Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 13#CAELinux

< June 12	June 14 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy deletion. This is patent nonsense (CSD A1). Jesse Viviano 03:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adjutantreflex

Nonsense or Advertisement Warlord dehacker 01:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those, follows a Bungie storyline.. AdjutantReflex is a character in Halo lore.

Speedy Delete Article is patent nonsense in all revisions. CitiCat 03:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Volta (album). --Core desat 01:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wanderlust (Björk song)

Wonderful artist; great album and song - but no source whatsoever that this will be released as a single. Per Björk's website only the first three singles have been confirmed. WP:CRYSTAL. - eo 23:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Volta (album) until confirmed.--Phil500 (Talk / Contribs) 02:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. JJL 03:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:MUSIC#Songs is under discussion. Delete song is not notable, so should redirect to the album the song is on. --h2g2bob (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or re-direct to the album the song comes from. Acalamari 17:31, 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 Delete --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 06:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dull Flame of Desire

Wonderful artist; great album and song - but no source whatsoever that this will be released as a single. Per Björk's website only the first three singles have been confirmed. WP:CRYSTAL. - eo 23:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, borderline speedy A7. Yechiel Man 22:03, 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 Keep --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 06:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ulrich Duchrow

Bio of a professor which does not have a sourced fact which meets the criteria at WP:PROF. Prod was contested on the basis that he has publications (so do all professors), and is at a good university (not a WP:PROF criteria). Savidan 23:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pharamond 04:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete. As the nom says, fails WP:PROF. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 18:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The prod was contested on the basis that he is a full professor on the faculty of a particularly prestigious university in his subject. Such faculties do not appoint people to such positions unless they are notable--notable by much higher standards than our own. Personally, I really don't think ourselves more competent to asses theologians than Heidelberg. (or for that matter the German Wikipedia, which has rather higher standards than our own in many subjects including this--though they do have the peculiar practice of not giving much in the way of references. DGG 22:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's so different about German wikipedia? Do they require anything other than an account for article creation? It doesn't appear this article has been through a deletion debate there. Savidan 22:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Between the German Wikipedia entry and the English there exist extensive claims to notability, a few sources, and (together) a pretty good biography and works list. In general, the German Wikipedia is more deletionist than the English, so the fact that his article is uncontested there could be another reason to keep. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe he meets WP:N and WP:PROF (as a significant expert or important figure in his field). I saw two good articles on findarticles [1] [2], and I suspect there are many more available if you have access to scholorly periodicals.--Kubigula (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is not only an academic, but also a politcial figure giving e.g. a speech at a manifestation against the recent G8 summit, that was widely reprinted (in German).[3] --Tikiwont 12:17, 19 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, nom withdrawn, non-admin. Morgan Wick 18:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Noam

~~No assertion of notability. This is a curriculum vitae, not an article. Ford MF 22:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)~~ Withdraw nomintion. I've been convinced. Ford MF 18:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Obviously very notable: senior professor at a top-ten biz school, many publications, many books, excellent record of public service. Even his marriage is notable. I agree that it's badly written: tag it with {{wikify}} but AfD shouldn't be used for that process. —David Eppstein 00:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But does he meet WP:PROF? Yes, his wife is notable, but notability does not span across marriages. Morgan Wick 02:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I think the other criteria I mentioned first are rather more important for judging notability. But if they don't convince you: 93 news articles on Eli M. Noam and 338 news articles on Eli Noam. Many are by him (e.g. opinion pieces in the NY Times and Financial Times), or quote him, or happen to mention him in articles about his wife, but others are about him in part (a piece about how Columbia profits from its research faculty, another on nominees to the NY public service commission) or about his books (e.g. a review of " Telecommunications in Europe" in Journal of International Affairs). Here's one: CNN calls him a "leading educator" and "an authority in the development of distance learning on the Internet for university students", mentioning him prominently in an article on distance learning. Wired Magazine sees fit to mention his talk at a conference. Variety Magazine reports on a rumored FCC nomination. Etc. Most of these are too peripheral to use as sources for the article itself, but they are strong indicators of notability, I think. —David Eppstein 02:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment those are all articles by Eli Noam, not about him. Near as I can tell, he's had no coverage in secondary sources at all. Ford MF 02:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. And as you point out, the other cites, like in Wired, are just passing mention. Ford MF 02:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. Professor at one of world's most prominent business schools. WP:PROF easily satisfied here. --C S (Talk) 02:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Notability is not inherited. Just because he teaches at a notable institution does not automatically mean he is notable. I imagine there are lots of professors at that school. Are all of them notable merely by the virtue of teaching there? Ford MF 03:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, but the default assumption after they've passed three levels of notability review that are more thorough and stringent than the ones we have here (at hiring, tenure, and promotion to full) should be that most of them are. —David Eppstein 03:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment expensive colleges do have stringent and thorough reviews for hiring, tenure and promotion, but those are reviews for academic qualification, not encyclopedic notability. They're not the same thing. Ford MF 03:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You say they are not the same thing, but the criteria in WP:PROF are in fact a subset of those used for tenure decisions at research institutions, e.g. Columbia Business School. --C S (Talk) 04:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, it needs references and needs to be wikified, but the guy is notable as per User:David Eppstein's citations (which should become references). Clerks. 13:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Easy keep -- needs a de-CVing, but no notability issues, per David Eppstein's comments. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. -- Does meet the criteria of WP:BIO. It may need some improvement.--Edtropolis 15:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Far surpasses less notable academics included here. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 16:39, 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 delete. --Core desat 01:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Leon

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 21:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't know we had a porn guideline, but upon checking it, I see that this apparently fails. Adrian M. H. 15:59, 9 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, Fuhghettaboutit 22:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yep, fails WP:PORNBIO. --Evb-wiki 22:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ford MF 22:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:PORNBIO.--Edtropolis 15:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable at this point. Tabercil 22:41, 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 keep. My impression is that nobody will shoot me for closing a relisted AFD once consensus is reached, especially since Dhartung's reference resolved one of the initial concerns. Non-admin closure. Yechiel Man 23:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Croker

Delete.Unsourced. Non-notable. No information about (e.g. ) instrument played. Appears to be vanity page. Flagged since Nov 2006 for sources and information Smerus 18:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Granted the article needs references, but I think "keep", especially on the grounds that he was a member of The Notting Hillbillies, which did get attention at the time. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 19:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:39, 9 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, Fuhghettaboutit 22:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per FlowerpotmaN. Article needs expanding, but he's had a pretty notable career. Ford MF 23:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A clearly notable musician who's been in a band with Mark Knopfler and recorded with Clapton as well as releasing his own stuff. Nick mallory 01:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, never a #1 hitmaker, but well-known 1980s Britrocker who traveled in the right circles. Clapton doesn't guest on just anybody's albums. --Dhartung | Talk 01:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- never a #1 hitmaker - according to everyhit.com The Hillbillies' album got to #2 in the UK, so he wasn't far off..... ChrisTheDude 12:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets central criteria of WP:Music. A1octopus 12:02, 17 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 -- Y not? 03:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WESTERN Nursery and Landscape Association

Non-notable association, fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) --Oscarthecat 16:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete first iteration of page was clearly an advertisement. Some attempt to move to NPOV since then, but too many COI problems; if this is really a notable organization (or event, the article isn't really clear), someone independent of it needs to write the article. Capmango 17:51, 8 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, Fuhghettaboutit 22:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as adspam with no secondary sources. Ford MF 23:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, G11 (spam). So tagged. I'm surprised this wasn't done sooner. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:33, 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 delete. --Core desat 01:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tops Diner

Delete article doesn't show notability. Only claim is being listed by the New Jersey Historical Society which just seems to be a list of restaurants. [4] Jersey Devil 21:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. --24fan24 (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 22:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently sourced and non-notable. Ford MF 23:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Misleading as to historical significance (none) and not a notable destination (merely a restaurant not far from the NJHS) Pever 22:43, 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 speedy delete per BLP concerns. MaxSem 13:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Dobrowolski

Completely unreferenced article about seemingly not notable person. No article on Polish Wikipedia, almost no google hits. Previously speedily deleted as "likely hoax" and recreated by User:Matti1003. Jogers (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability found. Appears to be a hoax. --Finngall ^talk 21:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm finding nothing on a Julian Dobrowolski on Google outside of a 20-year-old Warhammer player and a middle-aged murder victim. Does not appear to pass WP:NOTE; article is also not attributed. --Charlene 21:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. -- Jogers (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense and probable hoax. "Julian Dobrowolski" and "jewish" or "pimp" in any combination yields exactly zero ghits. "Julian Dobrowolski" alone yields 57, but none about the person the article purports to describe. Ford MF 23:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Additionally, the article creator added "Julian Dobrowolski" to 1987 (Diff) as a "Jewish rights advocate". The whole thing reeks of bad-faith create. Ford MF 23:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above arguments.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G10 (assuming it's a real person; otherwise it should be deleted anyway). PrimeHunter 00:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have stubbed it per WP:BLP. [5] This could be all made up about a real person. PrimeHunter 01:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The creator restored it. I have stubbed it again and tagged for speedy deletion. It's time an administrator looks at this. PrimeHunter 13:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom; probably hoax. —Visor (talk · contribs) 09:38, 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 delete. --Core desat 01:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fury (Muse song)

I bring this here with a heavy heart, as I love the song too, but it doesn't qualify for its own article, being an album bonus track and B-side of a single. Contested PROD. EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough content for own article and lyrics are a copyright violation. --24fan24 (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough.--Phil500 (Talk / Contribs) 02:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an awesome song, but alas, that's it. The fact that the article is only three sentences long and one of the sentences happens to be "It's a great song, and an excellent example on the brilliant instrumental skills of the band." is just useless. WP:POV, WP:OR, WP:NN, etc, etc. Also fails WP:MUSIC. María (críticame) 12:39, 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 delete. Sr 13 07:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Schrader (writer/director)

Nn film writer who fails the provisions laid out at WP:BIO. I nominated this a year ago, which resulted in no consensus (see previous entry for further grounds for deletion). Since then, nothing of substance has been added that would help the subject pass the notability standard laid out for individuals. Eusebeus 21:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The only thing I could really find on him were articles on Wikipedia and Answers.com. They looked a lot like this one. --Evb-wiki 21:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as well. Ford MF 23:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:14, 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 delete. Sr 13 07:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ransome J. (Cy) Thomson

Non notable. Four of the edits have been from bots, another was adding a no category template. and another was adding a category. This person isn't notable. Wikihermit 21:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been speedy deleted before, or was tagged for speedy deletion. See creator's talk page. ~ Wiki hermit 21:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly non-notable. --24fan24 (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. Ford MF 23:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:16, 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.

Note: Before assuming that this page was deleted in error, please also see the subsequent discussions on this article:

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

The result was Early keep - clearly this article isn't going to be deleted, so I've closed this early so it can have its moment on the front page as a DYK, which it was entitled to. It is also one of the better sourced articles on the encyclopedia. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Martin Ingram

A smear article. It's sourced and makes attempts at neutrality, so I don't think this needs speedy deletion, but this is the kind of article I think that WP:BLP and Wikipedia is not tabloid journalism are specifically warning against. This person is a private investigator, formerly a cop that was fired after some infractions serious enough to make the news 26 years ago, but not serious enough to attract any serious attention, and certainly no attention from biographers. The person is not a public figure in the least. The article lays out every salacious detail of his life, and sources them to reliable sources that mention this person tangentially, or are local news stories from a very long time ago. Plus, even from the article I can't really figure out why we're supposed to care: so he was a dirty cop... so he's gotten into trouble... so he works for the Church of Scientology - so what? This seems to be a cult-watch page masquerading as a Wikipedia article. (I request that my fellow admins not speedy delete this article until the debate is over, though. I'd like to avoid a DRV.) Mango juice^talk 20:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. -- The article is sourced to (10) reputable citations. This individual currently is being sought by the Tampa, Florida police, for falsely impersonating a police officer, and there is a warrant out for his arrest in Tampa for this charge, which is a felony. He has been discussed in United States Federal court, U.S. v. Kattar 840 F.2d 118 (1988). And he has been the subject of articles in multiple secondary sources. Obviously a public figure. Smee 20:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - well referenced which in my opinion shows the notability. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with Chris well referenced which shows some kind of notability. I can see though why the nominator might think well who could care less? but there are far far more trivial articles on wikipedia that are not even referenced -p.s couldn't this have waited?. We now have an article for deletion on the main page of one of the world's biggest sites which is supposed to identify wikipedia latest greatest work -makes all involved look rather foolish ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 21:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very interesting point that you bring up, User:Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Due to this very AFD nomination, the article was removed from the Main Page. Care to elaborate on your concerns re: the timing of the AfD? Smee 22:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, I think that an article with this kind of problem should not be left alone just because it is linked from the main page. If anything, that makes it more urgent. Mango juice^talk 22:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That does not answer my question, which I posed to User:Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Smee 23:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Maybe not, but I was addressing it at Sir Blofeld, not you. I originally had indented my comment to make that clear, but it got changed. Mango juice^talk 00:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the best cited pages I've seen in awhile. All statements are cited by reputable sources, making this far from being a "smear page". BTW, Scientology is a cult. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheDoober (talk • contribs).
Keep. felonies, impersonating an officer, and so on. All sourced. The fact that the man has done bad things doesn't make the article biased. It's reported here neutrally. There's no way to make felonies sound distinctly positive, however. ThuranX 22:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Except, this would be forgotten and buried and would never have a place here if this article hadn't been written, as a way to criticize the Church of Scientology. Criminals can be notable, but in fact a great many private investigators are disgraced cops, and one being accused of "impersonating an officer" is not exactly unusual. This guy is not notable as a criminal or a dirty cop; there is really very little coverage of that, and there is no need to write up every person ever publically accused of wrongdoing. In the meantime, he is not a public figure, unless making it into the local crime beat pages 25 years ago counts, and this article is completely negative, and seems quite hurtful to me. Mango juice^talk 22:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The notability of this particular individual is due to his connection to an on-going, high profile controversy that ought to be well-covered. As for the article being POV, incomplete, or negative, that suggests fixing it, not deleting it. Zzombie 22:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject of this article is notable, it is well-sourced, and written NPOV. The originator of this AfD is seriously misreading something into the article.--Fahrenheit451 22:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appropriately sourced. I see nothing even close to a WP:BLP violation here. Ford MF 23:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, and censure nominator for disruption. This AfD nomination appears to be an attempt to escalate an existing conflict over this article. As such, it is a disruptive act. --FOo 23:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fubar Obfusco, did you see User:Ernst Stavro Blofeld's comments, above, and would you like to comment on them? Smee 23:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I beg your pardon. What existing conflict? Mango juice^talk 00:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:16, 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 → Holocron. The combination of 'delete' and 'merge' commentary suggests a 'no consensus' outcome; however, I have opted to interpret this as a mandate to merge so that the fate of the topic as a whole can be determined through the suggested secondary AFD action. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sith holocron

No sources, no notability of the subject matter. The article is based on Sith holocron on Wookieepedia, a Star Wars wiki, where it is more suitable than here. I wouldn't directly object to merging portions of the content into another article, but as it is the subject matter is insufficient for an article of its own. —AldeBaer 20:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Holy in-universe style, Batman! I wouldn't object to some merging if there's a place where some of this belongs, but this shouldn't be an independent article. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ford MF 23:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Holocron. This works better as a subset of that article than as its own. -- GJD 13:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I'm considering to AfD that article as well. It suffers from the same basic flaws. —AldeBaer 18:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete fanboy nonsense. StudierMalMarburg 20:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Holocron. Skeeter08865 18:57, 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 redirect `'юзырь:mikka 22:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinmaya survey

Copy/duplicate of Chinmaya Mission Sfacets 20:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chinmaya Mission --24fan24 (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Yechiel Man 22:12, 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. --Core desat 01:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stefán Arason

Contested prod, main claim to notability seems to be a not very notable prize, Europäischer Komponistenpreis. Falls below the notability threshold in my opinion. Stefán 00:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, NN --RaiderAspect 04:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - A lack of Google hits for the prize does not quite confirm its non-notability. I don't speak Icelandic, but the "press" section of his website points to a few blurbs about him in print media. I think the subject does meet WP:V; if you perform a Google search, you'll see a number of reliable sources featuring him (he actually has 1,350 hits, which isn't bad for a new classical composer). -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:03, 7 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 20:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I prodded this a while ago and it still seems to me that the article does not establish notability. Haukur 23:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not enough sources to establish notability. Ford MF 23:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most search engine results are blogs or forums, it seems. The rest are of the composer and probably his record label, hence there are not enough reliable sources.--Kylohk 14:36, 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 ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hobo With a Shotgun

Delete. One of the fake trailers from Grindhouse. Its an indepth summary of the trailer with some trivia factoids. As all the other fake trailers from Grindhouse haven't received their own articles (and they shouldn't) I don't see what makes this one more deserving of one. The only difference is that this was the winner of the trailer competition and was shown in select showings, but I don't think that makes it worthy of its own article. CyberGhostface 20:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has zero sources, and is mostly a plot summary, which is indiscriminate information. At best, merge with Grindhouse (film). --Phirazo 04:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why award-winning short films can't get their own entries. This film has gotten national attention and while the article may need revision, it certainly deserves to stay.

Its not an 'award-winning short film', its a fake movie trailer that was shown in select theaters with Grindhouse. If Thanksgiving and Don't aren't receiving articles, I don't see why this should. Especially since all the notable information could easily be stored on the main Grindhouse article. We don't need a piece-by-piece recap of a trailer filled with all these trivia bits like who 'Darth Pimp' is or that a certain type of gun was used. A paragraph recapping the trailer, who made it and the circumstances of the contest on the main Grindhouse article are more than enough.--CyberGhostface 14:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if this has an article outside of the Grindhouse article, then how come Planet Terror and Death Proof (which are far, far more notable) don't? Or Werewolf Women of the S.S...as Rob is a fairly big director in the horror genre, shouldn't his trailer get its own article?--CyberGhostface 17:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the article needs to be cut back severely I don't see a reason to delete it. The other trailers don't have articles on them? Well, maybe someone will make them in the future. This trailer/short film won an award, why not keep an edited version of the article around? Character 01:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because its not notable enough for its own article. Its not a short film that aired by itself at several prestigious film festivals. Its a fake trailer that won the Grindhouse trailer contest and was shown in Canada. It deserves a spot on the Grindhouse article, but relevant for an article on an encyclopedia? No. The fact that someone might make trailers for the other films is not a valid reason for keeping it. So far, no one has.

Aside from the overlong and cluttered plot summary, it contains a series of one-sentence character entries that's not even complete and a series of trivia points which are hardly relevant. Take a look at the Thanksgiving section on the Grindhouse article. You honestly don't think that Hobo couldn't be shortened into a similar treatment?

Some arguments to avoid: "I like it" and "Don't lose the information". Also keep in mind Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. So far I haven't seen a single legit reason to keep this. Just the "It won an award" bit. Also, a question I'd like to ask...how has it received national attention as another user claimed? Has it featured any media coverage, news articles or television interviews?--CyberGhostface 02:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:A requires reliable sources, i.e., WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 14:02, 21 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.--Wafulz 19:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland Browns archives

I'm all for summary style and appropriate statistics when needed (cf. Cleveland Browns seasons), but this is way beyond that and into the realm of "indiscriminate collection of information". Circeus 20:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I find articles like Cleveland Browns seasons (and similar well-developed list) most appropriate for Wikipedia, I just use it as a contrastive example of what is appropriate vs. what we have here. Circeus 23:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The information should not be organized as it is. Categories can do most of the work. It would be useful to see how the other 31 NFL teams are handled on Wikipedia (bearing in mind that some are featured articles). Yechiel Man 20:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All material used in this article is contained within Cleveland Browns. Pats1 20:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Merge Many pro sports teams have those material into their proper article. Granted, many season recap articles, but this kind of info doesn't belong to a separate article.--JForget 23:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Purge and merge to Cleveland Browns and Cleveland Browns seasons. This is just a List of lists about the Cleveland Browns.—Twigboy 02:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most teams do have this info in their main page but the Browns page is extremely long and this page is a good way to organize the Cleveland Browns topic. Ben1283 04:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cleveland Browns seasons/Cleveland Browns. Jacek Kendysz 14:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to main article. If not possible, article needs rename as "archive" isn't a good word to describe the content. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 14:08, 17 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.--Wafulz 13:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harvest (band)

This article is essentially the work of a single editor, who has in addition to this article contributed: a category for wikipedians who listen to this band (containing one entry, himself), a userbox for people who listen to this band (used by one editor, himself), a number of links to this band form other articles and... well, nothign other than promotion of this band. Which might just be forgivable zeal, but looks a lot like conflict of ionterest when you realise that he also uploaded samples of virtually every song they ever recorded, and that the article lacks any proper independent sourcing, all the external links are projects of the members or their publishers. I tried the google test, but it's a hopeless mess due to the near-generic name. I don't see evidence of significance here, I'm afraid. I also cannot find any of their songs in my admittedly rather staid collection of Christian music, which runs to about 1,500 songs in various collections. Guy (Help!) 20:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. I visited the user's userpage and saw that userbox. I thought they made some markup code in their own space, but looking closer it wasn't. I've also attempted the Google test, but nothing. Wikidan829 20:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Well, apparently, we have an article for the group's founder, Jerry Williams that wasn't created by the same person.--Ispy1981 20:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article and those of the band members unless much better references are added to prove that this band is notable under the terms of WP:Band by the end of this AfD. A1octopus 22:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regarding the comments by User:JzG:

Yes, so far, I have essentially been the editor of this article. However, I would argue that the page was just created this year (2007). I would hope more time would be given for other fans of the band to find the article and to begin to edit it also.

Yes, I created the category for wikipedians who listen to the band. Again, I would hope that more time would be given for other fans of the band to find the article. If they are not Wikipedians already, they would then need time to find that it is possible for one to belong to this category. If the category is in dispute, should it not be the category that is up for potential deletion?

Yes, I created the userbox for the band, and yes, I am the only one using it, for now. Was this a violation of a policy on Wikipedia? If the userbox is in dispute, should it not be the userbox up for potential deletion?

Yes, there are links to the article from other Wikipedia pages. I believe this is a good way for others to link to the article. I don't believe the article violates any policies in this regard.

I disagree with User:JzG regarding his statement that the article is "nothing other than promotion of this band." I attempted to write the article in an encyclopedic form, not in a manner that was promotional.

User:JzG also commented: ". . . he also uploaded samples of virtually every song they ever recorded . . ." I respond that I did upload a great number of songs onto Wikipedia to be used in the article. At the time, I believed that the songs were allowed as part of the Discography section. I have just learned recently of my error in this regard. User:Moe was helpful in editing the Harvest page into conformance with Wikipedia's non-free content criteria, namely #3a and 8.

Regarding the comment: "the article lacks any proper independent sourcing, all the external links are projects of the members or their publishers", I would argue that this is untrue. The first reference used in the article is from the magazine "The Lighthouse". The Lighthouse is neither a project of the members or their publishers, but is independent from both. The second reference used is from CBN's "The 700 Club." This source is also independent of both the band members and their publishers. The third reference used is from "CCM" magazine, which again, is an independent source. Should I contact these three sources and get statements of their independence?

Referring to the "Google test": yes, it is difficult to look up Harvest with Google because of their name. In my opinion, the difficulty of finding information on Google because of a "near-generic name" shouldn't be grounds for deletion.

Regarding User:JzG being unable to find significance in the article: I would argue that the article is at least notable by way of WP:MUSIC "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" #1. I also believe the article is notable under other WP:MUSIC criteria, but the criteria states "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one [emphasis added] of the following criteria."

That User:JzG doesn't have any music by Harvest in his Christian collection is surely a weak argument, at best. I'm sure there are many significant bands that he listens to that I don't have in my own collection.

Regarding the comments by User:Wikidan829: please see my responses to User:JzG above regarding the userbox and the Google test.

Regarding the comment by User:A1octopus: please see my response to User:JzG above regarding WP:MUSIC criteria.

Thank you for hearing my arguments.

