any sources for his existence. Davewild 21:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, claim of honours publication in London Gazette not verifiable. Most likely hoax. --Dhartung | Talk 08:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No Ghits for his mother's death in a car bomb. Or him being part of the Royal Horticultural Society. Supposedly made Captain at age 21. Supposedly recieved United Nations Medal for Cyprus while attending college in Cambridge. Almost certainly hoax. Edward321 03:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Creator of article also tried to give him completely different father in this edit.[4] Edward321 03:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:CRYSTAL. KrakatoaKatie 00:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speculative blog entry, not an encyclopedia article. Every few years, Paul Godfrey does a lot of talking about it, but no serious proposals about an NFL team coming to Toronto have ever materialized, and as of 2007 is rather far fetched. In the context of Wikipedia the idea only deserves a mention in Godfrey/Toronto/NFL-related articles. heqs ·:. 20:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:CRYSTAL one feels. Pedro |  Chat  20:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It is crystal clear that the article fails WP:CRYSTAL. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Useight 23:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Redirect title to Professional sport in Toronto Professional sport in Toronto#Football and take Second NHL team in Toronto created by same editor with it. Yes the article's tone appears as the author's analysis and could violate WP:CBALL. However, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. (emphasis mine). One such reference would be: [5]. There are others. Canuckle 06:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the references in the article confirm that as it stands, the idea is little more than excitement on Godfrey's behalf but is "still just a dream" "it would seem destined to remain just that -- a dream" "plenty of reason to doubt such a possibility" "little discernible progress". The reference you provided is extremely speculative and basically concludes that Canada may host a single game at some point, not a team. heqs ·:. 13:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. As you demonstrate notable people are having a public discussion, verified by reliable sources, about a topic that would have notable impact on professional sports business and infrastructure. "Hope" and "dream" yes but so is the idea Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state. Is there enough progress to justify a stand-alone article? I don't think so but that doesn't mean it has to disappear from Wikipedia entirely. I've added the verifiable parts to Professional sport in Toronto#Football. What do you think of Redirecting NFL in Toronto to that section? Canuckle 20:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see no reason to preserve the redirect; with relevant content now merged I still support delete. heqs ·:. 10:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: You're opposed to redirecting the title? One reason might be that "Someone finds them useful." as in the advice not to delete redirects because "Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful — this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways." Wikipedia:Redirects#When should we delete a redirect.3F NFL in Toronto seems to me to be a likely search phrase used by a layman. Canuckle 20:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge .....with NFL or CFL or perhaps cultural imperialism. Eastbayway 16:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Maybe the correct title for the article is Football in Toronto. This can deal with both the Argos and any kind of NFL discussion. Kingjeff 13:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such an article would cover the Toronto Argonauts, the International Bowl, the York Lions, Varsity Blues, and other amateur teams, not to mention touch on the 130+ year history of what became Canadian football in Toronto, including many dozens of Grey Cups and Vanier Cups held in the city, former Ontario Rugby Football Union teams, etc. The popularity of of the NFL/Buffalo Bills in the area might be included; the possibility of NFL games actually being played in the city would be a mere footnote. Such an article does not exist, and unless someone is prepared to write it at this time, the current article, NFL in Toronto, is up for deletion. heqs ·:. 14:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, As a (senior) resident of Toronto I agree that this is long-standing hype. The actual Toronto Olympic bid is redirected. In comparison, the subject of this page is not even an actual NFL bid. Verbose text without citations is also noted. If not delete, then pare and merge with the entry for Paul Godfrey. I concur fully with heqs. Pever 00:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 02:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about money (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Yet another list of songs. Violates WP:NOT#DIRECTORY - list of loosely associated things. Clarityfiend 19:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Zero tolerance with articles that being with "List of songs...", delete it before it spreads! Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 20:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I had a million dollars (If I had a million dollars!)