Jamie L. 22:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a fourth source to the article as well as additional text to the body. The fourth source is a video produced by the Discovery Broadcasting Network which makes the statement on its cover: "Averaging over 100 concerts a year, Jerry and Ed travel the nation singing songs from their last five album projects . . ." I believe that this statement proves that Harvest has met WP:MUSIC criteria #4. On this topic, I was personally at a concert of the band in Germany and would be surprised if this was their only concert in that country. Although I cannot prove (yet) that this was "reported in reliable sources", I thought I would raise this possibility that the group also toured in Germany.

Jamie L. 15:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a "Christian Radio Hits" section to the article. Contained within it are nine songs that achieved chart status. I obtained this information from the source "Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music." According to the source, the chart hits information "is based on charts kept by SoundScan and published weekly in The CCM Update. Only information from the CHR (Christian Hit Radio) chart (or its predecessors) is included." I believe this proves Harvest meets WP:MUSIC criteria #2.

Jamie L. 22:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legit band, not a high-school garage band with only a MySpace page. Their 1995 album is available via both Amazon and eBay, so I'd say they're somewhat notable. eaolson 04:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix the sourcing, the band is signed to a record label and actually has a published album, which gets you through most of the notability hoops. -N 16:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, have you looked at WP:MUSIC???Balloonman 20:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article about the band and help the editor expand it and find sources and delete and transclude the template(s) used by a single editor for their userpage. This is a legit band that has a record label and albums, just enough for it to meet the usual standards. — Moe ε 06:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep being signed to a label doesn't count. The criteria calls for multiple albums (2+) by one of the major labels or major independent labels. Or a GOLD album or international tour---or something meaningful. This group, does however meet the criteria because it does meet two criteria for WP:MUSIC

7. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style ---in this case Christian Rock of the era.

Comment While I'd like to agree that Harvest meets WP:MUSIC criteria #7, I believe that there were other bands, such as Petra, Larry Norman, and Stryper, that were were more prominent in Christian Rock during Harvest's tenure. If you know of a source which argues for this criteria, please let me know. It would definitely strengthen the case for the band.Jamie L. 22:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I' familiar with Petra/Stryper, never heard of Larry Norman---but I am pretty sure that I remember Harvest (in the 80's I did listened to CCM). They were a fairly pretty big group, but more on the melow side. If one of their albums is still available 12 years after being published, that is pretty impressive. Most non-notable groups may have an album released, but it takes something a little more to keep it on the shelves for 12 years.Balloonman 15:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels---While their most notable label is Benson, Benson appears to be a major label within the genre.Balloonman 20:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. --Myles Long 15:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are several 3rd-party sources verifying a marginally notable career, enough for an encyclopedic article. It does need to be cleaned up a bit. --Evb-wiki 14:12, 21 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. --Core desat 01:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Art Crews

Delete, This article is about a wrestler who never got out of regional competition. Other than being a nondescript wrestler, the individual has done nothing notable. A Google search reveals a single blog entry on him and an old regional program listing one of his matches. This article fails to meet WP:BIO. StudierMalMarburg 20:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable wrestler--Ispy1981 20:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado DD^eleT^e Unsourced article about a non-notable subject. Caknuck 21:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, what he said and per nom. (Delete, right?) --Evb-wiki 21:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rule of thumb: When the infobox is 10 times the length of the article, there's probably a problem. JodyB_talk 21:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability established. Acalamari 22:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Nikki311 04:16, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Intelligence Summit

This article was deleted before for lack of notability and then I deleted a repost as WP:CSD#G4, but another editor opined that it should go to discussion, so I'm bringing it here instead. I've restored all revisions. I favor deletion based on the notability concerns brought up in the first debate. If nothing else, notability isn't established. Chaser - T 19:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: This isn't the old, undeleted stub article; it's an entirely new article with sufficient notable references. There were also at least two other Wikipedia articles which, prior to the 12th, had "oranged out" links to the deleted page, so there's arguably sufficient external interest. IMO, the only reason the original article was deleted was because its page-creator never got around to developing it beyond a stub, and nobody else was willing to do the reasearch either. Well, I have done so.--Mike18xx 20:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's becoming quite clear we are getting a different result than the first discussion. Sorry for the initial speedy deletion, Mike. And, thanks to PMAnderson for arguing against the speedy.--Chaser - T 21:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Keep Media coverage established in this version; the list of speakers in the previous version is itself fairly respectable. (I observe that the "non-partisan" objected to in the previous version has gone; but do remember, Commodore, that "non-partisan" is not "neutral"). John A. Shaw should be merged here; its present condition is this article turned inside out. It may well be that there is substantial criticism of this organization as a bunch of cranks; but the solution to that is to find and include it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw's page shouldn't be merged; he is a notable government personna beyond the forum in which he elected to "go public" with his WMD allegations.--Mike18xx 20:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be deleted until it contains something beyond his speech here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a notable personna uses a organization forum to make a statement, and the organization is then covered by notable entities which discuss aspects of the organization independant of the personna's speech, then the organization itself becomes notable.--Mike18xx 20:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec; what I agree with is "has notability") Please do observe that I agree with you; I did support keeping. But since this article looks to be kept, we don't need two paragraphs of it there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've incorporated (into the article) The New York Sun piece (provided by Proabivouac below) regarding the (apparently forced) resignations of Deutch and Woolsey from the Summit; it predates the conference with Shaw's speech.--Mike18xx 21:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve.--Edtropolis 20:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems reasonably N from the article as it now appears.DGG 20:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep In a very brief search, I had no problem from finding reasonably mainstream news stories about this organization;[6],[7] no doubt there are more.Proabivouac 20:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The new version seems to address most (if not all) of the objections raised in the previous AfD. Teens! 20:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - The new version does not address any of the objections raised in the previous AfD other than that the previous article was a stub. It is a completely non-notable topic that should be merged with Operation Iraqi Freedom documents. The overwhelming majority of sources used do not belong on Wikipedia -- see WP:RS. csloat 21:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for linking your blog on your user-page; that was quite entertaining.--Mike18xx 21:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per csloat. Eusebeus 21:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has plenty of mainstream sources and has generated at least one major news story. It's not a conspiracy group but a bona fide security discussion group. I really don't see what the problem is here. Nick mallory 01:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only mainstream sources to mention this conference seem to come from a few days in 2006 and all of the notability is generated by the outrageous and demonstrably false comments of Mr. Shaw along with rash speculation (that also turned out to be totally false) about the Operation Iraqi Freedom documents. Hence my point that this conference is a footnote to those articles. Not every terrorism conference should have an article, even if this one did generate controversy for a few days. Nobody would suggest articles on far more notable conferences on terrorism such as this one in 2004 (which had some actual terrorism experts like Robert Pape at it, unlike the Summit) or this one in Saudi Arabia (attended by numerous security officials and experts worldwide), or just about any of these, or this one at West Point, or this one in Tokyo, or this one in Israel.... Arguably all of the linked ones are more important than the "Intelligence Summit" to anyone who works in counterterrorism or any academic who studies it, but the Summit gets attention here because of the tiny bit of controversy - a couple days' worth at best - generated by some patently false but overhyped claims by the discredited Mr. Shaw. And certainly this conference in Iran was far more controversial in every way than the Intelligence Summit, yet the Iran conference did not merit its own page. csloat 02:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Tawfik Hamid isn't an "actual terrorism expert" despite having been an actual terrorist?--Mike18xx 03:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see he has given some lectures, but what peer-reviewed research has he published? You're nitpicking, of course - perhaps this guy can be considered an "expert" but the fact is that the Summit is nowhere near as notable as some of the other conferences I mentioned. csloat 16:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give it up, Sloat; I caught you with your pants down, and we both know it.--Mike18xx 18:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the talk page, you haven't answered my argument at all. There is no need for ridiculous personal attacks on my pants (or on my blog). I'll ask you to please cease. The reason I think this should be deleted is that it is not encyclopedic. It is not personal, and I'm sorry you're taking it that way. I don't even know you. csloat 20:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempt to argue that Tawfik Hamid isn't an actual terrorism expert despite having been an actual terrorist is duly noted. If you earnestly care about the unencyclopedic entries at Wikipedia, I suggest you submit an AfD for that putrid rot State terrorism by the United States. You know the one.--Mike18xx 20:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what peer-reviewed research has your friend Mr. Hamid contributed to the scholarly literature on terrorism? Your assertion that he's an expert simply by virtue of being a terrorist is not in any way supported. And calling a totally unrelated article names is non sequitur. csloat 21:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tawfik Hamid has first-hand experience; the others don't.--Mike18xx 21:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the other page - So does Ayman al-Zawahiri; I'm not interested in his opinion either. The issue at hand was notability as a scholarly expert. Nobody would disagree that Pape has it and what's-his-name doesn't. I think we're done here. csloat 22:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's really your argument, then all I need to do is point out that Tawfik Hamid is notable. After all, he has a Wikipedia page. But enough of the Argumentum ad Verecundiam logical-fallacy.--Mike18xx 04:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)--Mike18xx 04:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- So write some; and if somebody has demonstrated Shaw to be full of it, quote them here and in his article. Wikipedia is full of quite notable articles about people who are demonstrably lying their body part off. Consider George Psalmanazar and Cyrus Teed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - To heck with them; consider CAIR and Noam Chomsky.--Mike18xx 03:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your comment speaks for itself. csloat 16:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes: They are both outrageous liars.--Mike18xx 18:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Please read WP:BLP and be careful about making libelous accusations. csloat 20:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sorry; I forgot to add "stooges for Hamas". (Not libel because it's true'.)--Mike18xx 20:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable, --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Keep and expand. Obviously notable. Bradybd 08:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per Csloat.Giovanni33 02:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A quote from your user page: "'If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.' - Noam Chomsky"--Mike18xx 06:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above--sefringle^Talk 03:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- sefringle^Talk 03:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article provides multiple, independent reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. CNN and the St. Petersburg Times would seem to be unimpeachable sources, regardless of ones biases or criticisms against the organization in question. Alansohn 23:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Biophys 04:12, 18 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. --Core desat 01:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elementie

I'm not exactly sure whether this article is an attempt at describing classical elements or whether it's gamecruft or similar, but the classical elements are already covered in far greater detail and clarity elsewhere on Wikipedia and the article title isn't really suitable for turning into a redirect. ~Matticus ^T_C 19:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the nom would appear to be correct. I didn't see any indication that 'elementie' was anything substantial from a quick Google hunt, nor does 'star elements' get much. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely incomprehensible (game)cruft, without any context; not quite nonsense yet close enough. -- Ekjon Lok 20:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: the author of this article also added a section "Classical Elements in New Zealand" to Classical Element, see this diff. This addition is completely unsourced, and unless someone knowledgeable about these things can confirm it, it should be removed. -- Ekjon Lok 20:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep At first I pretty much agreed with Ekjon Lok's argumentation. Non-sense, literally. The article was created June 13, 13:09 and nominated for deletion June 13, 13:56, not even an hour after creation. I have no clue about the subject matter myself and cannot tell if it might turn out to become a useful article. That is why I argue for keep. Keep and watch! It is too early to tell if the article is notable and useful. If nothing clarifying has been added to the article in a few weeks it can still be deleted. I have put it on my watchlist already. doxTxob \ ^talk 23:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As the article itself states, these are "fictinal" sic and there is no sourcing given to even tell us what fiction they come from. My suspicion is that they're someone's personal concept they're trying to promote. Trying to WP:AGF, but I've seen a few too many of these types of articles. -- Kesh 02:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fictional? From what source? JJL 03:22, 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 keep. Sr 13 07:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Scary Guy

I speedy deleted this as blatant advertising under WP:CSD#G11 because there's nothing biographical in it – no real name, no educational preparation, no life story, nothing but 'watch him here', 'watch him there', 'buy his book', 'buy his programs'. That may sound harsh, but I don't know how else to put it. I've never heard of the guy. Afterward, I was asked to restore the page and list it here instead, so I am. I defer to others to judge its encyclopedic value. KrakatoaKatie 19:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but massively, massively cleanup this page. He's certainly meet the criteria to be notable, being interviewed around the world by various news organizations. The page as it stands now however is nothing more than an advert and dramatically needs to be cleaned. Wildthing61476 19:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom. Fails to meet criteria of WP:Notability. Not only it doesn't have notability, it's a blatant ad.--Edtropolis 20:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete considering the content and the fact that it was primarily edited by Thescary1, it is a pretty blatant advertisement. IrishGuy ^talk 20:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely a blatant ad, but he does seem to have a fair amount of coverage - though I think the cleanup to remove the promo would probably leave us with "The Scary Guy is." ~~Delete~~ until more good sources are available. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to new info below, I'd be happier if I could actually read those articles and judge if they're actually of substance, but it looks like there are sources there to work with. Weak keep instead. (And obviously my google-fu was weak today too.) Tony Fox (arf!) review? 23:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Topic has enough Wikipedia reliable sources to meet WP:N. This AFD might serve as a good wake up to those interested in the article to add in-line citations. If they are not included in a month or two, then AfD#2 might be appropriate. Until then, I say give it a chance. Here are some sources found via a quick search. I know there are many more, but these all mention his 1998 name change:

- USA Today (2/2/98) Across the USA: News from every state.
- Newsday (2/3/98) Double Takes
- Cincinnati Post (2/3/98) Memory hunters
- Memphis Commercial Appeal (2/6/98) Tattooer tells truth in advertising
- Star Tribune (2/23/98) People
- Star-Ledger (2/23/98) Extreme tattooing gets under his skin Artist calls it a "commitment"
- Newsday (2/23/98) Double Takes
- Fresno Bee (2/23/98) The scary guy likes wash-and-wear art
- Dallas Morning News (2/23/98) Marking his identity: Tattooed man changes name to Scary Guy
- Los Angeles Daily News (2/23/98) News lite: 007 stays on her majesty's blacklist
- Contra Costa Times (2/23/98) Scary guy displays his art on his body
- The Charlotte Observer (2/23/98) The scary guy stares down a tattoo taboo
- Cincinnati Post (2/24/98) Hi - I'm the scary guy
- The Times-Picayune (2/26/98) The scary guy uses tattooed body as his canvas
- The Wichita Eagle (3/1/98) On the side
- People (UK) (3/1/98) Strange's World ,Every week the enigmatic Mr Strange brings you tantalising talesfrom around the globe. So step into Strange's World...
- New York Times (3/1/98) Questions for: The Scary Guy
- Times Union (3/1/98) Fame is skin deep for "The Scary Guy"
- St. Paul Pioneer Press (6/11/98) Tattooist sketches art of living the scary guy - comedian, businessman, philosopher - takes on new mission: Ethics coach for kids.
- Los Angeles Daily News (8/31/98) Odd-mongering wild bunch has far-out cookout
- Star Tribune (9/1/98) The Scary Guy brings a message of the spirit
- Syracuse New Times (4/7/04) Back on the Right Path; After a seven-year furlough, local hardcore supergroup Path Of Resistance returns to the stage
- Know Your World Extra (11/19/04) You can call him scary: this guy is helping to stamp out anger and hatred.
- The West Briton (3/31/05) A scary guy who's not so scary afterall
- Arizona Daily Star (1/18/06) Guy may be scary, but his message is hardly sinister
- Torquay Herald Express (4/19/07) TV 'scrapheap' Dick's green homes message.

And here's some with his name in the title of the article (some might be duplicate from above):

- Scary guy's message on self-respect. Torquay Herald Express (4/24/07)
- Learning to live in peace and harmony the Scary Guy way. Liverpool Echo (UK) (3/19/07)
- Das schreckliche Gesicht der Liebe "Einer wie ich ist in den Augen der Leute ein Verrückter" - ein Tätowierter namens The Scary Guy kämpft gegen Gewalt und Intoleranz. Sueddeutsche Zeitung (Germany) (8/3/06)
- Scary Guy Not Answer To Problems. ThisisLancashire.co.uk (12/15/05)
- The Scary Guy beats bullies with love, peace and understanding. Times (UK) (11/18/05)
- No need to be scared of the Scary Guy! Harrogate advertiser. (10/28/05)
- A 'Scary Guy' who wants us all to hug. Northern Echo (UK) (10/11/05)
- Scary Guy's Mission To Bring Peace. ThisisTheNorthEast.co.uk (6/8/05)
- Scary Guy on loose. Daily Star (UK) (4/28/05)
- A scary guy who's not so scary afterall. West Briton (Truro, UK) (3/31/05)
- Scary guy carries friendship message. Aberdeen Press & Journal. (12/4/04)
- Scary Guy visits Alford. Aberdeen Press & Journal. (12/1/04)
- Not so scary guy. Newcastle Evening Chronicle. (11/18/04)
- Scary guy helps fight the bullies. Liverpool Echo (UK) (5/1/04)

-- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've removed a lot of the adverspamcruft, though the article still needs a lot of work. Rklawton 21:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, it needs to be cleaned up. There was no intention to self promote – lack of awareness of New Users to Wikipedia. KRAKATOAKATIE: Thank you for reinstating the article to here. You say "no real name" ... The Scary Guy is his legal name. It is on his passport - changed by deedpoll. There was a link to that reference/ public records on there. What do you mean educational preparation? Help me to understand. And there is a very detailed life story about Scary that can be referenced through newspaper stories and films worldwide. Please indicate how this should be done, in a manner where we are not self promoting. We do not wish to self promote. This was never our intention. And never will be. Regarding 'Buy his ... ' We do not wish to promote or sell books or film through Wikipedia. The Scary Guy focus is not on selling products. It is on creating Awareness. That is what The Scary Guy is notable for. Endlessly interviewed by thousands of newspapers and radio and TV around the World in the last seven years.Whatevernext 21:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There may be endlessly interviewed by thousands of newspapers and radio and TV around the World in the last seven years, but none of them were cited in the Wikipedia article. Even if there is a very detailed life story about Scary that can be referenced through newspaper stories, they were not in fact referenced in the Wikipeida article. The best way to avoid self promotion is to only use information from the newspaper stories and then put a footnote at the end of each sentence that references the newspaper story where you received the information. I placed some more instructions on the article talk page, here. Also, take a look at Tony Robbins. You may want to try to make The Scary Guy article look and read more like that article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. will use that as a model. Whatevernext 08:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep for now. The stub-ified version of the article looks much better, and at least has a few sources cited that seem to show notability. -- Kesh 01:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep news coverage satisfies notability. ~ Infrangible 02:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep inspirational and motivational person for the contemporary generation; can never ever judge a book by its cover (what's inside the person counts); he has positive goals per the references now presented on the restored article.Dragonbite 05:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How positive he is has not relevance to the AfD. The only concern is if the article meets Wikipedia's policies, which I just barely think it does. --Kesh 20:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page is being tidied as I speak and is well on it's way to becoming a decent article. Notability is well taken care of. This article has the thumbs-up! Bennyboyz3000 09:54, 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 delete. Sr 13 07:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cover versions of Kim Wilde songs

Delete - another list of covers. As with all the other such lists that have been deleted, it is not notable simply that one artist played another artist's song. Notable cover versions belong in an article for the cover artist and/or in an article for the song. Otto4711 19:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom. Wikipedia is not a directory.--Edtropolis 19:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as the tag suggested to the parent article orand/ the individual songs or albums that have articles.--JForget 23:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the merge tag has been on the article for two months without so much as a word of discussion being engendered by it. Otto4711 03:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All lists of artists who have covered insert artist here's songs or lists of cover versions of insert artist here's songs automatically fail [WP:UNENC]] as far as I am concerned. A1octopus 18:40, 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. --Core desat 01:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agnes Carpenter

Fails WP:BIO. Being the mother of the Carpenters isn't enough. Clarityfiend 19:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete — Non-notable per WP:BIO. I also had no search engine hits. *Cremepuff 222* 20:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - as per CSD:A7.--Edtropolis 20:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral but don't speedy because being the mother of the Carpenters is a remotely plausible assertion of notability. I get 2440 G-hits. Morgan Wick 20:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability established for this person. Acalamari 20:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent notability. I just noticed Gladys Presley has an article, which may also be a candidate for deletion for the same reason. Masaruemoto 03:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to sustain notability apart from her children. JodyB_talk 19:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her children alone aren't notable enough to make her notable. --Android Mouse 04:59, 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.

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cover versions of Kate Bush songs

Delete - although this was nominated once previously and not deleted, recent AFDs which have resulted in the deletion of a dozen or so of these list of covers articles would seem to demonstrate that consensus has changed. As with those other lists, it is not notable that an artist played another artist's songs. Notable covers can be noted in a discography article for the cover artist and/or an article for the song. Otto4711 19:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is NOT a directory. T. Moitie ^[talk] 19:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - As per CSD:G4 and A7.--Edtropolis 19:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment G4 is for recreated material, which this isn't. A7 doesn't apply here, either. Still, Delete per WP:NOT. EliminatorJR ^Talk 22:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much as I like the woman's songs and would consider covers of her work interesting, this article clearly falls under WP:UNENC. If the song and/or the performing artist is notable then there will already be a mention of the cover exisiting on the artist's or song's pages. A1octopus 22:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the info to the appropriate articles in concerns.--JForget 23:25, 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. --Core desat 01:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Option on the product of two asset prices

Reads like an essay. Recreation of deleted article, contested prod. John 19:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. As per CSD:G4.--Edtropolis 19:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hear repost doesn't apply to speedy, and I know it doesn't apply to prods. Morgan Wick 20:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unattributed original research, and arguably indiscriminate information. Yechiel Man 20:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What a long winded way of saying "thanks for your money, sucker" ~ Infrangible 02:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the author can provide reliable sources to show this is not pure WP:OR. -- Kesh 02:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This article is neither original research nor indiscriminate information. This is a product that is widespread in the investment banking world and numerous users would want documentation. The fact that most of you don't have a clue about derivative products does not mean that the thousands of people that work in the City of London would not be interested in this article. --Tedblack 10:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep an article. Please provide reliable sources in the article which back up its content. If this is as widespread as you claim, they should be easy to find. -- Kesh 16:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:USEFUL seems more appropriate. Morgan Wick 17:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Six of one, half a dozen of the other. :) I find they both stem from the same desire. -- Kesh 18:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The only reason for which there are no sources is because most sources are proprietary and cannot be published. The author has over fifteen years experience in this. This article will prove very useful to practitioners in the City of London.--Tedblack 16:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        In other words, you admit that there are no reliable sources you can cite so we can read about it ourselves? Your point boils down to "it's useful", which is not a valid reason to keep an article on Wikipedia. -- Kesh 17:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pending rewrite in encyclopedic terms. And just for reference, comparing two derivatives of assets usually is done by converting both derivatives to cash equivalents using Black-Scholes model. It appears that this is just an analytic solution of the Black-Scholes p.d.e. for European style options (fixed sale date). If this is different, it needs a reliable source to explain how it is different and what it's impact is. --Tbeatty 04:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good analysis. Basically it is complete original research then; I should perhaps have been bold and redeleted and salted it, but I'm glad to have had a consensus emerge. --John 04:59, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticalmuralism

Unreferenced, orphaned article. I have been unable to locate any non-Wikipedia resources discussing this topic. If this process is better known by another name, rename/merge suggestions would be welcome, of course. JavaTenor 19:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find any kind of web page on Google that obviously isn't a old copy of the Wikipedia page. If the creator can come up with a few good references I would reconsider. T. Moitie ^[talk] 19:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A possible target for redirect or merge is Community art, although that article has problems of its own, as the tag on the page indicates. I've never encountered the term criticalmuralism, but artist-community interaction in the creation of public art is certainly a widespread phenomenon supported by a good deal of theoretical literature. This sort of thing just doesn't seem to be covered very well on WP. Deor 19:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 71 G-hits, but not all of them are Wikipedia or its mirrors. Morgan Wick 20:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If you search Google with "Criticalmuralism -wikipedia -answers -dbpedia" you get a total of 6 hits. Each of which does nothing but cite (or directly link) to the Wikipedia article. One of which is literally a direct copy of the article, right down to the AfD banner. The article appears to only exist to promote this concept. Delete as WP:OR and possibly WP:SPAM. -- Kesh 02:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of non-wiki ghits, no claim of notability in article.--Kathy A. 22:00, 18 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 nom withdrawn, redirected. Sr 13 07:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N202LF