I'd delete some cruft (Wikipedia cruft!) YechielMan 20:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete My deepest sympathies for whoever's going through the lists of songs. Phony Saint 20:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Good grief how many of these worthless "List of songs..." articles are there!? Anyway this violates WP:UNENC, WP:POV and WP:NOR so get rid of it. A1octopus 20:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, thi$ i$ getting out of hand. Thi$ one i$ ju$t totally non notable and hard to verify. I mean, is "Last Dollar (Fly Away)" really "about money" since he's singing about being happy despite being down to his last dollar? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These "lists of..." have been driving me crazy, most of these lists (not all) are non-encyclopedic and should be placed elsewhere on the internet --♫Twinkler4♫ 22:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't know how many more of these "lists of songs" I can take, but I'd guess about three more. Useight 23:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete this tedious cruft. Bigdaddy1981 06:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete inclusion criteria far too broad, impossible to keep track of, and not really encyclopedic.--Phil500 (Talk / Contribs) 02:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into Prison Break. Note that in a merge result the history is kept (for GFDL attribution) and the article remains as a redirect. DES ^(talk) 15:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International airings of Prison Break (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - for the same reason many similar articles for shows from Desperate Housewives to The Simpsons to Smallville have been deleted, Wikipedia is not a TV Guide. Viewers can check their local listings. Otto4711 19:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge back into the main article about Prison Break. It wouldn't take up much space there; just show it as a list there, omitting the flag icons and the redundant columns for "title" and "translation" since the show is known as Prison Break in almost every country identified so far. --Metropolitan90 19:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep or merge If we say that Prison Break airs in the USA on FOX, why not say where it airs in other countries? We are interested in a worldwide view. YechielMan 20:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• We say it airs on Fox in the US because that's it's originating network. Otto4711 23:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Prison Break. Main article is a little lengthy at 53 kB, but nothing that would preclude merging this back in. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - because it's all fine to say merge but any non delete vote typically gets treated as a keep vote and then misapplied as rational to keep a nonmerged article. Happens all the time. So delete and if the info is any good someone can put it on the main article. DreamGuy 21:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment, for GFDL reasons, we aren't normally supposed to delete articles which contain content that gets merged into another article, but replace the original article with a redirect; though it could also be argued that as a simple table of facts, this article isn't subject to copyright protection so GFDL doesn't apply. DHowell 19:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the world is bigger than the US, also provides interesting cultural reference V8rik 21:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to Prison Break, informative table which demonstrates the worldwide distribution of the show. DHowell 19:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 02:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crucificia Maria Traina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Probable Hoax. No hits in Google for "Crucificia Maria Traina", and when dropping the first word, there are hits, but it's for an Italian bishop, not an American SirFozzie 18:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as hoax unless verifiable sources are added. Davewild 18:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. With no sources and no Google hits, this person must be considered unverifiable for now. --Metropolitan90 19:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. per above--Svetovid 21:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. John Vandenberg 12:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 DES ^(talk) 18:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southland Mall (Houma, Louisiana) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page was nothing more than a directory when I first found it. I stubbed it down to just a few sentences, but besides that it's been largely untouched for about six months now. A cursory Google search (yeah, I know) reveals very little about this mall -- and while I'm of the inclusionist sort when it comes to mall pages, I just don't see much hope for this article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Technically a "regional mall" due to having 471,000 square feet of gross leasable area. Edison 21:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, that would make it regional, but that alone isn't necessarily enough to make it notable. I'm still not finding a whole lot of reliable sources. If some are found, then I will withdraw. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if t here is nothing to say, how can we have an article. At the moment it is just a list of the 3 anchors, and there is debate at the Malls Project about whether a list of anchors is even suitable for inclusion. DGG 00:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable and unsourced Ohconfucius 08:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 02:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subject fails WP:BIO standards for athletes for never having competed at the professional level or at the highest amateur level. He was selected in the Major League Baseball draft but has A. yet to play a game in even the minor leagues and B. not yet decided whether to go to college or to the professional level. Metros 18:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Or do we want every schoolboy on a soccer team's books to make it onto Wikipedia? Once he plays in a professional league he's in, until then he isn't. Nick mallory 05:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I applaud the initiative of the editors who have created dozens of pages for the top picks in the draft, but I don't think Smoker meets WP:BIO as a high school prospect who wasn't even picked in the top 30. In baseball, the amateur draft is relatively unimportant because of the minor leagues -- a team's top prospects are more notable than top draft choices. SliceNYC (Talk) 01:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest adding to this AfD debate all the picks from the sandwich round (picks #31-64), most of whom have pages about them made already. A case for notability can be made for most of the top 30, especially those known for their collegiate accomplishments, but I think the other picks can wait until they develop into minor league prospects. SliceNYC (Talk) 01:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

he is a top prospect and just fell he should have been drafted higher. i think it should stay but maybe i guess i could recreate it when he reaches AA or AAA in the minors. but it you guys really think it should go then that's fine.

• Delete He isn't notable yet, wait till he does play at the upper tier of baseball then we can talk.--Kylohk 15:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was copyright violation, speedy deleted. Chaser - T 18:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Looks like someone's pasted essay with tons of original research. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 17:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, someone found the copyvio, and tagged it such. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 17:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleteas WP:SNOW. KrakatoaKatie 21:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable game, made in the format of a guide. Simply inappropriate for Wikipedia. Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 17:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Phony Saint 18:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFT --Bonadea 19:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and as a bonus, I think this articles gotten more idiot vandalism than most first day articles. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 19:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What has been vandolised here? and what is idiotic? also...why do you care that it is deleted so much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philapple5 (talk • contribs)
  • Because we're making an encyclopedia, not a compendum of random things people make up. Delete - ElbridgeGerry t c block 21:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not verifiable; goes against WP:NFT and is a textbook example for WP:NOT. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 21:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Keep. — Caknuck 16:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mistle Thrush (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not sure what gives this band more notability than the billions of others. A quote in Boston Globe may sound weighty but they cover local bands weekly if not daily. This is wikipedia not MySpace. Toonot 16:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this is a relatively well-sourced article. I find that it meets WP:BAND. --Evb-wiki 17:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • consider http://www.amazon.com/Super-Refraction-Mistle-Thrush/dp/B000005C5P (album for sale for one cent). Also I reviewed WP:BAND and cound not find a criterion that it met (thus the afd) Is it possible to get Evb-wiki to acknowledge which point it meets? For the benefit of future debates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toonot (talk • contribs) 17:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll stand by at least #1 and #5 listed at WP:BAND#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles. Also, you appear to be a WP:SPA intent all quashing this band, as all of your edits are attempting to delete this article or the one's for the band's albums. [9] Strike the albumns as lacking WP:RS (maybe), but keep this well-sourced article. --Evb-wiki 17:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The All Music Guide and Boston Herald are both reliable sources. Closenplay 19:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Evb-wiki. WP:BAND only needs one of its criteria met, and this band meets two:
  • been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable: check the references section for articles in the Boston Globe, Phoenix, and Weekly Dig (and see the talk page for another feature from the Globe that I recently accessed but hadn't incorporated into the article yet), plus their All Music Guide entry in "External links"
  • released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels: while Bedazzled isn't a mega-major indie, they were around for over ten years and released albums by many small-yet-notable bands (mostly goth and shoegaze). Egg Records seems to be an unknown indie label but it was in fact bankrolled by Elektra Records, when the indie craze hit in the mid-'90s (reference from The Phoenix).

(disclosure: I have heavily edited the article in question, and created the articles for the band's albums). Closenplay 19:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure on this myself. I went through the links provided in the article; some of them are minimal mentions of the band, others are indeed full-length pieces, and a couple are broken. I'd be more comfortable with "multiple, non-trivial" mentions if there were some references from outside of Boston; as it is, it looks like the band was known in its own area, and didn't really get beyond Boston. One of the interviews describes Egg Records as being the band's own label, and I don't find much other than the mention in the Phoenix about it being a "shadow" label; Bedazzled seems a bit dodgy too. If someone can show me some links from outside of Boston, indications of national tours, etc., I'd give this some more consideration, but for now, weak delete. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 00:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the band meets the notability criteria. There's nothing in the notability criteria which states that they have to have coverage from different regions of the world, just that they have to have coverage from reliable sources. This article's well written (perhaps excluding the "notable artists they've played with" section) and referenced, and I see no reason it should be deleted. - Zeibura ^Talk 05:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the criteria are clearly outlined and this page does not meet them. You are opening the floodgates. Poster above cited two and they are simply not true.
  • released two or more albums on a major label - they did not. or one of the more important indie labels Important indie labels = discord, subpop, matador, 4AD, taang!, SST, saddle creek, tommy boy, priority... the list goes on but does not include bedazzled. To say so is some major heavy favoritism by a mod and totally sucks. Egg is the bands own label!
  • been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable NON-TRIVIAL... the mentions in the boston rags are the definition of trivial.