An imporant helicopter because of its role, but not notable in encyclopedic terms. Thanks for trying to honor these lifesaving machines, but I'm afraid this just doesn't belong at Wikipedia. FWIW, the crash info also doesn't meet our in-development air crash notability criteria. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination, and concur on crash notability, interesting as it is. - BillCJ 18:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as an accident article. - BillCJ 18:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Helicopters of that type meets criteria of WP:Notability. Needs improvement.--Edtropolis 19:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which criteria? There's not even a third-party source to establsih notability! The service the helicopter provides IS notable, and is covered in the Air ambulance and MEDEVAC articles. This individual aircraft, as the aritcle currently relates it, is not. To be notable, it would have had to have been involved in an icident or performed a service that was covered by major news orgs for an extended period of time, which at this point it appears it has not. - BillCJ 19:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tragic and all, but this doesn't really seem to have any notability. A check of Google shows no news coverage. OSborn 19:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: this is not correct, see below. Dhaluza 18:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No less important, but this is like including peoples' ham radio callsigns, or license plate numbers. Sorry. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while echoing the comments above about a noble job and tragic circumstances, I'm forced to the conclusion that this helicopter does not individually meet our notability requirements. - Philippe | Talk 22:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while I'm sure there will be local coverage of the accident (there was of a local crash here), I doubt most people will focus on the helicopter as the grounds for notability, and it's likely this crash won't get past the new news criteria on WP:NOT. The best I can suggest is covering this helicopter on the hospital's page. FrozenPurpleCube 00:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt - can we not chop these choppers. They seem to keep coming up. There must be hundreds of air ambulance services in the world. We cannot have articles on them all, and certainly not in each choopper they use. Peterkingiron 23:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Hawaiian717 21:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as an accident article. -- Hawaiian717 17:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Crash of Eagle III" (or merge with Eagle III) — I agree that most of the N-number articles are a bit over the top, but this Afd goes too far, because this one has special circumstances. The statement above about no press coverage is demonstrably false. A simple web search turns up this photo archive: [8], plus a news archive search for that local paper turned up several stories over a period of more than one year about the crash: [9] so this demonstrates continuing interest, not to mention the ongoing NTSB investigation, which shows more than just local interest. It was also covered in the Air Medical Journal, Volume 25, Issue 4, Pages 152-157, but that content is restricted. Dhaluza 18:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - of the suggestions, since there's refs, I'd support the merge into the Eagle III article. I don't think the crash really is notable on its own, but put into the context of the program and its service to the community, it is appropriate. By the close of this AfD, if no one has already done that, I'll be happy to do the work.AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment - Unless you intend to significantly expand the Eagle III article, I think the better option is to keep the crash info in a separate article for context. Otherwise the crash content will be overwhelming and the article will lack balanced coverage. Dhaluza 23:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Does this mean we're converting the page to a full accident article? If so, then I would probably support keeping it, assuming notability is established. (And judging by Dhaluza's previous work ont he SW runway incident, it will be.) But again, it's up to those creating and editing the article to establish notability, not the nominator of the AfD. (And as much as I wish that was the rule, it isn't!) If not for the crash, then this one would have already been deleted along with the other 2 Eagle III helicopter pages. - BillCJ 00:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, it is already done. But I disagree with you slightly in your interpretation, because we are all editors, and improving articles to meet WP standards is a shared responsibility. This shows you still need to do research, to make sure you don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Dhaluza 01:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree with you that that is the way it should be, but the AfD rules currently stand, it is not. If it were, I would have filed alot of RFCs agianst a number of editors for frivo;ous AfDs on several articles I contribute to. If you want to try to get the AfD rules changed, I'll back you on it. But as for now, an AfD nominator is free not to try to examine or improve an articel first, especially if it's a type of aritlce (ie. pop-culture) that they feel should not exist on Wiki at all. - BillCJ 18:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm invoking my right to be wrong in life, and given Dhaluza's improvements and argument above, I'm withdrawing my initial deletion endorsement that was implied in the nom. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, the content has been moved to 2006 Eagle III accident, cleaned up, and referenced. I suggest that this article remain as a redirect. Dhaluza 01:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Concur. - BillCJ 03:03, 17 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. --Core desat 01:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of OVW Television Championship reigns by length

A page about how long someone held a barely notable professional wrestling title, which is a predetermined event. A similar page about OVW's Cruiserweight title was deleted. Biggspowd 17:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - listing the holders of a fake title by how long they fakely held it? No. Otto4711 19:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Good grief, this is ridiculous. WP:NOT#INFO. Yechiel Man 22:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - OVW is a notable enough promotion. It's a short enough list it may be mergeable to the title page.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 02:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge, I'm kind of torn on this one. There are precedants for pages that list reign lengths, but I'm not sure this title is notable to have one. I'm not opposed to a merge, if others think it is info worthy of keeping. Nikki311 03:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OVW may be a notable promotion, but that doesn't make extrapolation of data relating to fake titles in the promotion notable. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unlike those who thinks that "fake" justifies deletion (imagine what the film section would look like?) I think it's just a trivia addition to the main title page, list longest & shortest reign on that page and be done with it MPJ-DK 07:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't speak for anyone else, but I can possibly see the merit of say a similar list regarding boxing titles, which are legitimate. But wrestling titles are not the same, they are not won or lost in real terms (unless you're Bret Hart....) so there is no real merit in such a list. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete you already got this page (OVW Television Championship) which should be classed as a list. So this article is just a copy in a way! Govvy 16:01, 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 deleted this is. --Core desat 01:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Divided I Am

Hoaxish. I can find no Google hits for this supposed album. Created by the same editor as the hoaxisher It Was Already Done 2wice. The artist doesn't seen to exist, either. Corvus cornix 17:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete with Comment Possible failure of WP:N, and the article links to JC too much, which is a disambaug that doesn't appear to have any rappers on it. OSborn 18:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further information: The only Google hit for "Da Quick Entertainment" is to a myspace page. Corvus cornix 18:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per this: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. Also nn artist and label. Goodnightmush^Talk 18:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. As per CSD:G1 and A7.--Edtropolis 19:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, "album" by made-up band. tomasz. 10:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See also I'm Back...On Da Track. tomasz. 10:12, 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. --Core desat 01:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Artbox

AfDs for this article:

This is a procedural nomination, article was renominated for deletion, nominator had posted original afd template. No vote, again simply procedural Wildthing61476 19:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I really have nothing to add to the previous AFD discussion. Though technically it meets WP:MUSIC, there are no reliable sources, and it comes off as just another nonnotable band. My opinon. Yechiel Man 20:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Notability test. Article written in puerile language.--Tovojolo 00:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inconsequential band.--Caprisa 00:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per arguments of YechielMan. Also as WP:Music itself states, technically meeting some of its criteria still doesn't autmoatically dictate notability. A1octopus 18:33, 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. --Core desat 01:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOX (rapper)

Has yet to release an album. fails WP:MUSIC. Corvus cornix 17:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - currently fails WP:MUSIC and is sort of WP:CRYSTAL. Page can be created once notability is gained. Plm209^{(talk to me • contribs)} 17:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Fails criteria of WP:BIO. Never mentioned in Give It To Me.--Edtropolis 19:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. --Evb-wiki 21:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - is signed to a label and contributed to Scott Storch's albums. As he has his own album coming out in a month or two, perhaps we should delay deletion and see what reception that gets. Seems strongly related to Scott Storch, so alternatively we could merge there. --h2g2bob (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One album not yet released fails WP:MUSIC. And there are no reliable sources that anything in the article is true. Corvus cornix 18:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet WP:Music at present. May do so in the future but keeping the article on that basis would be crystalballery. A1octopus 12:06, 17 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. --Core desat 01:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never Again (2009 film)

Prod removed by author. Article is crystal balling about a movie that cannot be verified. Cannot find any sources or any information on movie. Wildthing61476 16:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, "Never Again is a 2009 film based on Kelly Clarkson's song and music video Never Again (song)" - who says so? --soum ^talk 17:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL. Plm209^{(talk to me • contribs)} 17:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. As per WP:CRYSTAL.--Edtropolis 17:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CRYSTAL is not a speedy deletion criterion. Morgan Wick 20:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, slow Delete as quickly as possible. How about {{db-nocontent}}? No WP:RS. Probable WP:HOAX. --Evb-wiki 21:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while too early, this should be mention in the 2009 films article--JForget 23:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Only if there's evidence that it even exists. Morgan Wick 23:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Considering it's one sentence, I'd be inclined to say {{db-nocontent}}. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The movie ends up getting really bad reviews. ~ Infrangible 01:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per article title (Never Again). JJL 03:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, it's only 2007, no need to see into the future or have speculative articles about unverifiable subjects. --Kyoko 17:26, 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 speedy delete. User has authored a series of nonsense articles today and is heading towards Blocksville at a fast pace. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darth malace

Fanfiction, not verifiable and non-notable. A Google Search for "Darth Malace" turns up only somebody's myspace page and message board posts. Character does not appear in any Star Wars reference work. Wingsandsword 16:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be fan fiction. JavaTenor 16:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some evidence turns up that it's not a character from fanfiction; if it turns out to be canon, merge it.--Chaser - T 16:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total nonsense.StudierMalMarburg 17:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. As per CSD:G1.--Edtropolis 17:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. As per CSD:G1. ~ João Do Rio 20:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:22, 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 Speedy Delete (A1). soum ^talk 17:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donga (film)

per WP:Notability. Prod contested by an IP user. Javit 16:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's difficult to find anything by that exact title on google, and IMDB is pretty spartan, too. Unless there's some non-trivial coverage, we can't even write about the plot.--Chaser - T 17:06, 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. --Core desat 01:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Software companies in India

While an analysis of the software companies (which I presume must have been the original intent of the article) would have been great, it has turned out to be mainly a directory listing, outweighing any analysis that might be present. Wikipedia is not a directory. If indexing all the articles is the point, it is better achieved using a category (or category tree). Removing the listing and leaving the article also runs the risk of developing into a directory yet again, thereby making it almost impossible to maintain. soum ^talk 16:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This reminds me of a list of law firms that got deleted because it had no criteria for inclusion. I have no idea how many of these exist, but it clearly has the potential to balloon indefinitely. If some way of restricting this to the top 100 firms were proposed, it would be more maintainable, but it would probably still be better to start from scratch.--Chaser - T 17:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak Delete with Comment, the article seems to branch out and such and doesn't seem to be focused on the list in the first place as it has that other junk near the top like "Indian IT majors". OSborn 18:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC) Update: Yeah, it'll just reform into a list. Doesn't really seem to be a needed list, is there a list of software developers with a "Country" heading on Wikipedia? OSborn 19:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, after 6 months, the list has grown (ballooning as per Chaser above), but no clear rule for inclusion/exclusion appears to exist. The sole reason for the list appears to be to validate the opening sentence - that there are a lot of software companies in India. Pever 01:04, 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. All of the "don't delete" arguments are from the same editor. --Core desat 01:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Tomb

Rex Tomb is an FBI official who has been cited in a few news articles about Osama bin Laden, but otherwise is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article and does not meet WP:BIO. There are very insufficient reliable sources to create a biographical article about him. --Aude (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom. 604,000 google hits.--Edtropolis 16:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I get 805,000 Google hits without quotation marks, but most are irrelevant. Only 875 hits on "Rex Tomb".[16] PrimeHunter 02:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delelte, per nom. Just a press release does not make him notable, nor does working for FBI. --soum ^talk 16:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, Tomb sounds like an FBI spin doctor, and the article is more about the FBI's Most-Wanted list not connecting bin Laden to the Sept. 11, 2001 attack than it is about Tomb. When he personally locates and catches bin Laden (or does some other notable act), he can be included on Wikipedia. --Evb-wiki 16:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added the entry because he's been made infamous for his quotes that under-scored of the fact that bin Laden has had no formal charges laid against him. If you want to flesh out the article go ahead, but everyone knows who he is,so why delete the entry completly? how is he not notable if he gets 836,000 google hits? My Machinima series Fire Team Charlie is less known than Rex Tomb , but it is allowed an entry?--Bennyxbo 17:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a coatrack for trying to spread the word about bin Laden not being connected to 9/11. Is he the subject of reliable secondary sources where he's the subject? Also, please don't hold up WP:GHITS as the holy grail. Morgan Wick 20:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/partial merge The subject of the article does not seem to have notability by itself. For the article my opinion is delete per nom. For the information about Bin Laden my opinion is that it can be merged into the Bin Laden article's section about his criminal charges. There is some talk about the charges already, by whom and what for as well as Bin Laden being in the FBI's Top 22 list. The information itself is useful and would fit in there well, especially as it is sourced. Parts might go to the article about FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives as addidtional sourced information. doxTxob \ ^talk 00:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The guy's not notable and the article's just an vapid excuse for more retarded conspiracy peddling bollocks. Nick mallory 01:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Tomb is just a spokesman advancing the FBI's official position on issues. No individual notability here. We have Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks for discussion of that issue. --Dhartung | Talk 01:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete I started the Rex Tomb article because there is no information on wikipedia article that explains why bin Laden has not been formally charged for 9/11. This information is not present in FBI Most Wanted Terrorists or Osama bin Laden or anywhere.

Comment That was why I suggested to delete the article and to move usable, verifyable information to these articles. And you argue in this direction, too. Yes, you are right, verifyable information should not get lost, it should be in the spot where readers of Wikipedia look for it most likely. If it is verifyable information about any one from the most wanted list it should be there, if it is about Bin Laden it should be there, all well sourced, of course. As it is described in the article, he is the PR person of the FBI, some kind of spokesman. The messenger is not so important. He spoke for the FBI. And the message is the important information here. What is verifyable, and only that, should be merged into the corresponding article. Rex Tomb is in itself not notable enough to be encyclopedic. doxTxob \ ^talk 04:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rex Tomb is spokesperson for the FBI's most wanted posters, The top 10 list is as old as the hills. The program was created in 1950 by J. Edgar Hoover...and it's known world-wide.I added the Wired News article in as an additional reference to add a little more credibility, however, the teamliberty.net quote is 100% in step with what Rex Tomb has been saying all along, therefore i dont feel the entire article needs to be deleted on the basis that it can't be varified.--Bennyxbo 16:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives is a featured list. If Tomb is known for work on that then he might be mentioned there. PrimeHunter 16:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete I added the Fox News .com article as another reference. He has worked on the X-Files apparently too. --Bennyxbo 15:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete I added the bit about the Oprah Winfrey connection, and the fact that his part of the site gets the 2-3million hits a month. Notability is there, and every bit of information has solid sources from CNN to the Washington Post.--Bennyxbo 23:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This person is not notable. Having said that, the unit he works for may be notable based on the references. So maybe an article should be created for the unit. Rex can receive a mention in the article if appropriate. Vegaswikian 23:42, 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. --Core desat 01:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fire & Ice (Retail)

Advertising page, possible conflict of interest with author as well. Not quite sure if the store meets WP:CORP as well. Wildthing61476 15:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, its only advertising. Neither does it assert notability. --soum ^talk 16:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CORP (no independent, reliable secondary sources). The result is an entirely promotional, non-encyclopedic article. MastCell ^Talk 16:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Blantant advertising. Fails WP:Notability.--Edtropolis 17:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page is just blatant advertising. I recommend the creator reads WP:CORP.
- Comment This sounds fishy. If you go to User:Fireandiceretail it will rederect to the article. I think this is the company's work. J O N J O N B T
  - Nevermind.J O N J O N B T
  - The creator's been indefinitely blocked for inappropriate username. Wildthing61476 18:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That cross-namespace redirect should be nuked too? DMacks 20:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. I went ahead and removed the redirect. Wildthing61476 20:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very close to G11. Morgan Wick 20:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced and promotional. --Dhartung | Talk 01:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant WP:COI case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only is the chain non notable, the whole article reads like something one would find on a promotional leaflet.--Kylohk 14:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete.It is an advertisement for a store and nothing more. archiemartin

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

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

The result was Speedy delete (A7), WP:NOT and WP:SNOW also applies. soum ^talk 16:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BJ in House!

Creation of page for a TV episode that has not aired yet, plus using the wrong name of the episode (it's BJ in the House!). The episode is non-notable since it hasn't aired, and with the goings on for the TV Wikiproject, may never be created. Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 15:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Possible recreate after the episode airs. I'm not even sure what TV show this is supposed to be.--Ispy1981 16:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. as per CSD:A7. Non-notable epsiode.--Edtropolis 16:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: CSD:A1, no context provided. Doesn't even say which TV series it's an episode of (does the nominator know?). --RFBailey 16:19, 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 Speedy delete (G1), article is a hoax. WP:SNOW as well. soum ^talk 16:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jugis Patior Spirochaetes

Original research WP:NOR, or hoax, as some sentences are very funny "Colloquially known as the 'Shitting Death' " - for a disease first introduec 6. june 2007: no hits on Google. No way to (verify this. ) Greswik 15:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete Hoax--Ispy1981 15:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:HOAX. Found on June 6, diagnosed and published within a week? Yeah, right. Clarityfiend 15:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. As per CSD:G1,G7, and A7. Seems to be an attack page.--Edtropolis 16:19, 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.

Result was nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 01:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genie Backup Manager

~~Delete~~ WP:SPAM. The primary contributors seem to be (now anonymous) spammers, editing only this page and other backup related pages to link to both this article and to their website. Efforts to curtail this on both their talk pages & on talk pages of articles have failed. Article created May 20. PRODed for notability by Dynaflow that same day. PROD removed without comment. I PRODed it on June 12 for spam & that prod was also removed without comment and without any change to content. Karnesky 15:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 15:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not Spam, but needs improvement.--Edtropolis 15:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is pretty visible media coverage. But currently it is written in a promotional and pov tone ("offers a very straightforward interface and can be operated by both inexperienced and professional users"). It needs to be fixed. --soum ^talk 16:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it (barely) has enough coverage to be notable, and the PC World piece is reliable enough to use as a source. I worked a bit on cleaning up the language and removed the editions section.--Chaser - T 17:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think that your cleanup is appropriate. I'll withdraw my delete. Unless others see problems, it can be speedily kept. After further review, Genie claims that the Washington Post has a review of their product. If anyone has a citation for this, it should be added to the article. --Karnesky 19:24, 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.

Speedy closed as uncontested prod. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 00:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Malkiewicz

non notable actress, article has been tagged as non-notable for nine months with no change, and prodded for 5 days. ornis 15:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And the prod is due to come off today, so shall we let the process there spin out? RGTraynor 15:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until prod is fulfilled.--Ispy1981 15:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see I misunderstood, I thought it was fulfilled. In any case I don't think her fame is going to skyrocket in the next few hours. ornis 15:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From now on, don't take prods to AfD even if they've been up for 10 days unless they've been removed. They're supposed to be deleted once they've been fulfilled, making AfD unnecessary, even if the admins might be slow. A full month, then you can AfD it. Ispy1981, is your keep a contesting of the prod? Because it could be construed as such. Morgan Wick 20:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My Keep isn't a contesting of the prod, it was a contesting of its listing for AfD. I checked the article. Doesn't look like the subject is in a hurry for notability. Sorry for the confusion--Ispy1981 21:03, 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. --Core desat 01:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get Rendered!

Local school contest, non-noteable, does not cite references, no secondary sources or independant coverage. ^{SkyIsFalling 15:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

Weak Delete. I got 7.8 million hits on Google.--Edtropolis 15:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only pertinent ghit is for the event's homepage. Fails WP:NOTE--Ispy1981 15:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the event doesn't seem to have had a significant coverage and reliable sources associated with it. -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN local school contest. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:57, 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 keep. --Core desat 02:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Campbell (revivalist)

Non notable, scottish preacher. ornis 14:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. as per nom. 846 hits on Google.--Edtropolis 15:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even ignoring the silly notions that someone who died two decades before the World Wide Web was invented will necessarily be widely documented thereon, counting Google hits is not research. Research involves actually reading the articles that the search engines turn up. Uncle G 17:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the various things on the World Wide Web, including this biography, that Edtropolis overlooked above when counting hits instead of searching for sources, this person is the subject of a 17-page biography in ISBN 0310246636. He is also discussed on pages 177–178 of ISBN 0310362717. The PNC appears to be satisfied. Keep. Uncle G 17:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep assuming Uncle G adds what he found.DGG 20:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep - The British do not use the word "revival" for every minor evanglistic campaign, only for events involving a mjor turning of peopel to faith in Christ. The last such in Britain was the Hebrides Revival. This covered a smaller area than the Welsh Revival, the previous event about whcih the word is used. Duncan Campbell was the principal leader of the Hebrides revival and is most certainly notable. I have added a further reference, a paperback biography of 190 pages, with an endorsement on the backcover from Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Certainly not a mere NN preacher. I will try to expand the article when I find time, but will have to reread the book first, having not read my copy for a well over a decade.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 15:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep per Bsnowball, preferrably along with creating of a notable and referenced Lewis Awakening article. -- Futurano 09:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I have today substantially expanded the article, and in doing so, I have removed "notability" and two "stub" tags. I have included a section on the Lewis Revival, and would suggest that it should for the moment (at least) be created as a redirect to Duncan Campbell. Peterkingiron 15:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well researched article that clearly shows the subject's notability Jack1956 20:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this please, good referenced article on important religious figure.--Sandy Donald 22:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having seen the expansion made by peterkingiron, I withdraw my vote to delete.ornis 00:06, 18 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 redirect this duplicate article to Afemai. I encourage editors looking at that article, in turn, to remember that AFD is not a cleanup service, and also to do their homework, looking for sources to see whether the article can be cleaned up, before even considering AFD again. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination, and User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage. Uncle G 16:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFEMAI

Originally listed this as CSD for nonsense as the text is almost unreadable in sections. Then after rereading the article, I did find some meaningful content which might be worth keeping (despite there being no sources), so I removed the CSD. In any event this article looks like a draft of an essay that a child wrote. Listing it here to get a consensus as to if this article is worth keeping, deleting, or perhaps merging with something else. Rackabello 14:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. as per CSD:G1.--Edtropolis 15:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't abuse the speedy deletion criteria. This is not patent nonsense. Uncle G 16:21, 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 keep, mainly since Richard had the best argument.--Wizardman 00:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir William Mount, 2nd Baronet

Reason No events of notability shown - existing and getting married does not pass WP:BIO possible redirect to Mount Baronets. Vintagekits 14:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Edison 16:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge I think it would be better to have all the shorter articles merged into Mount Baronets, but the decision should be made by the group working on British peerage based on the guidelines they created on who gets automated coverage. In the USA we give auto-notability down to the level of mayor. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, but this guy aint a peer or a mayor.--Vintagekits 19:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete We do not give autonotability to the mayors of small towns; and this does not even assert that he was a Justice of the Peace, which is less than a Mayor. But why not just merge and see what happens? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets criteria of WP:Notability. Needs improvement.--Edtropolis 19:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Which criteria does it meet? None that I have ever read! According to a member of the Arbitration Committee and the Peerage Project The presumption of notability for peers has never rested on them being peers in itself, but rather on the fact that up until 1999 most hereditary peerages earned you a seat in a national legislature, and members of national legislatures are presumed notable. Baronets have no such claim, and individual baronets must attempt to meet WP:BIO as individuals], so baronets are not automatically notable. --Vintagekits 12:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think we need to merge, because i cannot see how to justify keeping it if nothing more can be readily found. It's a shame in a way, because a thorough search might find well find something. The gentry usually did something to occupy their time. For all I know he might have been a notable foxhunter :). DGG 20:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failes WP:BIO & WP:N, there are no sources, much less several independent ones; there is no assertion in his bio that he did anything but marry, have kids (must have to have a grandkid) and was a Lt. Col. in WW2. Well, notability is not inherited at this low level of aristocrat; being a Lt. Col. in WW2 is not notable; being the grandfather of an MP doesn't make you notable, and marrying and procreating don't make one notable; what's left? Carlossuarez46 00:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Richard Arthur Norton. JJL 03:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a baronetcy is a hereditary knighthood. A first baronet will be automatically notable - otherwise he would not have been thus honoured. For a second (or subsequent) baronet notability needs to be established on the basis of what he has done, not who his father was. Peterkingiron 23:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Partly per Richard Arthur Norton, partly from him being High Sheriff of Berkshire Edward321 18:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - After checking the Gazette today I note he appears to have been High Sheriff of Berkshire appointed in 1947

Comment, excellent, however unfortunately that is in no way a notable position.--Vintagekits 14:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's an article on High Sheriff of Berkshire, which say several editors disagree with Vintagekits' opinion on the notability of the position. Edward321 18:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, how do you make that out? OK, if you consider the role of High Sheriff of Berkshire to be why do you tell us why! this will give everyone a good laugh.--Vintagekits 18:59, 17 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. Sr 13 07:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M.W.A.