At the very least, strike some of the supporting album pages. As I said this is not myspace.com Toonot 16:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you doubt the statement in the Phoenix article that Egg was bankrolled by a major label ("about three years ago, when they were secretly aligned to a major label (their last album… came out on Egg, a "ghost indie" imprint that was quietly financed by Elektra)… Executives were sniffing around the band, and hints were dropped about moving them… up to Elektra proper and giving the big push")—an article written by someone who wrote the book on record collecting (literally)—Egg is certainly not the band's own label. The band was in Boston, the label in Indianapolis. The only thing I can find that Tony Fox might be referring to above is "now available on MT's new label, Egg Records", which I guess could be misconstrued. But considering Egg reissued Lisa Germano's first album four years prior to the sole MT release on that label, it just doesn't follow logically. And if you consider the Boston Globe, the Boston Herald, and the Phoenix "rags", I don't know what else to say. Closenplay 19:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for deleting the album pages, WP:BAND says if the band's notable, the albums are notable. Closenplay 19:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets several WP:BAND criteria. History on web site mentions some major touring, which would give them yet another claim to notability. Capmango 02:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly meets the central criteria of WP:Band. A1octopus 13:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unsourced autobiographical article about a radio presenter, with minute unencyclopedic details of "controversial records" played and "radio games". Digital Spy Poster 16:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with NE1 FM and remove unnecessary details of games etc Digital Spy Poster 16:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete nn. Mukadderat 17:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Most likely a request from friends/family of Ryan Dunlop (if not Ryan directly). Clearly related to the Hitz Radio disputes where it is clear to see Hitz Radio UK do not like the public attention. It should be noted that sockpuppets etc... should be investigated fully before deletion of any articles or deletion requests from Digital Spy Poster. One can most likely safely assume Digital Spy Poster has only raised deletion requests for articles linking to/from the Hitz Radio UK article. Kev Akas 23:30, 7 June 2007 (GMT)

• PROCEDURAL ERROR. There is no AfD banner on the article itself! I suggest that the nominator, Digital Spy Poster, should place the banner and then leave a request here that the debate be extended for another five days. EdJohnston 05:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Banner added. Navou 17:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Navou 17:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks reliable sources. Without them, it is difficult to know if this presenter is notable. This article has a somewhat promotional tone, which I know could be fixed by rewriting. I don't believe this is an autobiography since the article was created by a widely experienced editor. The great profusion of unsourced info is a concern; you would imagine that an experienced editor would avoid doing that. Removal of all the unsourced info would leave only a tiny stub. I would consider changing my vote if references could be added before the close of the AfD. EdJohnston 18:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable.--Svetovid 21:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No real evidence of notability. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Peacent 05:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard 17:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A1 and WP:CSD#A7. DoomsDay349 17:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable teacher, no sources to establish any notability, easily fails WP:BIO. Davewild 17:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- doesn't quite fit Speedy because it claims notability ("world renown"), but still an easy delete. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable to all but former students as a teacher who allowed them to watch lots of television in class. Ohconfucius 08:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete I'm going to assume this article is intended to mock its subject and should be removed immediately.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 21:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was supprimer (delete, en français). Sr13 08:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred de Montesquiou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

French journalist, but the French Wikipedia has deleted his article considering its policy violation: lack of notability and a probably advertisement. For further information, see [10] Chabert 15:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this article doesn't assert notability Esurnir 16:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no reliable sources therefore notability cannot be asserted or assessed. JodyB _talk 21:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 02:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article seems to be original research. It does not establish the notability of the topic. At best it should be a subsection of an article about Utpaladev. Delete TheRingess (talk) 04:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  12:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 15:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unreferenced original research. With 200 Google hits, it's not likely to improve. YechielMan 16:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No notability, no references, and no established context (it can only be inferred from the text by those familiar with the related issues already). Almost an article for speedy deletion on that latter point alone. ◄Zahakiel► 14:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my original nom, and all of the above.TheRingess (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with no prejudice toward recreation. Sr13 02:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This organization is not notable. There are no reliable sources. The All Things Considered link is actually about a group called "The Cause USA". And it is a single 5 minute story from 2005 sparked by the Terri Schiavo case. The group in the NPR story is lead by Kelsey and Randy Bohlender. There is no mention of Lou Engle. These are two separate organizations that are allied, but the article confuses that. There are no other media sources referenced at all. The organizations websites are linked, and an online Christian newsletter is linked. This organization is not the subject of multiple, non-trivial media stories. The founder and a rally also appeared in a documentary film, Jesus Camp. I do not believe there are enough reliable sources to establish the notability of this organization. Andrew c 03:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -Severa (!!!) 03:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 15:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep It should be possible to find a 3rd party source, if they are engaged in the demonstrations claimed. An extensive article on the leader, Lou Engle, with references only to his books and to affiliated course, was deleted in a AfD in April 2006, [11] and re-created as a stub with no real 3rd party sources on April 17, 2006 and reasonably enough deleted by a speedy, but a good article if there are any 3rd party sources for either topic would seem the obvious place for this material and affiliated groups. Suggest re-creating a better article for him incorporating this material. DGG 16:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; organization is not notable, nor are reliable sources given. A Google search was underwhelming. YechielMan 16:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable organisation. Bigdaddy1981 06:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N a brief burst of news in the context of someone else's 15 minutes, doesn't make you notable. Carlossuarez46 21:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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