Written as dicdef, and appears to be a neologism. Only Google hit for "my wallet's allowance". Unint 14:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete db-nonsense--Ispy1981 15:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, dicdef neologism. Does not meet the definition of patent nonsense but arguably a WP:SNOW candidate. Morgan Wick 20:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- pure, concentrated rubbish.--Mike18xx 06:47, 18 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 redirect to Stronge Baronets. The history will be left alone so any relevant information can be merged to the main page. JoshuaZ 01:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir James Stronge, 2nd Baronet

Reason No events of notability shown - existing and getting married does not pass WP:BIO possible redirect to Stronge Baronets. Vintagekits 14:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per nomination. Edison 16:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge I think it would be better to have all the shorter articles merged into Stronge Baronets, but the decision should be made by the group working on British peerage based on the guidelines they created on who gets automatic coverage. In the USA we give auto-notability down to the level of mayor. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a Baronet is not a member of the peerage and doesnt get any powers like peers did.--Vintagekits 17:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets criteria of WP:Notability. Needs improvement.--Edtropolis 19:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, According to a member of the Arbitration Committee and the Peerage Project The presumption of notability for peers has never rested on them being peers in itself, but rather on the fact that up until 1999 most hereditary peerages earned you a seat in a national legislature, and members of national legislatures are presumed notable. Baronets have no such claim, and individual baronets must attempt to meet WP:BIO as individuals], so baronets are not automatically notable. --Vintagekits 12:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Gentleman of the Privy Chamber, Deputy Lieutenant, DCL and Baronet. Part of a series of articles, which it adds to.--Counter-revolutionary 22:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N and WP:BIO, there's no assertion that he did anything noteworthy: so he was a gentleman of the Privy chamber (note capitalization unless he was working for the Ottoman government), sounds impressive on this side of the pond until one reads the article to see what that means: "The gentlemen of the privy chamber were servants to the Crown, who were to wait and attend on the King and Queen at Court, in their various activities and diversions" in otherwords, a butler, go-fer, with a picky client; there is no assertion that these were few in number (on the contrary a half dozen of these blokes were seconded to wait on ambassadors) or that he held that position for a noteworthy long time; a Deputy Lieutenant of a county or two sounds less impressive - a deputy usually means a secondary position as does a lieutenant, when combined... Reading that article (unsourced as it is), shows that the position is merely "one of several" deputies to the Lord-Lieutenant (a position this guy never held) of a (in this case) Northern Irish county. So, in the US seems equivalent to the assistant to a county executive officer: cuts ribbons on new shelters for abandoned dogs, sewer treatment plants, etc. Not notable. Carlossuarez46 01:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you look at the rest of the article about the Privy Chamber, you see 'they were empowered to execute the King's verbal command, and without producing any written order; their person and character being deemed sufficient authority.' That's quite a bit more than being a gofer. Edward321 19:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep full agreement with Counter-revolutionary. JJL 03:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- all Baronets are automatically notable Astrotrain 08:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stronge Baronets. Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO - titles do not confer notability, JPs & DLs are low-level functionaries - DCL is a qulaification. The series is aristocruft, and a walled garden - Tiswas^(t) 19:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a baronetcy is a hereditary knighthood. A first baronet will be automatically notable - otherwise he would not have been thus honoured. For a second (or subsequent) baronet notability needs to be established on the basis of what he has done, not who his father was. In this case, notability is marginal at best. the best solution is to merge into Stronge Baronets. Peterkingiron 23:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect This was really unnecessary as it has already been determined in numerous afds now that Peers, Baronets or any other type of noble who have very little notability except their title should be redirected to the relevant page for that title. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 02:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete and redirect to Stronge Baronets. Deputy Lieutenants in each county are plentiful as are minor courtiers. Having one's father die when one is 18 and building an extension on ne's home are hardly indicative of worth, merit or notability. Giano 11:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Counter-revolutionary. Edward321 19:32, 17 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 delete, it's a copyvio. Ryan Postlethwaite 07:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bossaball

Game created in 2003, possibly not notable. Originally nominated for speedy deletion. Procedural nomination - no vote. - Mike Rosoft 14:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just plain spam. ExtraDry 14:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a hell of a lot of fun. Delete as WP:NN, no WP:RS ~~and product spam.~~ --Evb-wiki 14:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - Most of my issues have been resolved. It still needs reliable sources, especially if they're out there. My searches turned up advertisements, lots of them. --Evb-wiki 16:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Urrr ... I take it no one's researched this? There are 55,000 hits on Google, and the first ten turn up an article on the ABC website. I've also got nine hits on Google News from Spanish language sources [17]. Ravenswing 15:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 15:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and add sources For a non-notable sport, there sure are a lot of references. Apparently played internationally.--Ispy1981 15:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems like a very legit sport. Has specific equipment, good photos, and lots of google hits. Plm209^{(talk to me • contribs)} 16:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. As per Ravenswing.--Edtropolis 16:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Does it meet the speedy keep criteria? Morgan Wick 20:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it doesn't. Definitely a Keep though. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Please keep in mind that AfD is not a vote, but rather a process to reach a consensus; it is considered proper to state your argument as well, and simple "keep" votes may be discounted when determining consensus at the end. I encourage you to read WP:AADD for more information.ExtraDry 23:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: I'd be more sanguine about lecturing folks about AfD process were I to have more of an argument, with more fact checking, than "just plain spam." Ravenswing 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: I didn't state policy as I thought it was obvious from looking at the article, but I'll expand if you wish - it passes WP:NOTE and WP:V and while the tone leans a little towards advertising, that's a fix it issue more than anything else. It certainly isn't pure spam. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mine is backed up by the content guideline WP:ADVERT. ExtraDry 00:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because it is a bad article now does not mean the topic is not notable. Morgan Wick 01:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but spam can and should be deleted regardless of how notable the product being advertised is. --Evb-wiki 04:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wrote the original article. I can see why you might consider it spam. I removed the external links to the bossaball website. About notability : Googling gives me 69900 results [18]
  - Comment: Hmmm ... it's getting a bit deep in here. Upon what criteria are you basing this opinion that this article is spam? The notability of this sport isn't in question, however recent its invention. So ... let's examine the article. There's a paragraph on the rules of the game ... check. There's a paragraph on how it is played ... check. There's a paragraph on how it was founded and where it is played ... check. Could someone explain to me how this differs from the articles on any other sport, no matter the longevity? Ravenswing 12:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also has copyright violations
Scoring on the inflatables is worth 1 point. Scoring on the trampolines is worth 3 points. Hitting the bossawall (= the rings around the trampolines) doesn´t count as a score, so the rally continues.
is taken from [19] here. ExtraDry 11:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wrote the original article. I agree. I rephrased the paragraph.
Deja-vu - The logs do not appear to show it, but this has been around and deleted previously - Tiswas^(t) 16:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it needs sources though. It may be a new sport, no doubt being heavily marketed, but even the cynic in me cannot ignore reliable sourced news article. - Tiswas^(t) 16:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the original article. I rephrased "Rules and Music and Sports" to avoid copyright violation of www.bossaball.com. About every phrase that can be considered copyright violation has been rephrased now.

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

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

The result was: Consensus to redirect to Digital library; former content is available here for anybody to merge, if desired. (Early close.) - Mike Rosoft 07:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual library

Admittedly old terminology, replaced nowadays by Digital library. The lengthy passage can be summerized "Some companies put relevant resources on their websites to help clients" with a negligible specific example (that does not resemble a library [20]). This is also one of the targets of spammer user:artdhtml. trespassers william 14:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little useful content; I'd say that the simplest solution would be to redirect the article to Digital library. - Mike Rosoft 14:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, this is a case for a merge/redirect, not a delete. --Itub 14:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Digital library. --soum ^talk 16:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is fine by me. (There is no "Articles for Redirection" page or something like that, right?) trespassers william 16:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, because if you want to redirect an article, you do it yourself. Morgan Wick 20:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Article pretty much says it. No need to explain the old term really. OSborn 18:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - As per nom.--Edtropolis 19:23, 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 keep. Wizardman 00:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Walter Stronge, 6th Baronet

No asertion of notability provided in the article. Existing and getting married fdoes not pass WP:N or WP:BIO - possible redirect to Stronge Baronets Vintagekits 14:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per nom. Edison 16:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge I think it would be better to have all the shorter articles merged into Stronge Baronets, but the decision should be made by the group working on British peerage based on the guidelines they created on who gets automatic coverage. In the USA we give auto-notability down to the level of mayor. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a Baronet is not a member of the peerage and doesnt get any powers like peers did.--Vintagekits 17:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete We do not give autonotability to the mayors of small towns; this baronet was a Justice of the Peace, which is less than a Mayor. But why not just merge and see what happens? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - JP, Deputy Lieutenant, soldier and Baronet. Part of a series of articles, which it adds to.--Counter-revolutionary 22:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 23:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N and WP:BIO, he was a Deputy Lieutenant, which as I point out in my comments in the Afd for Sir James Stronge, 2nd Baronet is a mid-level officer at a county-level - i.e., not notable. He was also a justice of the peace; which is less than a high court judge; according to our article justice of the peace, which unfortunately contains no reference to what duties/powers this chap would have in Northern Ireland, had he been in England and Wales these gleanings are useful in determining whether the position makes one notable: "No formal qualifications are required" and when sitting as usually a threesome as a magistrate's court, "they decide on offences which carry up to six months in prison", sounds like something less than a municipal court judge in the US, and in US parlance usually connotes the power to marry. Again, an office without qualifications having a petty scope of power, held for an unknown length of time doesn't make you notable. As to his "title", notability is not inherited at this low level. Carlossuarez46 01:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Counter-revolutionary. JJL 03:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Baronets and Lieutenants are notable people Astrotrain 08:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, According to a member of the Arbitration Committee and the Peerage Project The presumption of notability for peers has never rested on them being peers in itself, but rather on the fact that up until 1999 most hereditary peerages earned you a seat in a national legislature, and members of national legislatures are presumed notable. Baronets have no such claim, and individual baronets must attempt to meet WP:BIO as individuals], so baronets are not automatically notable. --Vintagekits 12:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Stronge Baronets. See my comments on two previous baronet nominations. Service as a JP may well have been for a considerable period. WE do not elect judges in Britain, but JP is the lowest category. Peterkingiron 00:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make a redirect to Stronge Baronets most counties have several deputy lieutenant and JP are two a penny - alo at that time these possitions were usuall handed out to those with a title rather than on merit or suitability, they certainly were not recognitions of acheivements Giano 11:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wasn't under the impression Wikipedia was a meritocracy. --Counter-revolutionary 11:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does anyone have any more details of his military career? Given his DOB, there may be active service?? Kernel Saunters 13:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted to Captain in 1883. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Counter-Revolutionary. Edward321 21:03, 17 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. --Core desat 02:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of New Order covers

Delete - I was hoping that someone would in the last week take a look at this list and clarify what information it's trying to convey, because the bulk of it I have no idea. Regardless, a number of recent AFDs has pretty clearly established that the fact of one artist's covering another artist's song is not in itself notable. If the cover version is notable it can be addressed in a discography for the cover artist and/or an article for the song. Otto4711 13:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, and the fact that we don't need yet more listcruft. Pedro | Chat 14:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete [sarcasm] Wow, if this can be made, I'm gonna rush right out and create a list of Jethro Tull covers [/sarcasm]. Seriously, listcruft. Some of the examples (not all) may be placed in the New Order article. --Ispy1981 16:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above, plus it's WP:OR and appears to have become a place for everyone to list their mate's band who happened to cover a New Order song in their garage once. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As almost all the artists in the list are not notable (in the Wikipedia sense), there isn't really a case for including them in any of the song articles. Pedantic note: And Ceremony was technically a Joy Division song, although N.O. recorded it. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 02:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "The following is a list of cover versions of New Order songs." Yes, and...? WP:NOT to the nth degree. María (críticame) 12:35, 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 No consensus. Based on the arguments, I would recommend a merge to Stronge Baronets, but I'll wait for someone else to do this. Walton^talk 16:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Stronge

No events of notability shown - existing and getting married does not pass WP:BIO possible redirect to Stronge Baronets. Vintagekits 13:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Edison 16:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge I think it would be better to have all the shorter articles merged into Stronge Baronets, but the decision should be made by the group working on British peerage based on the guidelines they created on who gets automated coverage. In the USA we give auto-notability down to the level of mayor. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a Baronet is not a member of the peerage and doesnt get any powers like peers did.--Vintagekits 17:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete Another JP, which is less than a Mayor. But why not just merge and see what happens? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - JP, Deputy Lieutenant, barrister and Baronet. Part of a series of articles, which it adds to.--Counter-revolutionary 22:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Deputy Lieutenants and Baronets are notable people Astrotrain 08:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, According to a member of the Arbitration Committee and the Peerage Project The presumption of notability for peers has never rested on them being peers in itself, but rather on the fact that up until 1999 most hereditary peerages earned you a seat in a national legislature, and members of national legislatures are presumed notable. Baronets have no such claim, and individual baronets must attempt to meet WP:BIO as individuals], so baronets are not automatically notable. --Vintagekits 12:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stronge Baronets. Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO - titles do not confer notability, JPs & DLs are low-level functionaries. The series is aristocruft, and a walled garden - Tiswas^(t) 19:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Stronge Baronets. Peterkingiron 00:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Stronge Baronets. Deputy Lieutenants and JPs and barristers are two a penny. The former two were jobs handed out to baronets and their like at that time they are no idication of worth, merit or notability. Giano 11:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware Wikipedia was a meritocracy. --Counter-revolutionary 11:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - An interesting conflation, but nevertheless fallacious. Wikipedia articles are indeed judged on their merit, and the notability of their subject matter is often a product of their merit, but not an indicator of, nor a precursor to it. - Tiswas^(t) 11:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of articles is indeed judged on something, perhaps it's merit, but the subject matter of the Article itself cannot be judged on merit, as that would leave many subject areas apparently non-notable. --Counter-revolutionary 11:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Further conflation. The notability of an article is not at issue (let's call this meta-notability - e.g., the Bill Frist article is notable, due to media coverage of the article.) It is the notability of the subject matter that is contended. Merit is not a measure if notability, although it may be an indicator or precursor of it. Conversely, notability is not necessarily an indicator or precursor of merit, although it may be so. There is a correlative, not causal, link, between the two. - Tiswas^(t) 12:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deputy Lieutenant of County Armagh is notable position. Edward321 21:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, This is a new claim on wiki, the Deputy Lieutenant of County Armagh is a purely ceremonial role can you explain exactly why you believe that this role give automatic notablity?--Vintagekits 21:18, 17 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. --Core desat 02:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Torrens-Spence

Captain is not a notable rank and there is nothing else in the article which shows that this person notability. Vintagekits 13:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Keep. In a country that is notoriously stingy with its military decorations, being decorated three times is notable. As far as I'm concerned, any British person who has received three military decorations is inherently notable for their actions. In addition, he later became a Lord-Lieutenant, which also makes him notable. -- Necrothesp 15:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Everything you said is pure WP:OR and the last thing the British establishment is "stingy with its military decorations" - infact they hand them out like confetti, also the decoration he got wernt exactly the Victoria Cross. Finally, he was not the Lord Lieutenant he was the Lord Lieutenant of Armagh which is about as notable as being the man with the biggest toe in Ballymena!--Vintagekits 15:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is one Lord Liuetenant per county, he was the Lord Liutenant in Armagh.--Counter-revolutionary 22:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As, Lord Lieutenant, he takes precedence over all other officials in that county. Astrotrain 16:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go on give us all a laugh - tell us what he does.--Vintagekits 17:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you had bothered to read my post before you responded in such an unpleasant manner you would notice that I said "as far as I'm concerned". In what way is expressing an opinion in an AfD original research, any more than "Captain is not a notable rank and there is nothing else in the article which shows that this person notability"? Try reading the policy before you sling links to it around. "They hand them out like confetti" is utter insulting drivel and merely shows your complete ignorance of the British military and honours system. The DSO was at the time the next highest combat decoration after the VC. I said he was a Lord-Lieutenant, not the Lord-Lieutenant - I am fully aware what a Lord-Lieutenant is thank you very much. Finally, (particularly re your comment on my talk page) try a little civility. -- Necrothesp 16:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Did I say you said he was the LL, I was simply pointing out that he wasnt because by linking directly to the LL article you could have given the impression that he was.--Vintagekits 17:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- All Lord Lieutenants are notable as they hold a position of honour and represent the monarch in their county. Astrotrain 16:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, please remind the readers what power that ceremonial position of Lord Lieutenant of Armagh confers!?--Vintagekits 16:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Power has nothing whatsoever to do with notability. Notability is just that - whether someone's been noted by reliable third-party sources. It has nothing to do with "power". There are many, many notable people who have/had no power whatsoever. --Charlene 20:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep One newspaper article is presented with a detailed writeup of his career and accomplishments, a refreshing change from articles only supported by directory listings of peerage genealogy. There appears to be another source, but unclear what it is purported to show. A nice military career is described in some detail. Better than a "born, got married, inherited title, died, preceded by, succeeded by" article. Possibly one sided and POV, since a good encyclopediarticle might include criticisms. Smacks of a memorial article. Edison 16:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, anything else he might have done, being Lord Lieutenant of Armagh is notability, pure and simple. Corvus cornix 17:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a successful attempt to improve the standard of these articles--& glad that we have at least established that LL are notable. DGG 21:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable for mililtary career and Lord Lieutenancy, and the sources are there.--Counter-revolutionary 22:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there was also no attempt to discuss notability before nominating for AfD.--Counter-revolutionary 22:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment !voted Keep above because he did something signiicant in his life and it was adequately referenced, not because he was granted a title some claim to be ceremonial. Inherent notability of Lords Lieutenant is not really established by this AFD, but if one is otherwise notable he should certainly have an article. Edison 23:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some say the Queen is ceremonial. Ceremony has nothign to do with notability; whether it is, or isn't. --Counter-revolutionary 23:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is quite a leap to compare this LL title with the Queen, who is a constitutional monarch, and a head of state. It seems a bit of a Straw man argument and still does not establish that this afd shows a particular title makes the holder inherently notable. Edison 19:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable both for military career and Lord Lieutenancy. Does it matter that he was "only" a Captain? For example, nobody suggests that Winston Churchill's page be deleted because he was not of high military rank. All Lords Lieutenant are notable by definition, surely. TamB

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 23:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced and notable for the military decorations, (openly contemptuous though Vintagekits may be of those who fought for our freedom not all Wikipedians share his disdain for such things), and for his rank as Lord Lieutenant. "During the Swordfish attack in Taranto harbour, he torpedoed one of Italy's newest and largest battleships, the Littorio, sinking her in shallow water. He was awarded the DSC for this action." If that's not enough to make him notable by Wikipedia guidelines then it's the guidelines that are wrong. Nick mallory 01:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think it's contempt for "those who fought for our freedom"; it may be that an Irish Wikipedian may feel that a British functionary who served as a British government official in Ireland before independence is not notable solely by virtue of being British. If so, it's not a neutral point of view. --Charlene 04:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. And who on earth said he was notable just for being British? He's notable for his achievements. What Vintagekits actually did was express contempt for the British honours system and by extension the British military and their courage, falsely (and insultingly) saying that military honours were handed out "like confetti" (thus implying that Torrens-Spence's honours were worthless and irrelevant). Can you really blame British editors for being unhappy about such an uncalled-for anti-British POV statement? In addition, note that Torrens-Spence was an official in Northern Ireland, which is still part of Britain, so Irish independence is irrelevant. -- Necrothesp 19:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - certainlyn notable. Peterkingiron 00:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Snowy Keep Nomination is so inaccurate that it leads one to question if nominator even read it. Article subject was Captian of several different vessels, including an aircraft carrier. Recieved multiple military decorations, as a pilot sank a battleship and crippled a cruiser. Squadron commander, test pilot, part of naval staff. Commandant of the Ulster Special Constabulary. Commanded County Armagh Battalion as a Lieutenant Colonel. Lord Lieutenant of Armagh. High Sheriff of County Armagh. (I could go on.) Edward321 21:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - maybe you should have read the article when it was nominated!--Vintagekits 22:00, 17 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 and redirect to Dorney Park & Wildwater Kingdom. Existence is not notability, and this is not a speedy keep candidate. There's no mergeable information that would be worth mentioning in the park's article. --Core desat 02:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Mouse (Dorney Park)

Appears to be an non-notable roller coaster. Almost every amusement park has some sort of wild mouse coaster and there's nothing here to suggest this stands out as a notable coaster. Metros 13:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. This roller coster does exist.--Edtropolis 15:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not the point of this nomination. I'm not saying it doesn't exist (I've actually ridden this coaster before) but it's not very notable. Metros 15:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because something is "true" does not make it encyclopedic. Morgan Wick 20:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Speedy" Delete. Nothing special about this roller coaster. (Love the way the trivia section repeats what the rest of the article says.) Clarityfiend 15:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dorney Park & Wildwater Kingdom. Existence is not notability. Corvus cornix 17:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge does not deserve its own article.IP198 14:37, 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 snowball delete hoax `'юзырь:mikka 22:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hengwah

Tagged for speedy and contested. I declined the speedy because it doesn't meet the threshold of patent nonsense in my opinion. It is however an unverified neologism that should be deleted, so I'm listing it here. Isotope23 13:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hengwah the Nom. (I may have to start using this word, though). Nothing on the Google. Unreferenced. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 13:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hengwah to that!--Isotope23 14:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This looks like an attempt to popularize a neologism by claiming ancient origins for it. --Metropolitan90 14:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ASAP as utter nonsense, before the politicians get wind of it. A word that can mean whatever you want it to has to be kept out of their hands (I mean lips). Clarityfiend 16:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced claims. Remember, "hengwah" spelled backward is "hawgneh" Edison 16:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find this in any reputable dictionary or other linguistic source.--Rossheth | Talk 19:11, 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 --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 06:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scenic Railway

This appears to be a non-notable roller coaster. It existed for 17 years in the early 1900s and I see no notability that carried through from that era. Metros 13:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Dorney Park.--Edtropolis 15:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G7, no assertion of notability. RGTraynor 15:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Dorney Park as suggested. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. IP198 14:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Scenic railway" is a common term, and should probably not redirect to Dorney Park. --NE2 23:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed: No redirect.--Mike18xx 06:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are also others with the same name: Image:Luna Park Melbourne scenic railway.jpg for instance. --NE2 23:43, 18 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. Sr 13 07:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of artists who have covered ABBA songs

Delete - as with many deletions of lists of artists who have performed other artists' songs, it is not inherently notable that an artist did so. If a cover version is particularly notable then mention may be made of it in a discography article for the artist and/or in an article for the song. The notable information from this article, on tribute bands and tribute albums, has been preserved at List of ABBA tribute bands and List of ABBA tribute albums. The remnants should be deleted. Otto4711 13:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up.--Edtropolis 20:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Worth mentioning in discography articles, but a little bit pointless as a separate list.--Phil500 (Talk / Contribs) 02:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. All lists of artists who have covered insert artist here's songs automatically fail [WP:UNENC]] as far as I am concerned. A1octopus 18:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 'em all before they breed.--Mike18xx 06:57, 18 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. --Core desat 02:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Jihad Foundation Organization in Mesopotamia

Unreferenced, badly-done conspiracy article for al-Qaeda in Iraq built on weasel phrases and hate and extreme distrust of mass media and official statements (appeareantly, all mass media are part of the "corporate media's" disinformation campaign) HanzoHattori 13:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guy's attitute is:[21] Quote: "The associated press is a huge corporation, they can easily propagate misinformation" (it's Reuters and AFP too, and all major newspapers and TV networks as well).

If you look on his talk page,[22] he was warned several times to stop vandalising al-Qaeda-related articles, but he just did not.--HanzoHattori 13:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if he reverts the proper AQI article again: it's this one.[23] --HanzoHattori 13:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Nick mallory 13:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Speedily) redirect to Al-Qaeda in Iraq (plausible rendition of the group's name), and protect. - Mike Rosoft 14:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is the group's official name. There is no "al-qaeda" in "Tenzheem Qa'adah al-Jihad fi bilad al-Rafidayn." If you want to see a non existant "al-qaeda", go right ahead, but the official name should be used for the title. Those who ask for deletion are motivated by their biased non neutral point of view over FACT. Also this thing is not a vote. - Lft6771

I'll thank you not to second guess my motivations, pal. Nick mallory 14:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Provide justification for deleting this article, you provided none. So your recommendation is based on your personal point of view. This is not a vote, but contribution of ideas of what should be done based on fact, logic, and reason. -Lft6771 14:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge: per Mike. It's a longstanding naming convention that we call things the names by which they are most popularly known in the English-language world. You don't see the main article being named "Rhode Island and Providence Plantations," but that is the legal name of the state. RGTraynor 15:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As of protecting the articles, take a look at this[24] too (very related). "There's-no-al-Qaeda" stuff + bunch of quite unrelated (and misleading: "himself was never Al Qaeda", to quote) stuff on Zarqawi and also the war in whole for some reason. I'm kind of tired of playing with our friend Latuff. --HanzoHattori 16:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I think "TruthSeeker777"[25] may be related to "Lft6771": [26] - he has the same obsession (before his move, there was a page on AQI alright, covering also it's origins as Tawhid) "ThruthSeeker" had the original page renamed to Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad. (Also, it would be nice if someone explained me the mystery of what and from what article did I appearently "COPY AND PASTE" there exactly, because I don't remember anything like that.)

Delete as a blatant WP:POVFORK, riddled with original research and unattributed synthesis. If there are reliable sources which dispute the attribution of the name and administration of this group, they may be placed on the existing article page. --Dhartung | Talk 02:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the original article the other is the POV fork. This is the older article. -Lft6771 16:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dhartung. It seems that such organization simply does not exist. This article is misleading.Biophys 02:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah - I just did the google check[27], and it's true. This name is not used AT ALL. --HanzoHattori 06:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Search for the Arabic text version of the name, NOT the english translation. [28] This group does exist and does not call itself "al-Qaeda" but the Arabic version of the title of this page. -Lft6771 16:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? This is English Wikipedia. No one ever used this name. In the entire world. Only you. Can't get worse original research than this - it's impossible. --HanzoHattori 17:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - POV fork, one and the same organization as Al-Qaeda in Iraq; they should be one article, and this is a POV fork, so there's nothing to merge. The Evil Spartan 17:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Strong delete - per link by Hanzo. The organization name doesn't even exist. At very least, this brutally fails WP:V. The Evil Spartan 17:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article exists at Arabic wikipedia: [29]

Should that article be delted? Of course not. That is what this group is called and all content related to it should be added to this article. This article has been in existence since May 14. HanzoHattori began the POV fork on June 12 over a preexisting disambiguation page. -Lft6771 17:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me guess: you wrote this Arabic article too? "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" search returns 591,000 hits and "al-Qaida in Iraq" further 317,000 (for example, phrase "Al-Qaeda in Iraq claimed" 13,600[30]). Other names (all listed in the article alright) much much less - for example, the Arabic version of "Tanzim Qaidat Al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn" only 142, and "Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers" (the correct literal translation) only 196. Which is thousands time less. And yours - literally no one, just you and you alone. Latuff: People are telling you how the Wikipedia works, can't you really stop ignoring everyone? Are you unreformable, really? When I tag the article with "citation needed" and "original research", your acts of simply removing all of them won't make this problem go away - you HAVE to provide sources for all your claims when needed. What kind of sources? Listen to what people tell you: yes, the dastardly "corporate media" and such. Same thing about tags, and all other things I'm really tired of telling you by now. --HanzoHattori 18:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork. --MichaelLinnear 22:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline to show and prove that this page is not a POV fork and that there is no jusftification for this page to be deleted:

24 June 2004: The "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad" Page Created [31]

19 July 2004: The "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad" Page is Developed [32]

24 October 2004: The "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad" Page Before Tenzheem Qa'adah al-Jihad fi Bildad al-Rafydayn (Organization Foundation the Jihad in Lands of the Two Rivers called "al-Qaeda in Iraq" for some reason) Appears [33]

10 December 2004: A picture of a group standing in front of a banner with the words "Tenzheem Qa'adah al-Jihad" (Organization Foundation the Jihad or The Jihad Foundation Organization) is added to the "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad Page". (New Page is not created for this new group, but content for both began being added to the "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad" page) Also, the unsourced statement that the group "Jama'at al-Tawhid al-Jihad" has changed its name to "al-Qaeda in Iraq" has been added to article. [34]

23 August 2005: "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal Jihad" article moved to "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad" [35]

27 September 2005: "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad" renamed/moved to "al-Qaeda in Iraq" (note: justification for page move is based on an unsourced statement. Content for two groups begins being added to the same article.) [36]

14 May 2007: After the "al-Qaeda in Iraq" (formerly Jama'at al-Tawhid al-Jihad) Page being developed for about two years with content for three different groups being jumbled into the same article, "al-Qaeda in Iraq" Page is moved back to "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad" with goal of seperating the content into 3 different articles (with 1 new one being created) [37]

14 May 2007: A new page "The Jihad Foundation Organization in Mesopotamia" is created with content taken from the original "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad" relevant to the group "Tenzheem Qa'adah al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafydayn" ("Organization Foundation the Jihad in Lands of the two rivers" or "The Jihad Foundation Organization in Mesopotamia" and also called "al-Qaeda in Iraq" for some reason which makes no sense to me.)

13 June 2007: HanzoHattori marks the "The Jihad Foundation Organization in Mesopotamia" Page for deletion. [38]

14 May 2007: A disambiguation page for the term "'al-Qaeda' in Iraq" is created for "al-Qaeda" linked or associated groups operating in Iraq. [39]

31 May 2007: The "Al-Qaeda in Iraq (disambiguation)" Page is renamed "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" because the"(disambiguation)" part was considered superfluous. [40]

12 June 2007: HanzoHattori blanks out the "al-Qaeda in Iraq" (disambiguation page) and begins adding content for "Tenzheem Qa'adah al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn" ("Organization Foundation the Jihad in Lands of the two rivers" or "The Jihad Foundation Organization in Mesopotamia" and also called "al-Qaeda in Iraq" for some reason which makes no sense to me.) which already has an existing page for it called "The Jihad Foundation Organization in Mesopotamia" which he marks for deletion (the page this AfD is for). [41]

-Lft6771 00:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe you have said it yourself up there: this page was created from the content of another page, directly (which is a violation of GFDL). There should only be one article: the original. We can deal with the misuse of the Al-Qaeda in Iraq page separately; don't you agree? The Evil Spartan 01:01, 17 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 to Condorcet criterion and keep as a redirect. Note that this is a special form of "keep". Note also that merges and redirects are editorial matters, an AfD may recommend but not mandate them, and future editors may undo them or move the redirect elsewhere (although consensus should usually be sought first, as the AfD indicates a degree of consensus for the merge and redirect. In this particular case some of the key information is unsourced and may be OR, so I will be placing it on Talk:Condorcet criterion so that it may be incorporated when and if sourced. DES ^(talk) 20:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Majority alternative

Delete. This article is superfluous and misleading.

This article is superfluous, because the term "majority alternative" is only a new term for "Condorcet winner". But Wikipedia already has articles on the Condorcet criterion and on Condorcet methods. (Wikipedia also has an article on Condorcet winners, but that article is only a redirect to the Condorcet criterion.)

This article is misleading. The article says: "An alternative (e.g. a candidate) which, if compared with each of the other alternatives, in each case is preferred by a majority of voters is called the majority alternative (or majority winner)." Therefore, it seems that the sole purpose of this article is to establish the term "majority winner" for "Condorcet winner". This is a violation of WP:OR, WP:POV, and WP:NEO. Yellowbeard 13:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Condorcet criterion. Possibly a candidate for traswiki to Wiktionary but would need a re-write first. CitiCat 13:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The term "majority winner" usually refers to the majority criterion rather than to the Condorcet criterion. Therefore, I would prefer a redirect to the majority criterion. Yellowbeard 21:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not superfluous because it poses other questions and delivers other - quite interesting - results.

Whereas "condorcet criterion" deals with the problem of aggregating individual preferences, "majority alternative" argues with a - still very simple - model of the real voting process, including for instance assumptions about voters' behaviour as maximizing their utilities.

If one would merge both articles, for the reader it would be difficult to grasp the fact, that both approaches answer quite different questions.

Eberhard Wesche 15:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't contain anything that cannot be incorporated into the Condorcet criterion article. I guess that there are millions of possible motivations / heuristics / interpretations / approaches for the Condorcet criterion; but I don't think that each of them needs its own Wikipedia article. Yellowbeard 21:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article seems to be trying to make a point that might be valid, but the wording is unclear, ambiguous, and abstract, and the article introduces what appears to be an unneeded theorem. I'm in favor of eliminating the article and hoping that the contributor can add to either of the Condorcet articles a better-worded paragraph that clarifies the point. VoteFair 19:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please tell me which words are unclear and ambiguous? You say that the theorem is unneeded. In my opinion it shows, that some elaborated methods of voting are unneeded, when - if combined strategic voting is possible - they all have the same outcome: the majority alternative as the only point of stable equilibrium in the cooperative game of voting according to majority rule.Eberhard Wesche 22:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge The article contains some new information that is not in the Condorcet criterion article. The idea about coalitions, for example. Redirect to Condorcet criterion and integrate the information. doxTxob \ ^talk 00:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to create a new article „Condorcet winner“ and to have a Redirect to it from „majority alternative“ (or vice versa).

A merging of “majority alternative” with the existing “Condorcet criterion” or “Condorcet method” is not recommended as shown by the following example.

In “Condorcet criterion” plurality voting is classified as not complying with the Condorcet criterion.

In contrast to this, the outcome of plurality voting is an existing Condorcet winner, when coalitions are allowed and each voter acts rationally. Eberhard Wesche 08:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you say that plurality voting always chooses the Condorcet winner "when coalitions are allowed and each voter acts rationally". Even if your assertion was true, it can be incorporated into the Condorcet criterion article or the Condorcet method article and doesn't need its own Wikipedia article. Yellowbeard 09:54, 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 'redirected to Légion d'honneur (which the apparently more common Chevalier de la Légion d'honneur already redirected to). Non-admin closure. Serpent's Choice 13:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chevalier de Légion d'honneur

superceded by 1000x more common "Chevalier de la Légion d'honneur" gHits=451,000 versus 421. Wikid77 12:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect This really isn't worth an AfD, in my opinion. --Canley 13:16, 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.--Wafulz 13:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STR3DI32

Article about a computer program created by the author of the program. Reads like an advertisement. Fails WP:N as it has no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Itub 12:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as failing WP:NN and WP:COI as well, this article being just about the sole Wiki activity of User:Vgsbox. It reads like an article submitted to a scientific journal (and so possible copyvio), complete with the usual turgid passive voice padding. RGTraynor 15:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCould someone in chemistry see if the program has been used and written up by other than Prof. Box? I like the article, but in Google I see only a couple of hundred hits and they seem to be heavily populated by the writings of Prof. Box, the program's creator. It has been out there for over 20 years, so there has been time for its impact on the field to be evaluated. Edison 17:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Google scholar gives 7 results, all of them from Prof. Box. --Itub 17:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article is about both the earlier and the current name, & goes back to 1986, I checked in Web of Science, and did not find any additional ones using the word in either the title or the abstract. DGG 21:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I am a computational chemist, I know nothing about this program. I merely comment to User:Vgsbox that now is the time to add some references that are not to the home page of the code or to publications of the author and editor of this article. If that is done, it may be kept. If that is not done, it will be deleted. There are conflict of interest issues here and there are lack of independent sources issues. --Bduke 13:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. VSEPR theory still is, and will remain, the most important tool available to all chemists, at all levels, high school to research university, for the prediction of the structures of covalently bonded molecules. No other model has so far been developed that has the unbelmished success rate of VSEPR theory. There are very few, if any, programs that fully implement the principles of the VSEPR theory. Moreover, there are very few, if any, programs that implement VSEPR theory in a quantitaive fashion. STR3DI32 does this. Thus STR3DI32 is a valuable tool in chemistry and its existence should not be stifled. If the real question here concerns whether the program works or not, then I can only encourage you to look at the work that has been published in peer-reviewed journals, and to try it for yourself.

However, if the thrust is to deny readers the knowledge that this program exists, and to effectively censor this molecular modeling program because it is not molecular orbital based, then I cannot do anything except to remind us that "science" cannot thrive if any valid idea is not made available to all of science. History has shown this. There is a growing body of knowledge that expresses some unhappiness with the way current MO theory is applied in organic chemistry. This will not go away by censorship. Remember the history of benzene and phlogiston. Vgsbox 14:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue is certainly not one of censorship. We are not out to keep "The Truth" from the eyes of Wikipedia readers. The question is whether this apparently interesting and useful program has received substantial coverage by multiple independent and reliable sources, such as article by authors not tied in someway to the creator of the program, in such venues as refereed scientific journals. This is not a site to promote one's wares. Edison 19:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agreed, and certainly the creator can (or should, anyway) appreciate that as is the case with the peer-review system in place in science, Wikipedia operates on a system where it is immaterial what the creator writes about a subject, but quite vital what other people write about it. Surely the creator must know of others who have written in reliable sources about this model ... and if he cannot think of any himself, then this theory isn't so notable as all of that. Beyond that, the worst we can possibly do is scarcely to wipe this theory from the face of the Earth. All that will happen is that it will not be in Wikipedia. RGTraynor 20:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Feel free to delete the article. Vgsbox 21:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the way to go at this time is to delete the article but edit the paragraph in VSEPR theory on this program to be more NPOV and give an external link. It would then be still mentioned on WP. The lack of sources independent of Professor Box is the real concern, not as others have said, censorship. --Bduke 01:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google scholar search found no secondary sources regarding this software: it found seven papers, but all were by the program's author himself. —David Eppstein 20:37, 21 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. --Core desat 02:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queer Pagan Flag

A symbol for GLBT pagans that seems to have been designed by the creator and only substantial contributor to the article. There doesn't appear to be any verifiable evidence that this flag has actually seen use as a notable symbol by any groups, unlike the Rainbow flag and company; the article states that it was "first flown" at a 2006 parade, and the article was first created in early March of that very year. A Google search reveals only 7 unique mentions aside from Wikipedia and mirrors, suggesting that this may be something made up at the pride parade one day. Krimpet (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:COI and because Wikipedia is not for things I made up before a parade one day CitiCat 13:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:N; never heard of it and cannot find any sources for it. Carlossuarez46 01:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources to establish notability? Delete it. -- Kesh 02:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate info.--Edtropolis 17:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the LGBT WikiProject talk page. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HangOn. Found one source, an English (and Queer Studies) professor that has the flag on his university website. [42] Most likely doesn't establish notability enough for WP:N, esp as a separate article, since he's not a group. Also agree with possible WP:COI issue as above. However, lets not be hasty. There are Queer Pagans, there should be a flag. Somewhere. Possible include as an external reference in Sexual orientation and Wicca with that source, rather than as a separate article? Becksguy 09:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It would be wise to check that this isn't known by some other (more notable) name elsewhere. - perfectblue 13:54, 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, of the speedy variety (A7). Daniel 08:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West Sussex Teachers' Association

Non-notable local teachers' union. The association has no notability outside the teaching community within the area it represents. Metros 12:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable, fails WP:CORP. --RFBailey 16:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable fails relevant notabilty standard. Davewild 17:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Yechiel Man 20:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article was deleted before (A7) on May 1 by Sam Blacketer (talk · contribs). The author of the article seems confused by this.
Comment I have no idea what Derek McMillan means by:

This page was AFIAK never deleted but it was the victim of a prank which attempted to redirect the reader to a page which it couldn't be redirected to. The ostensible prankster has been banned from editing Wikipedia.

but perhaps someone could explain something to him? He seems well-intentioned, but clearly a few steps behind. Miss Mondegreen talk 22:02, June 13 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 00:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. It has been speedied once before. I have decided to tag it to give the creator a chance to produce some secondary sources. However, I cannot find any sources and it also reads like an advert. If a good reason is not produced during the morning I shall delete it (if it hasn't been deleted before!). TerriersFan 01:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply See my comment above. I think the editor is confused or something. I left a comment on his talk page but no reply yet. Someone needs to explain whatever he's confused about...Miss Mondegreen talk 02:20, June 14 2007 (UTC) 02:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply ermm... if he outlines about what he is confused I should be delighted to assist. The two clear facts are a) the article was speedied before; and b) there has been some messing around with redirects to different spellings of the article title. HTH. TerriersFan 03:24, 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 redirect to . Has been transwikied, plausible search term, but the article contains nothing but "means", "refers to", and "is a term for". Wikipedia is not a dictionary.-Wafulz 14:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Squaddie

Unsourced dicdef article for a colloquial term. The article has been transwikied to Wiktionary and proposed for deletion; but PROD was contested and more dicdef added ("squaddy-proof", "squaddie mentality"). In my opinion, there's no point in keeping it here. Any further edits should go to Wiktionary. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 12:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A well known and well used term in the UK. Article requires a good clean up and some relevant references, but deserves expansion, not removal. Markb 12:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As per Nick mallory point below - delete this and I will expect to see Digger, Doughboy & G.I. deleted. I await the ensuing fury. Markb 19:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. (Of course that sounds odd in the context of this statement...) Morgan Wick 21:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not doubt that the term is well known; but it deserves an entry in a dictionary, not in an encyclopedia. --B. Wolterding 12:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A passing reference in soldier might be appropriate as it is a very well known UK term, bit wikitionary is the place for it. Pedro | Chat 12:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete and/or merge to Soldier. Dicdef (should already exist at Wiktionary though), original research, unreferenced.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article now has references to the BBC, the Independent, the Belfast Telegraph and the Guardian who all use it as headlines for articles about the life and experiences of 'squaddies'. Nick mallory 14:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe redirect to soldier and close the AfD.-h i s ^{[[User --B. Wolterding 06:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)talk:HisSpaceResearch|s p a c e]]} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 12:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very common term in the British Army and known in Britain as a whole. It can't be redirected to 'soldier' because it's not a synonym for that. It's a modern version of 'Tommy' really and there's a lot more that can be written about this. how about giving it five days rather than five minutes to allow people to improve it? Here's a BBC story on 'Squaddie couples' for instance [43] Nick mallory 13:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, you said it yourself. It's a term. I know it's very well known, often in a derogative fashion, but any information on "what a squaddie is" would be eactly the same as "what a junior soldier in the UK Armed Forces is". Hence merge or add into the soldier article (I agree a re-direct is inappropriate though). Pedro | Chat 14:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Presumably you're going to nominate Digger, Doughboy and G.I. for deletion as well then? After all the wikipedia article on Doughboy begins 'The origin of the term is unclear'. I'm not sure you understand what the concept is either. A squaddie isn't a junior soldier', squaddies can be much older than junior officers. It's a matter of rank and role and self definition, rather than age and therefore your suggestion is flawed. Nick mallory 14:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - With respect you have misinterpreted junior to mean young which is not the only defenition of the word I'm afraid. A squaddy is a soldier of the British Army. Alternative spelling - squaddie. Derivation is one whose life is spent totally as the member of a squad rather than as an individual. Hence, in non-military life "A squaddie mentality" means someone who prefers to spend their life being told what to do and not using their initiative. Squaddie is often a term used for someone pretty near the bottom of the chain of command and below whom no individual initiative is ever expected. Sometime used as a term of abuse, but usually worn with pride by a real squaddie. Take from dictionary.com - my bold. And with respect the argument "Because we have an article on X we must have one on Y, or because we have an article on Y we can't delete the article on X" has long been gone over and failed.Pedro | Chat 14:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wikipedia is not a source. You've just quoted a mirror of this very article as if it were a source. Uncle G 17:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle G, you've missed the point. Let's take the quote direct from wiki then. Nick was arguing that I was wrong in my statement regarding the word junior as he took it to mean age - whereas junior also has a meaning of "below". I was clarifying the bit in bold - the fact that it comes from our own article means Nick was making a circular argument. Verifiability is to do with article writing and sourcing, not debating wether an article should stay. Cheers. Pedro | Chat 16:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to British Army. Doesn't need its own article. -- Necrothesp 15:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A note about this AFD has been left at the British military history task force. Leith p 16:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Merge and redirect to British Army as per Necrothesp. Nothing here to merit a seperate article but a redirect should be retained as it is a plausible term to search for. Davewild 17:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely Strong Keep. As said above-- would you delete G.I.? More evidence for the Americanocentric bias of the en.wiki. And "dicdef" is an extremely poor motive for deletion, anyway. Rhinoracer 20:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Hardly "Americanocentric". I'm British, ex-British Army and a military historian and I voted delete. "Squaddie" is just a slang word - it has no encyclopaedic qualities, no interesting origins (its origins are blatantly obvious), no unusual usages, it's just a word. It doesn't need its own article. -- Necrothesp 22:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to comment on two points here. First, dicdef is a valid reason for deletion, or rather for a transwiki process (which has occurred here). See WP:DICDEF. Second, I certainly did not nominate the article for "Americanocentric" reasons. --B. Wolterding 08:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seemingly notable word, thus needs an article, right? G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 00:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Words need a dictionary entry rather than an article on Wikipedia (cf. WP:NOT#DICTIONARY). Notable topics would warrant an article; but everything that could be told here is already contained in the British Army article.

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

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

The result was keep and move to emergency hammer. Resurgent insurgent 16:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bus mallet

I see this article as being inappropriate, it is basically about a small hammer-like object found on buses to smash the glass in case of emergency, is it really necessary. It could be merged into Bus but I dont even think thats necessary. The Sunshine Man 16:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete - Completely lacks citation, zero Google hits on "bus mallet". The item referred to is a tool carried by emergency personnel to smash car windows and cut seatbelts, though it goes by a variety of trademarked names. If there isn't already an article on it, this sure isn't the place to start. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 16:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This doesnt qualify for speedy deletion per CSD. The Sunshine Man 16:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. My mistake. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 16:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete unless sourced. This is a popular consumer item as well. The pictured brand seems to be the "Lifehammer", but I found others in the US and UK under other names. "Escape hammer" is probably the most common name. These show up in consumer magazines and TV segments, so it's probably a sourceable article. --Dhartung | Talk 23:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move. I've seen these things on every single bus I've ever traveled in within the boundaries of Finland. I do think WP should mention them somewhere. Not at Bus mallet, though --Agamemnon2 07:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a tool. We have articles on hammer. Granted a bus mallet (or whatever its called) is not as notable as a hammer, still it seems a commonly distributed tool. I'm not sure what the name of the article should be -- "Escape hammer" maybe? Herostratus 14:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as it stands, naming the article "Bus mallet" is wrong on a couple of counts. Firstly, the term does not apepar to be used as searching for "bus mallet" in quotes returns nothing relevant in google. Secondly, there are no reliable sources provided and tagging it as unreferenced may help, but the article being misnamed means few edittors may come across it. Not also that this device is used in vehicles other than buses. As far as I can tell, "windshield hammer" is a better name, but still does nto appear to be correct. -- Whpq 17:02, 11 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 12:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but change title As emergency hammer or something. I have to say I can't really see a need to delete it. These aren't just on busses - I've seen them on nearly every train I've been on too, so can't just merge into bus. Pedro | Chat 12:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further - a google on "emergency hammer" looks helpful.....Pedro | Chat 12:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a valid encyclopedia subject, and move page to emergency hammer or similar.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename - The term emergency hammer appears to be a very prevalent term for the device, and a sourced article would probably be possible. -- Whpq 13:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my above, a quick dig into Google shows that Emergency Hammer is the correct term for this device. Further there is plenty of resource regarding it's use. In view of that I am now going Strong keep but rename to Emergency Hammer. Pedro | Chat 13:35, 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 deleteWafulz 14:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gods of Demential

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mixer Jaëxx

Delete: Non-notable rapper per WP:N. Article is all vanispam, references are all self-promo, releases are all Internet download singles. De-prodded by anon with no explanation. WRK (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

True; this article is respectable. Yet, the rapper is non-notable; and no sources. It seems to be a good article candidate; yet with all these necessary things missing... Meldshal 42 11:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1.The article states that he is currently preparing a debut album, so the subject is not even published yet. 2.The tone of the article indicates a conflict of interest. 3. Fails Google test and WP:NOTE applies. 4. Frankly the whole article is borderline WP:SPAM Pedro | Chat 12:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the foregoing comments. --Evb-wiki 12:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. As per CSD:A7.--Edtropolis 16:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7; quite aside from all the accurate comments above, this is an unverifiable mess. RGTraynor 16:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-notable rapper. Article is all vanispam, references are all self-promo, releases are all Internet download singles."-WRK

The quote left by the user WRK is false and should not be a valid point to delete the Wikipedia written about the underground recording artist Mixer Jaexx. WRK's quote shows no evidence that the article is vanispam or self promotion, and doesn't state where in the article Mixer Jaexx is referenced to as a "Rapper". Without the proper facts and quotes within the article, WRK's Statement should be considered no more then a disrespectful opinion. The term "Vanispam" is not described in WRK's quote "Non-notable rapper. Article is all vanispam, references are all self-promo, releases are all Internet download singles."-WRK All WRKs quote states is "Article is all vanispam" WRK does not state which article he or she is talking about and does not show and evidence as to were the term "vanispam" is present in the article written about Mixer Jaexx. Calling the article Wikipedia article on Mixer Jaexx "vanispam" is by no means a valid point to delete the wikipedia article on Mixer Jaexx. The accusation WRK stated in the quote "Non-notable rapper. Article is all vanispam, references are all self-promo, releases are all Internet download singles."-WRK, about how the article is nothing more than self promotion also shows no evidence that Mixer Jaexx him self wrote the article. The fact that the only links available at this point in time are to his own personal websites, do not prove Mixer Jaexx wrote the article himself nor does it prove the links are self promotion. Mixer Jaexx.com, and Jaexx.com go to the same website. The website does contain some of Mixer Jaexx’s music, however the content of the site also has forums as well as artwork. Once again Mixerjaexx.com and Jaexx.com are the only sites at this point in time that talk about Mixer Jaexx, making it the only internet resource one could put on wikipedia. The fact that the links go to Mixer Jaexx’s website does not prove in any way shape or form Mixer Jaexx wrote the whole wikipedia article him self. Finally, the last statement in the quote from WRK, "Non-notable rapper. Article is all vanispam, references are all self-promo, releases are all Internet download singles."-WRK, stating Mixer Jaexx is "non-notable rapper" is nothing more than a disrespectful opinion towards the artist. The wikipedia article written about Mixer Jaexx states that Mixer Jaexx is a "Recording artist" and an "Underground Producer". The Wikipedia article also talks about the different genres Mixer Jaexx creates. Once again WRK has shown no evidence to prove the article is calling Mixer Jaexx a “Rapper". As anyone can see WRK was very blunt and very disrespectful towards the article written about Mixer Jaexx. The information WRK posted to get the site shut down is false, he shows no evidence on how any of his points could be valid. Again the statement Non-notable rapper. Article is all vanispam, references are all self-promo, releases are all Internet download singles."-WRK, is nothing more than a disrespectful opinion when looking at legitimately.24.22.240.76 23:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC) — 24.22.240.76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Like 99.99% of unsigned musicians, does not pass WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WIKIPEDIA!!!U R VERY BAD WEBSITE!!! FIRST OFF... and why do care about this dj he wants to get known in the world with his great music.. Non-Notable rapper?? DO NOT DELETE!!!!!!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.72.139.19 (talk • contribs) 01:37, June 14, 2007— 68.72.139.19 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Do Not Delete: I'm a good friend of this guy! What's the problem mates?! Yeah, this guy is so awesome, he produces and releases his music for free, is that so bad? If it is, ask yourself, WHY?! It's some of the best I've heard! Ever heard of DJs giving one of their mixes out for free? I do it! It's called self promotion, but people of the likes of you wouldn't understand that. The Sources may not all be there, but everything besides the fact that he is not a rapper and not releasing a debut album, is true! I don't understand the problem. These people put together a very respectable page for Jaëxx and the next thing you know you people are trying to delete it! It's time wasted for those, and knowing most people, it will come back! I say keep the page, it's very respectable, most of the information is true, and the guy really wants to get his name out there, and this is helping him. Why don't you guys do someone a favor for once in your boring lives, and keep the page up and help someone out with their dream.

Keep in mind that none of this is recalling to your deletion policy! The Deletion policy does not include any of what I have stated! Stop changing your rules just for one guy! It's pathetic. I know these rules!

Jaëxx, if by any chance you read this, or the guys who did the awesome job making this, Totally on your side! I don't see what their problems are!

Much Respect to...most of you, (Producer) AiliX— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.227.103.3 (talk • contribs) 04:04, June 14, 2007— 216.227.103.3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia operates on a policy of verifiability. It doesn't matter how well you know him, we need reliable sources to show us the facts. This is part of our deletion policy. You are the one asking us the change the rules for one guy. Wikpedia is not a place to advertise yourself or someone you like. You've given us no reason within Wikipedia's policies to keep this article, and several in your own words that show it needs to be deleted. -- Kesh 04:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as Vanispamcruftisement, fails WP:BAND. See above, anon's comments pretty much seal it. -- Kesh 04:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, and the supposedly supportive comments of AiliX above just confirm it. - fchd 07:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't have time to talk, but I think I understand why WRK and other "hardcore Wiki" users think Jaexx is a rapper. No, they don't know him or read the article or even listened to his music. A guy who came over to pick me up, I showed him the page and told him the mess that was going on, showed him the page and he said "Girl its cos of the african american babe he's with. They see her and think he's a 'rapper'."

I did not think of it before, but I think he's right, I think it's a racist stereo-type. Black girl, white boy: must be a rapper, huh? Jaexx has mentioned in blogs about producing and working for hip-hop artists but has never called himself, or his own music, hip-hop, so no one who knows of him thinks he's a rapper. Yet, these hardcore Wiki users, logging in probably hours on Wikipedia every day who, of all people, should read through every article they are about to try and delete, keep saying he's a rapper when nothing at all, at all, states that.

It does not look good for any of you either way. Either people are judging this guy based off of stereo-typical racism or they're judging this article without ever reading any of it, and just mirroring this "WRK" guy's thoughts of Jaexx being a "rapper". I have more things to say, like stating Wikipedia's actual article rules and about how some articles on some lesser-known DJs (not musicians, but DJs) have not been hassled like Jaexx has, or how the founder of Wikipedia himself says he has not problem with hundreds of Pokemon characters having their own articles (but must have a problem with Jaexx according to the Wiki's), or to break down these Wiki-peoeple's quotes to show how they are contradicting each other, or how on Earth people who spend their time on civil war, house of congress and foot ball articles are more experts on recording artists and producers versus people who are actual fans or are themselves...

But Wikipedia is not my life. So it will have to wait... This will give you all hours upon hours to do all your little research on new ways to try and justify your monstrosity you call a "User Driven Community". (Too bad, before I believed Wikipedia was our community.)

Indie Fan T.F.

Come on guys get a life.. I did not read all of the 'deletion policies' etc but how can you be so anal about it?!

Comment - with respect, this debate is completely related to the 'deletion policies'. - fchd 10:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note: for a nice example of hypocrisy, take a look at Mixer Jaëxx's comments on his own forum site. Referring to me as "this fucker", he pleads with his fans to "BE RESPECTFUL! There aren't little kids visiting Jaexx.com (well, there shouldn't be), but there are on Wikipedia. So, NO CURSING! I mean that... Also, be respectful of this fucker. Yes... he/she don't deserve it, but do it anyways. Show'em your better than this ONE person. Don't insult'em, don't call'em names..." Maybe he needs an article as the only person in the world that doesn't realize his own forum is publicly viewable. WRK (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's far from the only person in the world believing he has a constitutional right to a Wikipedia article and gets combative on a personal forum when it's threatened. The benefit is that by this time next week we'll all have forgotten about this fellow. By the bye? I just ran a Google check, and minus Wiki mirrors, Myspace pages and this fellow's own website, there are only twenty-one unique hits [44]. Anyone get the notion that we're being spammed by the bare handful of people who know who this guy is? RGTraynor 12:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bold textDO NO DELETEBold text I am not understanding what the problem is. The very small paragraph about this artist is far from controversial or inaccurate. Wikipedia is known extremely well for not beening a credible sorce, so why are they worried about an unknown artist. If anything he should stay up there to show that not all artists are worried about making a dollar to get their music out there. If the sight is worried about losing accreditation with the information on this site, then shut down! Everyone know this site has bad info on it. Lets not lose sight of what is going on. Read the article one more time, and try to find the problem:

~~Mixer Jaëxx (Pronunciation: ˈjāks), born 1981[citation needed] and raised in the Tampa Bay, Florida area, is an American recording artist and music producer currently residing in Tampa, Florida. Jaëxx is best known for producing his own urban and electronica music and releasing it to the world for free.~~ 11:59, 14 June 2007— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.239.231 (talk • contribs) 17:01, June 14, 2007— 70.246.239.231 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If that's what he's best known for, he doesn't satisfy WP:BAND nor WP:BLP. We have these very specific rules about what gets to be an article here, and you're not providing us with anything that would prevent this article from being deleted. This is not MySpace. Further, though you claim the article is "not inaccurate," you've provided no verifiable sources we can prove that with. We can't just take your word on any of this. -- Kesh 17:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, some people have made some logical inquires about the article, such as Kesh. It's been mentioned "verifiable sources". One of two things...

1, this article is not about anything but Mixer Jaexx, sharing his music for free and information about Mixer Jaexx, to whom the article is about. A reliable source is his own web site, which clearly states his own name, jaexx.com and mixerjaexx.com. I understand people want to try and protect Wikipedia by verifying outside sources, but that can be done via his own web site because his web site, among other things, is the server for hosting his files. Not all of us download his music directly from his web site. I for one include his songs on my P2P program, which all originally came from the jaexx.com server thingie. So when writing an article about a recording artist and producer who has a nice fan following mainly because of the fact he is sharing his music for free, referencing jaexx.com is absolutely a reliable source because anyone who questions the article's validity of this artist sharing is music for free can be verified immediately after visiting his web site. See, anyone can rip a song and put it onto a P2P network, but Jaexx is actually allowing downloads of his music from his web site and saying his are free to share on P2P networks or DJ at club or other things you really would to ask him.

The second thing, which I understand... How can we verify that Mixer Jaexx is Mixer Jaexx and not some 90 year old Chinese American woman? See, that's the problem right there. NO ONE is calling that into question, so it is a**-backwards to call for the beheading of this article. We don't care whether or not a Wiki admin expert on US politics or NHL, has not heard of Mixer Jaexx. You don't need to know him for us, his fans, to create an article for him.

I repeat... no matter how many hours a day you spend on Wikipedia, it does not make you an expert on topics which you are not involved with. Too bad no one has actually said anything who knows about music or about Mixer Jaexx. Oh wait! Yes people have, it's the one's the warning on top of the page is "warning" not to become involved yeah. Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

The person, Mixer Jaexx, who the article states has released songs and other information, is all verifiable easily. And no one is claiming that Mixer Jaexx is actually another person. So to the few, wondering if Mixer Jaexx is verifiable, yes... Why on Earth would there countless apon countless interviews about him when, which he has stated himself, he is turning down or postponing interviews until all songs from his album are released. And honestly we don't care about interviews, we care about how long we have to wait for new music from him.

There is so much disrespectful, rude and inaccurate garbage coming from some of these hardcore Wiki people... and I'm really sick of this, but it's time to go over Wiki's deletion policy that these Wiki admins are claiming states this article should be deleted.

Reasons for deletion

   See also: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion

Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following:

  1. Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising related subject)
  2. Content not suitable for an encyclopedia
  3. Copyright infringement
  4. Hoax articles (but not articles describing a notable hoax)
  5. Images that are unused, obsolete, violate fair-use policy, or are unencyclopedic
  6. Inappropriate user pages
  7. Inflammatory redirects
  8. Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources
  9. All attempts to find reliable sources to which article information can be verified have failed
 10. Newly-coined neologisms
 11. Overcategorization
 12. Patent nonsense or gibberish
 13. Redundant templates
 14. Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)
 15. Vandalism that is not correctable

1. Is not advertising or spam in any way shape or form, unless you want to call ALL articles on Wikipedia spam
2. Content is just as suitable for an encyclopedia as much garbage there is for Pokemon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_%28Pok%C3%A9mon%29
3. Is not copyright infringement, even though the image of Jaexx on the article keeps getting removed as "copyright infringement"
4. Hoax article, nope
5.Images are unused, nope, they're useable (just someone tell that to the admins)
6. Inappropriate user pages, nope, you don't even need a user page to create articles
7. Inflammatory redirects, none
8. Article information is all arriduted to reliable source (they artist's own web site, can't get much more reliable than mixerjaexx.com for Mixer Jaexx)
9. All attempts to find reliable sources have succeeded as they are clearly stated in the article, with references inside of his web site backing up information
10. Noelogisms? Not commenting on made up words...
11. Not over categorized
12 Not nonsence or gibberish
13. Not redundant templates at all
14. Subject does meet the relevant notability guidelines by comparison to other articles, including these DJs, lower on the food chain than artists and producers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dj_krmak

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DJ_Greyboy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DJ_Xclusive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dj_slouch

15. No vandalism at all

And also, ANYONE who wanted to express their views on this, can. Do NOT let them intimidate you with their giant "ATTENTION!" with a big red warning sign. This is a USER created article and when people want to express their disdain against Wiki-power users wanting it removed, they sure as heck can. Do not let this gestapo ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo ) type group keep you from expressing your views against their warrantless actions. (Your music policy is a disrespectful joke to underground and independent artists.)

Do you Wiki-powerusers think you're fooling us? We know this is a good 'ol boy system. Google searching the terms "corrupt wikipedia admins" brings up countless upon countless reports of abuse of power, such as this situation is here. One former "top 10 editor" of Wikipedia sums up the very scenario that we are all facing.

"Wikipedia’s faulty ‘central control’ means that making serious efforts there is akin to attempting professional writing, tossing it into a wastebasket full of somebody else’s notes, and hoping that it doesn’t get thrown away by an ignorant janitor with power-mad delusions of grandeur. I’m not trying to imply that janitors are stupid, but there are people who see it as their ‘job’ to go around cleaning up Wikipedia; unfortunately, they generally don’t know much of anything about the articles that they are editing. In other words, as described by Fuelwagon, “I imagine Wikipedia more like a couple acres of pretty flowers... run by some guys on lawnmowers.” Now, its true that Wikipedia does a fairly good job of combing out swear words and pornographic pictures (a task which one could probably condition laboratory mice to do)... however, when it comes to the critical editing process, the people in charge are neither qualified nor capable."

Apparently the situation we are facing is nothing compared to what others have dealt with. It's sad really... Before this whole incident, I was ignorant to the corrupt, abuse of power behind some people involved with Wikipedia. I guess it's better to know the truth this way.

Indie Fan T.F.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tronikfunk (talk • contribs) 22:33, June 14, 2007— Tronikfunk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

First, I would suggest you drop the rhetoric. There is nothing "corrupt" here, you simply misinterpreted Wikipedia policy. This is articles for deletion, which is a discussion about whether an article satisfies Wikipedia's two primary policies: notability and verifiability. Since Jaexx is a musician, we also take the guideline WP:MUSIC into consideration to determine his notability. In this case, we specifically refer to line 14:

Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)

Quite simply, Jaexx does not satisfy our policies yet. There are no verifiable sources quoted about him, and nothing to show he is notable in the music field yet. By Wikipedia standards, that means the article is to be deleted. Just because other articles may exist for now does not mean we have to keep this one. (In fact, I'll likely go nominate those other articles tomorrow, when I have time to open AfDs for them.)

I'm sorry if you feel this slights Jaexx and other independent artists, but bands are deleted from Wikipedia every day for exactly these reasons. Take a look at WP:AfD and you'll see dozens of articles about musicians nominated for deletion, most of which will be deleted because they do not yet satisfy WP:MUSIC.

You state that there are "countless" interviews with Jaexx? Please, provide either links to the websites, or cite the magazine/newspaper articles so we can see them ourselves. And no, his own website does not count. That's what verifiability means: we have to be able to read, for ourselves, from independant sources about who Jaexx is and how he's important to the music scene.

As for your quote above, anybody can get on the Internet and say what they want. That's exactly why we have WP:V as a policy. This is not corruption, it's the only sane way to keep the encyclopedia from being turned into MySpace. The warning at the top of this page is because we often have problems when an article is nominated for deletion, that the fans will come to Wikipedia in droves and demand the article be kept, without concern for Wikipedia's policies.

Guess what? That's exactly what's going on here. People are demanding we keep this article on Jaexx against policy, and then claiming we're "corrupt" and not following our own rules. Please, take the time to read the policies I provided, maybe glance through the list of other articles up for deletion and see why this article currently does not have a reason to exist here. If you can provide us with multiple, independant sources we can verify Jaexx's notability with, then we'd have a reason to keep the article. -- Kesh 00:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete Hello from El Salvador, I do not see any reasons for that deletion, I'm a musician too, and what is if a fan wrote a bio about me, them he/she email me saying "hey look what I wrote about you! There's no copyright infringement or someone can tell me that Wikipedia is only for "Comercial" Artist ?? I think anyone who can contribute with any kind of art should not be despised by someone who don't like his art. If that is the point, I don't like britney spears so I should put her to a deletion discusion. Please help us to continue spreading the art and let the wikipedia be a true source of knowledge not a simple question-answer encyclopedia, thanks -- N.wolfwood— N.wolfwood (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I hate to repeat myself, but: this is exactly the point. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information. We don't put up articles on anyone and everything, only subjects known to be notable. Sometimes, things slip through the cracks. That's what this deletion process is for. Unfortunately, Jaexx does not satisfy our policy on notable musicians. Wikipedia is not a self-promotion tool. We're not saying we despise his art, we're just saying there's no verifiable information to show how he's important to the music scene. -- Kesh 01:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

___--Do NOT Delete--___ First of all, with some of the crap I've seen on Wikipedia, and alot of incorrect or incomplete information, I find it hard to believe that you peole who run wikipedia do a very efficient job of editing the content on what it posted. We all know that the internet is a great medium for both finding and giving information, sharing of music, ideas, pictures, finding wives/husbands etc. So why is there a problem with having a single page with information on a very talented person. The whole idea of Wikipedia is being a source of free information that is user friendly and can be customized by the user. If you delete this, then you should go through and really delete alot of other things on here too. I don't see the problem with allowing a very talented and honest producer featured on this site. It is just as viable as the rest of the information found on Wikipedia. I just don't see the harm in it. And if you even read what this person is all about, you would know that he is not a "rapper" like you say he is. Before you delete things, why don't you look into what they are referring to. As always, keep doing what you're doing, but don't delete this page. --Frostbyte— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.167.160 (talk • contribs) 04:53, June 15, 2007— 71.243.167.160 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Kesh, you've been a very respectful Wiki-power user, it seems one of the only ones who actually has READ the article and you are really the only person making a point. There are a lot of different things I can respond to, but at the very least say kudos to all the different supporters and fans of Jaexx (my friend and I were starting to feel we were alone). So I really can't get into it... but I want to correct a little typo which you got confused on Kesh.

"Why on Earth would there countless apon countless interviews about him when, which he has stated himself, he is turning down or postponing interviews until all songs from his album are released." I misspelled "apon" and left out a "be", it should be "Why on Earth would there be countless interviews about him". It wasn't being said there "are" interviews, it saying what Jaexx mentioned on his site. My bad. He is turning down, or more likely postponing interviews now. I mean the guy is different... I think in a great way. I confess the first time I've personally spoken to him was a few days ago, with one post on his web site (still doesn't mean I'm not a huge fan of his), but on his myspace page every single person that communicates with him, he responds to. Yet while at the same time, he says

"I'm not like anyone else on myspace. I don't have 10,000 "friends" on myspace, I only have a few because I'm only friends with people who actually interact and delete people who don't and ONLY care about self-promotion, popularity or exposure. The people I am "friends" with on myspace, though, I actually talk with and interact and have fun with. So feel free to add me and I'll drop you a REAL, non-copy and paste comment, but I will delete your *** if you don't show the same respect."

My friends have been added by "artists" who are nowhere near Jaexx's status but have 10,000 friends... That shows the character of Jaexx. See how different this guy is? I don't find it surprising at all that he is not engaging in interviews. In fact, honestly, for all we know... reading somewhere that he produces outside of "Mixer Jaexx the producer", he could be a producer for some big label or artist. Little known fact, he is or was an advocate against the RIAA and he may be trying to play that down more. He could be keeping "Mixer Jaexx" and his real name separate; one's producing for the mainstream and one's producing for the underground. (It's just a theory of mine, not in any fact factual.)

So when it comes to interviews and outside sources, he does not seem to even want the exposure. But we want information about him on Wikipedia, after all... he even mentioned not being too keen on all this information being supplied, but said this article is "for us, by us, about him". He really is the exception to this rule.

But, Kesh, you make a great point. The music policy of Wikipedia, which I understand not you or any other Wiki-power users setup, states it does not want 99.99% of unsigned artists. One bad thing, for Jaexx, that my friend remember reading somewhere that he is against signing onto a label for his own music (and is against creating a vanity "self-label"). There are managers and promoters and distributors (been doing my research) that can get him to superstar dome without being onto a label... I don't believe a label would allow him to freely share his music any ways, so that could explain it.

So, according to Wikipedia's music policy, he may never qualify (not being signed) no matter how big or well-known he is (yet fans will continue to have a problem with the policy). Kesh, it sounds like you don't have a problem with Jaexx (and a few other Wiki-power users)... It's the music policy you have a problem with, I assume. Some people calling for Jaexx's beheading on Wikipedia think the article is "respectable" and worthy, but this one policy is the ONLY thing dictating his article's execution.

Rather than fight against all of and many other artists that have come and past... Why not fight this one policy? I mean we're experts on Jaexx and his music and people like him. But YOU guys are experts on Wikipedia, so how come you can't fight to change the clear injustice this policy serves to respectable artists such as Jaexx? I mean he was so furious, he doesn't want to have anything to do with Wikipedia now. That's so sad, this should have brought him joy, instead, it brought him anger, because of some idiocy of people (calling him a rapper), but most the rest is because of the policy.

You guys are fighting us and him on the policy's sake. What's the policy ever done for you? It sure has made you guys look bad to us, and it's caused unnecessary stress to us and disrespect to Mixer Jaexx. Honestly this isn't just about Jaexx, but about preventing future artists and their fans from facing the same crap. Is this "our" community? Then prove it to the powers that be. (Otherwise, we're forced to believe the corruption of power is true on Wikipedia.) Indie Fan T.F.

*Reply: The reason that we're disinterested in "fighting" the notability and verifiability policies is that they are what distinguishes Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, from a free web host like Myspace where anyone can have a page. Shorn of the rhetoric, what you and your friends are doing is telling us Wikipedia shouldn't be what it was designed to do, based on the grounds that you like this guy and want us to promote him. That's on a par with him doing a public performance of his work and some of us barging in and forcing him to play Beethoven or Mozart tunes instead, just because, well, we want him to do so. In the end, what Wikipedia is is what Jimbo Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation have set up, and we're playing by those rules. If Jaexx feels "disrespected" by that (not that he and his supporters haven't disrespected us, descending to curses and direct insult), that's regrettable, but he can always take his resume to the Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta to see what their take on his notability is. RGTraynor 12:57, 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. --Core desat 03:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph James

The prod was removed from the article without addressing the notability issues of the article. Majority of the edits are by one editor making it look like a vanity project. No other Wikipedia pages actually link to it except one where there is a similar name, the rest are user pages. Badly fails WP:N and WP:V. MPJ-DK 10:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Comprehensively fails WP:NOTE. At present the article seems more like a list of wrestling moves, so can't be merged anywhere. Agree with the above - looks like vanity. Pedro | Chat 12:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Article fails WP:BIO.StudierMalMarburg 17:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Nikki311 22:22, 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. --Core desat 03:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

33 Portland Place

An unnotable address which could be anywhere, as it fails to give any more detail than that (some detective work reveals it to be in London). I have tried to speedy it but it was restored, so, fine, here it is to clog up AFD. Its purported claim to notability is that Lord Edward Davenport had orgies there. This information is already in the Lord Davenport article, and this article is both pointless and worthless. We don't have articles on houses where things happened, we have article on the event or the person, unless the house is notable in and of itself (e.g. 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, 10 Downing Street, and so on). Wikipedia is not an address book. Delete. Neil ╦ 10:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, echoes my thoughts exactly. Maybe the address could redirect to the Lord Davenport article? DarkSaber2k 10:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is part of an edit war involving the Davenport article. So this is essentially a fork. Kill it. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accept what you say about its original purpose, but the article as it currently stands could not be accused of being a POV fork. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very little digging shows Woohookitty is correct. Pedro | Chat 10:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was clearly not speediable. The property itself is very notable; it's not 10 Downing Street, but it's not 13/23 Nowhere Street, Boredomville, either. We may not have articles on houses where single events happened, but when multiple events (okay, at least two mega-super-notable events that I know of) happen there we have to stop and say, "Hmm, maybe this place is worth knowing about". I for one would like to know more about what happened to it before its High Commision days, how much legal wrangling occurred between Sierra Leone and this Davenport chap, and just what exactly it is that he's doing with the property now (it's widely-advertised as a venue for idle rich parties and corporate getaways). I could maybe see a merge with Portland Street or (at a pinch) Lord Edward Davenport, at worst. This doesn't need deletion; it needs expansion and watching. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was speedy worthy either if that means anything. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, you mean Portland Place, right? Portland Street is in Hong Kong. :p A merge might be okay, but I really don't see anything worth keeping. Neil ╦ 10:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. Ta. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this self-evident fork. I'd say it was speediable as an attack, but replacing it with a redirect would have been fine. I would have left the history deleted, though. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's potential here beyond a simple fork. The article as it is now (improved by Rowing88 (talk · contribs) and Yours Truly) could hardly be characterised as another shot in an edit war. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 12:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with nom about the serious non-notability of the subject. So it was the location of Some Guy's orgies ... well, everything happens somewhere. You would think the location where Kitty Genovese was murdered a great deal more notable, but in fact that spot doesn't have a Wikipedia entry either. Ravenswing 16:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: The scandal surrounding it's aquisation from the high commision of Siera Leone seems notablish. Could be merged and redirect to Lord Edward Davenport too. Martijn Hoekstra 16:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a mirror of everything in British tabloids. Or redirect to article on Mr. Davenport. Edison 17:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per nom. In addition to the nom's rationale, I had no search engine hits, so there is definitley not enough notability. *Cremepuff 222* 19:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See below comment - not being on the net does not mean something isn't notable. Neil ╦ 22:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with the nominator. Acalamari 20:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lots of places are only notable in connection with another story; if there were such an article, I'd say redirect to it. Carlossuarez46 01:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searching on the web turned up no sources so article is definitely not notable. Xtreme racer 20:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I agree it should be deleted (after all, I nominated it), I feel constrained to point out that just because something is not on the net, doesn't mean it isn't notable. There are millions of reliable sources that are not on the net (e.g., books, old newspapers, journals). Just something to bear in mind. Neil ╦ 22:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
note that I get about 900 results for "33 portland Place" on google. Martijn Hoekstra 08:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this appears to be a spin off from the Lord Edward Davenport article, surely it can be discussed in that article since it appears to be only notable because of him Bleh999 09:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
change my mind to Merge & redirect to Lord Edward DavenportMartijn Hoekstra 11:47, 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. --Core desat 03:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It Was Already Done 2wice

Non-notable album. "Artist" is a redirect page, "reviews" are hoaxes. Precisely zero Ghits. Contested prod. tomasz. 09:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as prod-er and per this: [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]. Goodnightmush^Talk 11:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax, also the 2007 purported album can go.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax, unfortunately, hoaxes cannot be speedied, though I wish they could. See also the AfD nom for Divided I Am, above, same hoaxishness by same editor. The artist doesn't seem to exist, either. The only Google hit for "Da Quick Entertainment" is to a myspace page. Corvus cornix 17:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See also "I'm Back...On Da Track". tomasz. 10:13, 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 keep.--Wafulz 14:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Down So Long

Unnotable SweetEscape88 07:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Spirit (Jewel album). --B. Wolterding 08:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was a hit for Jewel and got some radio play. GassyGuy 10:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the nominator for these Jewel articles is a vandal and has been banned.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is a single, that was relesed internationally, so I don't see how the nomination is valid G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 00:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but ok with merge - Merge isn´t a bad idea, but it seems notable enough to be a seperate article... ♠TomasBat 00:39, 21 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. Artist singles are typically given articles, and the nominator appears to be nominating articles in bad faith.--Wafulz 14:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Song

Un-notable. Redirect or delete. SweetEscape88 07:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge-ish - shove the limited extra detail into the main album article. If it was never released as a seperate single it hardly needs its own article. Pedro | Chat 10:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Pedro. GassyGuy 10:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator has been blocked for vandalism, including on Jewel (singer) article.[51] Possibly a bad-faith nomination. CitiCat 14:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. _{Non-admin closure} Ichibani _u^t_c 02:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foolish Games

Highly un-notable song. Was released as a single but has no sources and as mentioned, not notable. Suggest redirecting to Jewel (singer) or deleting. SweetEscape88 07:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was a top ten hit in the U.S. I think that's notable enough. Complaints about sourcing should be addressed, but not with deletion. GassyGuy 10:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator has been blocked for vandalism, including on Jewel (singer) article.[52] Likely a bad-faith nomination. CitiCat 14:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep. As per GassyGuy.--Edtropolis 15:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also as per GassyGuy. Lillygirl 07:39, 18 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. Single stub, spree of bad-faith edits by a banned user.--Wafulz 14:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephenville, TX (Jewel Song)

Should be redirected to Goodbye Alice in Wonderland or Jewel (singer) or just deleted. SweetEscape88 07:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Goodbye Alice in Wonderland. What little info is here can easily be contained there. GassyGuy 10:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As with other Jewel AfD's, nominator has been banned for vandalism. Morgan Wick 21:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge appropriate info to Goodbye Alice in Wonderland G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 05:17, 22 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. There are no reliable sources for this article. « ANIMUM » 20:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody But You (Jewel song)

Digital only single. Only sources are iTunes, and the iTunes is not a reliable source. Single isn't even notable enough to have it's own article. Suggest merging what little content there is to Jewel's main page or just deleting or redirecting. SweetEscape88 07:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable song and the majority of the info appears to be original research. GassyGuy 10:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The song is notable, but it's only on iTunes.--Edtropolis 15:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Referenced information can be merged with the Jewel article, but the song in itself isn't notable per WP:MUSIC. Appears to be original research. *Cremepuff 222* 20:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability established for this song. Acalamari 20:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As with other Jewel AfD's, nominator has been blocked for vandalism. Morgan Wick 21:13, 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. --Core desat 03:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-manship, -ship

nonnotable suffixen. Belong to wiktionary `'юзырь:mikka 07:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both -manship and -man are already included at Wiktionary, so no Transwiki necessary. --Dhartung | Talk 08:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung, although it looks like -man is already gone. Did you mean -ship? --Charlene 09:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. `'юзырь:mikka 14:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Wikipedia is not a dictionary. *Cremepuff 222* 19:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are all prefixes and suffixes non-notable, or is there some criteria for sorting this out. If the intent is to start a slow drip, drip, drip, of similar AfD's, I suggest you take this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics first. Dhaluza 17:39, 17 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. --Core desat 03:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewel's Country Album

Jewel has mentioned many many times that she plans on releasing a country album. However I donot feel that currently with the lack of information regarding this album that an article is really necessary. Couldn't this just be merged into her article? Sure her article is all clean and stuff, and adding this could make the page look messy, but couldn't someone just cleanly merge this into her article? And then when the time comes that there is enough information (and not just fan speculation) that an actual article can be created? Please support my nomination. SweetEscape88 07:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure speculation. No basis for an article. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball and all that good stuff. GassyGuy 10:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the nominator said please. No, just kidding. Actually, delete because the article is very crystal-ballish at this point. The intro sentence can be added to the Jewel article, and the rest scrapped. CitiCat 13:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment I must note that I have now found that the nominator has been blocked for vandalism including to the Jewel (singer) page. However, this AFD still seems logical. CitiCat 14:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete: per nom. While nom's string of AfDs on Jewel singles are unwarranted and blows holes through precedent, this particular AfD is sound. RGTraynor 16:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom. Jewel has never made a country album. Fails criteria of WP:CRYSTAL, WP:VERIFY and WP:Notability.--Edtropolis 20:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I actually have to agree with the nominator, despite the fact they've been blocked indefinitely. Acalamari 22:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but someone should make note on her page that she is actually making a country album.[53]~HJ ^[talk]@½ -08:36, 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 Deleted (G7 db-author) by Neil. EliminatorJR ^Talk 13:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Solobung Yubin

Could not find any reliable sources, only heresay based on the same two or three sentences. Original Research and rather hard to establish notability. --Latebird 07:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care to be honest. I created this about a year ago - I was trying to fill in gaps but if there doesn't appear to be any sources available then delete. However I don't think you should question notability when there are hundreds of such articles on other myths and cultures -its the fact there isn't any reliable online sources to back it up that is should be deleted. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 09:05, 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 keep. Sr 13 06:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incredibly strange wrestling

This is either a not notable independent wrestling promotion, backyard wrestling promotion, efed, or hoax. Nenog 06:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the federation is not a hoax, visit their website and see the massive amount of pictures from their shows, I've heard of it, I've read show results from the federation a long time ago. I'm not sure of its notability but it's not a backyard, efed or hoax. MPJ-DK 08:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Cleanup It has 5 non-trivial references, although I'm not familiar with any of the sources except the SF Chronicle (although I assume the Fresno and Willamette are those local papers). The advertisement tag was well placed as this does indeed read like a press release/promo for this group so would need to be rewritten for NPOV. There's no specific assertion of notability beyond the references themselves (i.e. the evidence of mention in other sources). An early sentence explaining why exactly this is a notable group would go a long way to strengthening this article, but until it's cleaned up, the article as it exists gives evidence that it has received coverage in several secondary news sources, and there it is. -Markeer 13:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Markeer is on the money here, it's got 5 references already so it's better off than 99% of the articles put up for AFD. If kept I'd be happy to work on cleaning it up and making it look less like an ad and more like an encylopedic entry, I'm just weary of putting too much work into it at the moment since it may end up deleted. MPJ-DK 13:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup of advert flavor. Edison 17:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't even consider myself a wrestling fan and I've sure heard of it. Frequent appearances at major music festival tours and involvement of Johnny Legend make this an easy keeper. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:29, 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 delete. --Core desat 03:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lethal Wrestling Alliance

This is nothing but a not notable independent, backyard or Efed wrestling promotion, combined with spam and/or vandalisms. Nenog 06:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete take your pick of cruftyspam or spammycruft. MPJ-DK 08:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sheesh. JJL 13:54, 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. --Core desat 03:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Championship Wrestling League

Not notable backyard wrestling promotion. Nenog 06:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Backyard wrestling promotions are almost never considered notable. This one does not assert any notability, an attempt to Google search is hampered by it's very common name (but none of the searches I could see were relevent). Lrrr IV 07:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete backyard feds as a rule do not belong on Wikipedia, this one hasn't achieved anytning that would even make me consider it's inclusion MPJ-DK 08:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Backyard federations are not only non-notable, they make a mockery of everything professional wrestling is. Hellswasteland 14:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. As per CSD:A7.--Edtropolis 18:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nominator. Backyard wrestling isn't notable - G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 22:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, per nom. Nikki311 04:13, 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. --Core desat 03:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paulding County Alliance Wrestling

Not notable independent promotion. Nenog 06:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable small time indie federation, doesn't measure up to WP:N in any way MPJ-DK 08:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree, non-notable. Hellswasteland 14:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Nikki311 04:16, 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. --Core desat 03:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wrestling Federation

Not notable independent wrestling promotion Nenog 06:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N & WP:V and is crystalballing big time about the "new" version - claims of "homegrown talent working for TNA or WWE" isn't backed up by names to make the claim even semi-verifiable. MPJ-DK 08:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At this point the article is a stub, and not a very good one at that. No notable wrestlers, and I agree with MPJ about the crystalballing. Hellswasteland 14:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and b/c Wikipedia is not a crystalball. Nikki311 04:12, 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 all. --Core desat 03:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United Championship Wrestling

Not notable independent wrestling promotion. Nenog 06:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are titles for a non notable promotion:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all non-notable local "once a month" federation, fails WP:N and WP:V MPJ-DK 08:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD A7, as a unremarkable company. Wildthing61476 12:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - I agree... All should be deleted. Non-notable fed, & non-notable wrestlers. Using the intitials of a notable company (Ultimate Championship Wrestling) to pretend they are credible. Hellswasteland 14:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, per nom. Nikki311 22:21, 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: Speedy deleted. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 08:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guruji4u

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Guruji4u

Totally unnotable website number29^(Talk) 06:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete & tagged as so, blatant advertising, totally un-notable Xarr☎ 08:31, 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 Keep Precedent setting as to whether Vice Chancellor position is sufficient for notability, most likely as the position at most Universities would have requirements exceeding that of WP:PROF anyway. Gnan garra 05:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Saunders (Vice-Chancellor)

Subject does not pass WP:BIO & WP:PROF There are no published secondary sources, He has not demonstrable wide name recognition or received significant recognized awards or honors. Only recieved the Centenary Medal which was only created by the Australian Government in 2001 to commemorate the Centenary of Federation of Australia, He was one of 15,841 people. So to sum it up Not Notable ExtraDry 06:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google the name 'Nicholas Saunders Newcastle' and no less than 100 articles will be found relating to this Australian educator. He has received wide press coverage (from no les than the SMH and ABC) since his appointment to the University of Newcastle due to his efforts to solve the financial crisis currently being suffered by this major tertiary educational institution. Prior to this position Nicholas Saunders had been dean of two Australian medical schools and had a distinguished career as a physician. Wikipedia has a list of Australian universty leaders (chancellors and vice-chancellors) as it presumably believes these are notable members of the academic community - if anything the article should be expanded.Castlemate 09:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Accomplished, but non-notable, medical academic. --Dhartung | Talk 08:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Keep per DGG below. --Dhartung | Talk 00:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not insignificant achievements as a medical academic, but certainly role in tertiary education, and in particular as a VC at a top university (there are only a couple of dozen unis in Australia, to put it in context), is enough to ensure notability. Recurring dreams 09:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Recurring dreams. A Vice-chancellor at one of Australia's largest universities will be easily sourced. A quick google search reveals a wealth of sources. A Google Scholar search reveals some details on authored papers. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 10:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The subject on the face of it seems notable, allthough the lack of WP:RS do not help the issue of notability. If appropriate references could be found then I could be swung to a full keep. Thewinchester ^(talk) 10:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Vice Chancellor is an important position which almost always follows a distinguished academic career. There are bound to be sources, in, for example, the Higher Education Supplement of the Australian. Some people have by far much tougher ideas on inclusion of academics than, say sports people or even politicians. --Bduke 11:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia's notability criteria is a joke when it comes to academics. --Fredrick day 11:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think he meets the exceptions to proving notability in WP:BIO or WP:PROF. The article does not establish those exceptions. Therefore, reliable secondary sources are required before he should be considered notable. Assize 12:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Still a delete. The references aren't independent of the subject, and the ABC reference is just an interview with him. Assize 11:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable for being dean of two medical schools and then a vice-chancellor of a major university. Notable for receiving the Centenary Medal which, despite what ExtraDry says, when it was was awarded to those in the academic field was awarded on the basis of their national or international impact in the field. Sources would improve the article, but the subject is still notable. The story of the budgetary problems and his attempt to solve them merely adds more notability to an article which is already over the threshold. David Newton 17:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. As per nom. Fails WP:Notability and WP:PROF.--Edtropolis 18:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment just to clarify what I hope everyone knows, Vice Chancellor equals a U.S. University President. The actual Chancellor has a ceremonial role only. DGG 21:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In fact, I did not know that. In the U.S. a vice chancellor is a relatively minor, often bureaucratic position, generally two levels below a president. --Dhartung | Talk 00:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I agree with Thewinchester - this person does seem notable (particularly as VC of the University of Newcastle) but the lack of reliable sources does weaken the case. --ElKevbo 22:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Chair of the National Health and Medical Research Council is sufficient. Let alone everything else.Ga rr ie 00:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am amazed that anyone might suggest that the Vice-Chancellor of any "real" university (open to a fairly broad interpretation) might not meet WP:PROFGa rr ie 00:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Me too, amazed. Note also that most VCs in Australia are now called "Vice Chancellor and Chief Executive Officer" and they are extremely well paid compared with even top Professors. --Bduke 01:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do note that usage of the term varies in the English-speaking world. example --Dhartung | Talk 02:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are article's about other university Vice-Chancellors that haven't had their notability questioned, such as the University of Sydney's Gavin Brown. In my opinion, this individual has made some important contributions to medicine in Australia. Loopla 02:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Compare with Glyn Davis currently the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Melbourne and that articles total lack of references - why is it not up for deletion. Castlemate 02:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment It is now. ExtraDry 10:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment And subsequently saved Loopla 15:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well done - Glyn Davis has been sorted out. Could somone be so kind and help improve poor old Nicky Saunders? Now, what about Steven Schwartz and Gavin Brown. Both are obviously notable but both have reference problems. Will ExtraDry call for their deletion?
  - Don't put ideas in his head! -- Necrothesp 10:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Vice-Chancellor in Australia is the equivalent of a US University President. The National Health and Medical Research Council is Australia's leading medical research body so being chair of that establishes notability as well. Capitalistroadster 03:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's President of a major university and has had a distinguished career. I don't think that makes him notable but we go by WP:PROF here, not my standards. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 19:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would ahve thought that a university Vice-Chancellor was notable in his own right. I assume that in Australia (like Britain), the Chancellor is an honorific sinecure, so that the Vice-Chancellor is in practice the head of the institiution. Peterkingiron 00:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would agree that a VC of a major university is automatically notable. -- Necrothesp 00:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, VC of a major Australian university is notable, as simple common sense should indicate. Lankiveil 10:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Ready for a speedy close, I think. The only two deletes are a/from someone who has so far nominated every Australian vice-chancellor in succession, and another who, as here, rarely gives reasons. DGG 07:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. ExtraDry summed up the policies excellently. Under WP:PROF he doesn't meet 1) isn't an expert in any field 2) isn't regarded as important by others in his field 3) no significant works published 4) no significant body of work 5) hasn't originated a new concept, and 6) the only award received is the centenary medal. Under WP:BIO, has no independent non-trivial secondary sources. As I said above, the only independent source is an interview given by him to the ABC. Apart from those problems, I agree that this should be closed as a keep, as I reckon it would be a nice article to have in Wikipedia even though it doesn't comply with the guidelines. Assize 12:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Then change the guidelines because they obviously don't work or at best they allow for trivial and vexatious calls for deletion by disgruntled editors. Could somebody please help with publications as there is confusion with this Nicholas Saunders and another Nicholas Saunders who seems to be big in Ice and Ectasy. Or are they the same person - after all one of our least favourite editors has at least two personalities! Surely it is time for WP:SNOW!
Comment Time for WP:SNOW?--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 16:31, 17 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. If the article isn't improved in a reasonable amount of time, it can run for AfD again. Sr 13 06:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Congress on Medieval Studies

This article doesn't show notability, scope of conference (are there other international mideval conferences? Are there not?), etc. This article needs drastic additions to meet wp standards. However, the reason I am putting this on WP:AFD is because I think it was only made as an ad for the conference, for when people search online for "international congress on Medieval Studies". If this is not the case, and people use this article, and people are planning on making it better, than by all means vote for keep. --Ceas webmaster 13:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are (I think) three major conferences: this one, the one in Leeds, and the Medieval Academy of America conference. If someone is googling for "international congress on Medieval Studies", they are probably looking for this one anyway, since it is directed to a more popular audience (lots of Tolkien and Harry Potter, and movie nights, and Terry Jones was there in 2005, for example). It is famous and important, if you are a medievalist... Adam Bishop 04:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I agree the article could use some expansion work, and I shall see about contributing at least some of it myself. I think that, it being the largest gathering of medieval scholars in the world, and being the site where a number of medieval organizations have an opportunity to get together for business meetings, gives it a minor notability. Munion 01:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though in remarkable need of wikifying. there will be sources, for people go there to publish things. DGG 04:20, 8 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, WjBscribe 06:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it just really needs some sources, doesn't it?-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, and "unsourced" has never been one of the reasons to delete. DGG 21:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak, weak keep. This is a major academic conference. But does it get non-trivial coverage from independent sources? There must be media coverage related to the Tolkien/Harry Potter aspects of the conference, at least. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have lately expanded the article and added some citations. Perhaps this will help alleviate some concerns? The major sources I could find include a couple newspapers, the Congress' website (including program and scheudle), and a number of blogs. Munion 18:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- the subject of the article is a strong keep: the Kalamazoo conference is a major part of medieval studies in America, its history, milestones, criticisms, etc. would make an excellent topic; plus there's no other place to merge this information to given that many small organizations have their national meetings there, and it's more important than everything else its organizing group does. However, the current text of the article does read far too much like an advertisement, so in that sense, I don't think deletion of the current form of the article would be a terrible loss for Wikipedia and its readers.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mscuthbert (talk • contribs) 02:38, 17 June 2007

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesús Barrero

No references, and the Spanish Wikipedia page for him makes no mention of Weird Al, let alone him being the official dubber. Only known for non-notable voice over work, according to a Google search for the name. Ryanasaurus0077 also made the "International Weird Al" article which has been deleted for the same reasons I'm nominating this. ~~ Gromreaper^(Talk)/_(Cont) 13:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable voice actor, the Weird Al stuff is probably all false too. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:18, 7 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, WjBscribe 06:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, and the lack of any mention of Weird Al material (about 75% of his listed work) on the Spanish page is fishy at best. fuzzy510 06:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Fails criteria of WP:Notability. Weird Al never mentions it in one of his albums.--Edtropolis 18:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even Stronger Keep. This is just another reason why I've turned activist and risked myself to speak out against these articles being deleted! --Ryanasaurus0077 13:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What does that even mean? ~~ Gromreaper^(Talk)/_(Cont) 06:10, 17 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. --Core desat 03:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Social Chair

Article is unencyclopedic: is about a position that is so varied among groups that an accurate article is nigh impossible. Also, this article purposefully restricts itself to Fraternities and sororities, when other social clubs and student organizations have similarly titled positions. —Scouter Sig 21:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum The article also lacks any sources, especially primary ones, and is an orphan. —Scouter Sig 21:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have you ever tried to get between a drunken frat boy and a keg? Not recommended. ~ Infrangible 01:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic. Lyrl ^Talk _C 23:56, 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, WjBscribe 06:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. As per nom. This should go to Uncyclopedia.--Edtropolis 15:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Does this meet one of the speedy deletion criteria? Morgan Wick 21:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete this is such a broad phenomenon that the article is endless, and in its current states it just describes certain forms of social chairs Sala Skan 12:08, 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 delete. Sr 13 06:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More (Black Eyed Peas song)

Appears non-notable. It was used in a commercial. It hasn't been released on an album, and it hasn't been released as a single (but it might be). No apparent coverage by third-party sources. ShadowHalo 06:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:08, 7 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, WjBscribe 06:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't appear notable, and the article can be recreated if at some point it does become so. GassyGuy 10:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Right now, it's not an official single or even, a song off their new album. All we know is that the song was made to promote Pepsi - this itself should not be a reason to write an article about. « hippi ippi » 12:18, 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 delete. Apparently not a popular subject of dscussion... Sr 13 06:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fighters Formula

Company is not notable as per WP:ORG- has not been covered by reliable, independant secondary sources. Note that a primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. This has not been the case with this brand. A google search [54] reveals primarily official sites and online retailers. Yankees76 03:20, 7 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, WjBscribe 06:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. As per nom.--Edtropolis 16:07, 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 – article is clearly advertising for this company without any mention of notability. - KrakatoaKatie 06:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbour group

The article generally comes across as advertising without much of notability assertion besides being one of a few in a niche market. I haven't found any sources to establish notability and the one source on the article seems pretty trivial (conducting business under an FDA regulation?). This was a disputed prod. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 06:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No case for notability of this business within WP:CORP is made in this article. The only reference is to the Code of Federal Regulations, which does not mention this business specifically. The article contains promotional language inappropriate for an encyclopedia article (e.g. services offer distinct benefits). - Smerdis of Tlön 14:31, 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. --Core desat 03:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saskatoon Heros Stadium

This article discusses a stadium that does not exist in Saskatoon. It is a very nice work of fiction, but sadly is just that fiction. Shootmaster 44 06:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the reason given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BBC Radio Survey, delete. Uncle G 08:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. I know there is no such stadium in Saskatoon, and if there were they'd probably spell "heroes" correctly. --Charlene 09:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax, and not a very good one. Corvus cornix 17:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. Didn't need to go to AFD at all. 23skidoo 19:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is no speedy delete category for hoaxes, and for a good reason: every so often something comes up for AfD as a hoax that turns out to be a legitimate topic that's simply not recognized by the nominator. --Charlene 20:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant, if slightly surreal, hoax. Sir Robin Day as a coach? FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 19:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax from a known hoaxer who needs to get a life.--DanielRigal 19:28, 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 speedy close - this was created by a serial hoaxster. Hoaxes aren't CSD material, but common sense applies. Grand master ka 22:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saskatoon Heros

This article discusses a track and field club that does not exist in Saskatoon. As such, it is a very nice work of fiction but is simply that fiction. Shootmaster 44 06:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the reason given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BBC Radio Survey, delete. Uncle G 08:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reference anywhere to a Saskatoon track and field team named either Heros or Heroes. --Charlene 09:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax -- and an obvious, clumsy one -- and the creator should get a sandbox message. RGTraynor 16:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax, and not a very good one. Corvus cornix 17:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. Probably could have just been deleted outright rather than AFD. 23skidoo 19:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, hoaxes don't meet WP:CSD. Morgan Wick 21:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is off-topic for this nomination, but when did the policy change? We used to speedy obvious hoax articles all the time. My vote remains unchanged as if the policy has changed, I disagree with the change. Obvious hoaxes - as in those that are recognized as B.S. by a number of editors, thereby indicating it is not nominator ignorance, should be removed as quickly as possible. 23skidoo 20:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. The author posts nothing but hoaxes and misinformation. In addition to making hoax articles he adds nonsense to real articles and links them to his hoaxes. He was blocked for a short period and started posting new hoaxes as soon as the ban expired. He has made no attempt to defend his edits but just blanks out Prod and AfD tags. I think he is a hopeless case and should be blocked indefinately.--DanielRigal 22:22, 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 Keep -- Kings article Delete Shire and Liverpool articles. as note below This afd had addressed the issues raise solely for Kings Christian Church, while only delete discussion has taken place on the Shire Christian Centre and the Liverpool Christian Centre

Kings Christian Church

Non-notable Assemblies of God church. The article makes no real assertion of notability and no independent reliable sources Mattinbgn/^talk 21:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above

Delete both per nom --Javit 21:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, per above Rackabello 21:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 21:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above - WP:N in particular. Orderinchaos 23:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ~~Have referenced main article. The main church was the subject of Steve Irwin rumours about his purported conversion to christianity. Assize 23:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)~~.[reply]
- Now has multiple secondary references, plus one major reference from a major Australian newspapers that talks about the church. Still a keep. The Steve Irwin side issue is a red herring. Assize 13:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even more secondary sources added. Assize 12:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn church, an unsourced rumor of a notable person's conversion that is somehow associated with this church does not make it notable. Frevvin's sake, every church, parking lot, examination room, hospital emergency room, etc. can be the rumored site of someone's rumored conversion to something, it doesn't make them notable, however. Carlossuarez46 00:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - fails WP:CHURCH, which although rejected is a helpful guideline. JRG 00:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Wouldn't it meet that guideline as a megachurch ie. "megachurches are always notable'. Not that I think we should rely on WP:CHURCH. Assize 12:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - true, but there's no independent source showing that it is a megachurch (nor any indication in the article, apart from the church's wealth), so I'm not quite convinced. JRG 12:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply Point taken. Anyway, WP:CHURCH wasn't accepted by the community anyway. Assize 12:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All, keeping in mind User:Carlossuarez46's comments regarding the "conversion". Lankiveil 09:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Liverpool Christian Life Centre as having only local news, and Shire Christian Centre appears to only hold 1000 and be most notable (recently) for a funeral. OTOH, Kings Christian Church is very big; comparable to Hillsong Church (not as big, but its not in Sydney). John Vandenberg 03:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably needs a few more Hillsong style controversies for notability. Recurring dreams 08:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to satisfy notability concerns. Zivko85 15:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just fix it up - it's a massive church lol 58.104.55.37 12:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- IP's should generally not be allowed to vote in AfD discussions. Morgan Wick 21:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Admin closing this AfD. This discussion has appeared to have stopped. All votes to delete bar one predate the introduction of numerous secondary sources into the subject article (when it previously had none). I would ask that you take this into consideration when closing the discussion. Assize 05:53, 11 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the secondary sources added by Assize now establish notability. Davewild 07:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per secondary sources - and please avoid multiple article afds - these churches are different and each needs considered on its merits-Doc^g 09:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Keep: I'm generally down on the notability of local churches, but this one demonstrably passes the WP:V bar. RGTraynor 17:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My !vote to delete still stands regardless of the new changes. I still feel that all the above articles fail to meet WP:N. I am not sure that I should have to come back and reaffirm my opinion each time there is a change in the article either. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 21:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The arguments to keep apply, I think, only to the main article listed. If this isnt clear, their part will need to be re-listed separately.DGG 21:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure anyone noticed the bundled nom. Morgan Wick 21:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still Delete the sources do not confer notability. The links establish that the pastor uses a helicopter; was one of several who went to some drought-ridden farm zone and prayed for rain; and a few "human interest stories" from the local newspapers that focus as much or more on the parishoners than on the church, including the great one about a couple who married "young". Still not different than any other church, really, and similarly not notable. Carlossuarez46 01:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would suggest that the article "A brand new church" is a substantial article in a major Australian newspaper about the church, and which is more than what most other types of organisations get (particularly those written in Wikipedia). Yes, the other articles are "filler" stories and individually, don't add up to much. However, together I would argue that they go to show that the organisation has some notable impact on the Sunshine Coast of Queensland. Assize 12:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most churches and even restaurants get that level of coverage; I would also submit that an organization having impact locally does not make it notable - there are lots of small towns in Mexico, e.g., where the local parish church has a heckuva lot of impact on the lives of the people there, it doesn't make each of them notable even if they get featured in the local paper; there is no reason to deviate from our notability guideline in this instance. Carlossuarez46 17:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think we will have to differ on this. Notability is not fame, but famous things are notable. Quoting from WP:N, "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it". In that case, I would submit that the local parish church in Mexico would be notable under WP:N if they received independent coverage by non-trivial published works, and only if they received that coverage. This is not directed at you, but it seems that just because an article has the word school or church in it, it automatically makes it non-notable simply because there are so many. Assize 11:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources illustrate that it is notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 03:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still Delete Information added still seems incidental to the subject of the article itself. Recurring dreams 11:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I know that size is not a reason for keeping a church, but we have a list of 16 largest chruches in Australia (with some statistics). I would have thought it did no harm to have articles on each - 15 of the 16 do. Peterkingiron 00:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the creator of this article and the other 2 articles considered for deletion, I believe that they deserve individual articles because of their place on the List of the largest churches in Australia. While the articles on the churches are not yet of sufficient notability, the churches are some of the largest and most influential churches in Australia and increasingly have media coverage (as King's Christian Church has shown), and will increase in length and also in secondary sources. Tatie2189 05:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Morgan Wick 07:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' As modified, the article provides multiple independent reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn 22:00, 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 deleted by Lectonar (G4; no new info). Non-admin closure. Serpent's Choice 13:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy cohen

Page previously deleted. Recreated in lower case. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 06:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as recreated material. fuzzy510 06:50, 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. --Core desat 03:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

X-Treme Wrestling Federation

This is not a promotion but an Efed. Nenog 05:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete General consensus is that individual e-feds are not notable. This one does nothing to show why it should be an acception and why it is notable. Lrrr IV 06:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete individual e-feds aren't notable, the concept of e-feds is and is covered but not individual efeds so delete it. MPJ-DK 08:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - E-feds are in no way shape or form notable. Hellswasteland 14:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Non-notable e-fed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unopeneddoor (talk • contribs)
- Where does it meet WP:CSD? Morgan Wick 21:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"X-Treme Wrestling Federation - commonly known as XWF - is an E-fed"; I stopped reading there. E-feds aren't notable under any circumstances, delete. --MarcK 07:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable e-fed. -- Oakster 20:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per everyone else: non-notable e-fed. Nikki311 04:09, 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. --Core desat 03:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy nicholas (Nhl player)

I can find no evidence that any person by this name is or was an actual NHL player. JavaTenor 06:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Complete hoax; this page confirms that he wasn't drafted in 2003, by Atlanta or otherwise. fuzzy510 06:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you cite a speedy deletion criterion? Morgan Wick 21:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence found that Jeremy Nicholas plays for the NHL. Jeremy Nicholas + hockey only gives a fantasy league player.--Kathy A. 14:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Fails WP:Notability.--Edtropolis 16:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you cite a speedy deletion criterion? The assertions of notability may not be true, but that doesn't make them not remotely plausible. Morgan Wick 21:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN hoax. Well, "professional" != NHL, but there's no one by that name who's ever played in the juniors or the minor leagues either. RGTraynor 17:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete It is the user (User:Jeremy8709 himself I believe who've wrote an article about him. Delete per nonsense--JForget 23:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe it meets the definition of patent nonsense. Morgan Wick 01:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please be advised - the page creator is a vandal-only account.--JForget 23:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Article originally listed 2005 draft; checked that year also. No ghits trying to connect with QMJHL, no hits presuming a first name of "Jerry' or a last name "Nicolas." Criterion: A7. This guy is so unnotable that there is no record of him (which is not possible for an NHL player.) Or it's a pure hoax, and deletion should be permitted on [WP:SNOW] grounds since there's no way it's going to pass through AfD. LaughingVulcan 03:03, 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. To be honest, this could have been speedy deleted under unremarkable firms.--Wafulz 14:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MJS Publishing Group

Very tiny press; please see the related AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Donovan Mullaney. Relevant guideline is WP:CORP. Note that all three poets mentioned don't have articles; Andrew Barlow is somebody else. Chick Bowen 06:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very small vanity publisher (the article claims otherwise, but "Your costs will include reasonable fees that will be repaid once your book starts to sell. " from their web site. )

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gnan garra 05:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian Football League umpires

There are few things less notable than a list of umpires. At least it isn't a list of songs about umpires. Clarityfiend 05:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Exactly what is unencyclopedic about it? The umpires, referees or whatever the game official is called is an essential part of the game, and just as significant or crucial as the players. This list covers an aspect of the top league of the sport, and is quite valid for coverage of the game. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I've looked in the WP:LIST guidelines, and this seems to meet the key purposes of Lists, being Informative, Navigation (weakly however), and useful for Development purposes. The content documented within the article in question is very informative, but however lacks significant navigation which is particularly important to a list of this size. If such a navigation structure could be devised (such as by year, by surname, etc) for the list, then I would be inclined to switch to a keep vote. Thewinchester ^(talk) 10:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per User:Thewinchester. Also note that the "complete" list lacks sources and context. The umpires on the recent list however are mostly linked to well cited articles and as such the list should be kept, but stripped down if additional sources cannot be found.--Yeti Hunter 11:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The umpires in any major sports league are actually notable and worthy of mention in a single article, although I don't advocate individual articles for each personage. Our planet is filled with people who work their regular jobs during the day, then don a striped shirt or a mask to officiate at a sporting event. I don't know about the A.F.L., but there are baseball umpires (Ron Luciano) and NFL referees (Norm Schachter) who are well-known among sports fans. They're like the Federal Reserve Board, people whose names aren't well-known, but whose decisions have a big effect... However, I think the name "List of... umpires", like "List of Charmed episodes", has a tin-whistle sound to it. Maybe it could be part of a different article concerning the officiating in the A.F.L., including personages, controversies, etc. The umpires are as important to the game as the athletes. Billions of dollars, euros, and pesos have been won and lost on the pronouncements of these persons. Mandsford 11:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not Australian, but umpires usually get sufficient notability (including independent coverage of their life and career) and are a substantial part of the game. Malc82 22:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Umpires collectively are notable. Most of them, individually, are not. Ga rr ie 00:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Keep as useful list although I notice that it only has the 2006 list and hasn't been updated for 2007 which accounts for weak. Capitalistroadster 03:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list is notable, esp as individual umpires may not be, however the role is. Orderinchaos 14:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, this could be better organised, and I think the massive list of nn umpires at the end is overkill, but I guess it's useful to some, and it doesn't seem to break any guidelines. Lankiveil 03:28, 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. --Core desat 03:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hershey

An article on a history student who fails WP:BIO. As listed in the article, his accomplishments are: a self-published novel, a poem featured in a community newspaper, and a short story included in an on-line periodical. He is the recipient of an award at his college's student film festival, and will feature as an an extra in an upcoming mini-series. The creation of a single purpose account, the article cites an interview with Hershey (presumably unpublished) as one of its references. Victoriagirl 04:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't satisfy WP:BIO, citations are not secondary, plethora of reasons, most are above. Redian (Talk) 04:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - by that standard, I'm probably notable. Since I'm not notable, deletion inherits. --Haemo 06:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly fails WP:BIO--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20-Mule Team Delete: per above, and add WP:COI in as well, since the creator is User:Pchers. I'm sure the subject's a hell of a swell fellow, but this isn't Myspace. RGTraynor 17:49, 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 bold redirect to the appropriate article. Sr 13 06:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andvari (crater)

Unnotable crater on the moon Triton. It's already listed in List of geological features on Triton and this article adds no additional information. Clarityfiend 04:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Triton page then. And one day, when it's the site of the First Bank of the Planet Neptune we can recreate it. FrozenPurpleCube 04:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As above. Redian (Talk) 04:34, 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. --Core desat 03:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Newman-Martin

content that does not belong in an encyclopedia, content not verifiable in a reliable source, basically it's against No Original Research, and Wikipedia is not a resume Rcm 04:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, student politician is several steps below WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 04:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above, and the lack of press coverage for her great achievements. Unreference(able)(d) information. Redian (Talk) 04:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete her organisation ANUSA doesn't have its own article and is probably non-notable in itself, unreferenced, OR, possible conflict of interest.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable student politician, does not meet WP:BIO. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 10:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Per nom and ors. The subject does not meet WP:N, lacks WP:RS, and it's a freaking resume. Thewinchester ^(talk) 10:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per User:Mattinbgn, also note that the article had just the sole contributor for most of its life until the AfD. --Yeti Hunter 11:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary sources, therefore not notable WP:N. Only one article on Google News in which she gives an interview, so it's not a secondary source about her. Assize 12:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20-Mule Team Delete: per all of the above and WP:COI as well, while giving a small shake of the head to the university that apparently doesn't feel the need to teach the use of a dictionary. Ravenswing 17:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "...declining number of koala's" - Good grief.--Yeti Hunter 12:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as head of a national student organisation. I'm not sure I would accept heads at most individual universities, but the national factor is relevant. (assuming the Australians can confirm that it is the principal national student organisation)DGG 22:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry, she's head of a national student organisation is she? She's only the head of a student organisation at a single university, which by no means bestows the notability directly or by association. It's a puff piece, and it has no place on WP for the reasons that both I and everyone else have already clearly outlined. Thewinchester ^(talk) 22:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment What The Winchester meant to say is... the Australian National University has a Student Association. That association does not represent "all Australian students", only those at the Australian National University, Canberra.Ga rr ie 01:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would like to see the source for the Order of Australia medal portion. If a source was provided, maybe I would be neutral or leaning on a weak keep. The article is uncategorized which does not help the cause either.--JForget 23:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The article only says she was nominated. Order of Australia says: "Any person may nominate any Australian citizen for an award." Google gives nothing.[55] PrimeHunter 02:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn at this stage. I don't even think being awarded an OAM will get her there... Ga rr ie 01:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She may well become notable in the future. However, as a former member of the ANU Students Association, I can say that the President is notable on campus but not in the wider world. Google News came up with one Canberra Times article [56]

where she gets three paragraphs in an article on voluntary student unionism. Capitalistroadster 11:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a student politician. May well become notable in the future, but she isn't at the moment. Lankiveil 03:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Australian National University Student Association. John Vandenberg 04:54, 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. --Core desat 03:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CAELinux

Notability to come. Chealer 03:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absent a show of actual merit in a third party source of substance. FrozenPurpleCube 04:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. (Perhaps it's about time we make a WP:LINUX for the notability of linux versions...) Redian (Talk) 04:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as this spammy article serves only to promote the product and its promotor. --Gavin Collins 16:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that that isn't grounds for deletion - verifiability and notability are the main criteria, not whether or not an article may promote an organization or product. Articles with a POV should generally be rewritten, not deleted. Henrik 22:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Blatant advertising remains a grounds for speedy deletion, and advertising is also mentioned on the deletion policy page. It might be argued that this page offers other content (though I don't think it does), but advertising pages are still a valid grounds for deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 23:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, blatant advertising (with no encyclopedic content) is grounds for deletion. I don't really think that is the case in this article though. It is written in a fairly neutral tone and doesn't overly promote CAELinux. It does however lack sources and has questionable notability. Henrik 07:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point, which was that advertising is still a valid grounds to argue for deletion. Since this article doesn't provide any real encyclopedic content, I don't object to arguing for deletion on those grounds. FrozenPurpleCube 11:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless references can be added. Less than 1k hits on google. Henrik 22:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and uncitable. --Android Mouse 21:49, 17 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. --Core desat 03:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Learnix

Non-notable Linux distribution. Chealer 03:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absent a show of notability in the form of significant coverage in a third party source. FrozenPurpleCube 04:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Yechiel Man 20:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete on grounds that this is pure spam. The article reads like stock advertising copy cribbed from a trade directory.--Gavin Collins 10:31, 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 speedy deleted by Mets501 as patent nonsense. Non-admin closure. Resolute 03:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wtfx

Non-notable neologism/internet meme. Zero google hits, no sources, no verification. Article claims it was created by author of article, so vanity is highly probable.Wingsandsword 03:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - (EC trying to prod the article.) Unsourced neologism. Article admits that it was made up by the author earlier this year...basically, word for word per nom. --Onorem Dil 03:10, 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. --Core desat 03:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of flags with stars

Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Corvus cornix 02:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There was a recent AFD I initiated for a similar type gallery, Gallery of city flags. The reasonings that Corvus used on this AFD was used on that AFD. Anyways, this information should be transwikied to the Commons as soon as possible. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment actually, I'd say the most similar gallery would be Gallery of flags by design. I am not sure whether to keep this or not, but given the number of other pages, I'm going to suggest any decision be made with that factored in. FrozenPurpleCube 04:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there should be an article on different flag designs or a listing of types, but I am not sure how often the galleries were used. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a novel idea, but a gallery for flags with stars seems a little too specific. It would probably had to have been a list, but for flags with stars seems unnecessary, and what wikipedia is not. Redian (Talk) 04:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you see the template at the bottom, you'll see that there are quite a large number of similar galleries. Consider WP:IINFO and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. No vote.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We're dealing with them one at a time. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete grouping by whether a flag has a star on it or not is rather indiscrimate: the flags of the USA, North Korea, Iraq, Syria, and Israel all do; does this mean that the stars represent some commonality among them: I think I hear Kumbaya in the distance....well, not really... Carlossuarez46 01:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the gallery by design is enough. If it meets the criteria (fairuse galleries...) --Tone 14:14, 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 Keep - Nomination withdrawn (Non administrator closing per Non-administrators closing discussions). --Tikiwont 12:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Rauber

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Paul Rauber

doesn't meet notability requirements. Individual is a senior editor for a magazine. Senior Editors are not in and of themselves notable.Balloonman 02:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned below---nominator withdraws concerns over article. KeepBalloonman 06:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet notability, not very much press coverage, just not a good article. Redian (Talk) 04:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gets 28,400 Google hits, 50 Google scholar hits, and is cited in 47 different books on books.google.com. Nomination is bad faith; Balloonman wants to delete a quote from Rauber from the Holocaust denial article, so he's first trying to get the Rauber article deleted for "non-notability". Jayjg ^(talk) 05:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did find him while looking up the credentials of Paul Rauber on the article. The article makes NO CLAIMS to notability... except the fact that he is a senior editor on a magazine. His being an editor on a magazine will cause a lot of hits on google---as would any journalist/magazine editor. The question is, does that make him notable---no. Now, if he has been cited in 47 books, then that does make him notable and will withdraw the opposition. But please do remember to assume good faith.Balloonman 06:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems very notable. Google can find lots of articles, I added one for now. Crum375 05:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Google hits include lots of reliable sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nom reeks of disrupting to make a WP:POINT. It is true, senior editors are not in and of themselves notable, however this is the senior editor of Sierra Club magazine for crying out loud. The cites provided by Jayjg speak for themself. RFerreira 06:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I will call you on this. The article makes no claims to any notability---the sierra club magazine doesn't make a senior editor notable. Prior to your post, I had already conceded that if he was cited in 47 articles that I withdraw my nom. But it was in no way shape or form a WP:POINT. The article is a short stub with NO CLAIMS of notability.Balloonman 06:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other "keep" voters fuzzy510 06:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems quite notable to me. Ben W Bell talk 07:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:42, 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 keep. Sr 13 05:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kew Gardens Interchange

It's an interchange. It's not anything more than an interchange. It has a name primarily for traffic reports. I don't see this article ever being significantly expanded. CitiCat 01:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I can understand the concern, an interchange is something people usually pass through and think nothing more of. Note that there is some coverage here and it is not out of the question that articles on nodes between different highways can be as justifiable as articles on the highways themselves. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that site before I posted the AFD, it just highlights various interchanges in New York, not because there's anything particularly interesting about any of them. Also, I've driven through this area probably 200 times a year for the past ten years, and I've never heard this interchange mentioned on the news outside of a traffic report. CitiCat 13:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An extremely complex interchange that is a frequent site of accidents and delays. A big part of the interchange's notability is that it is mentioned constantly on WCBS and WINS traffic reports. Sources have been added, from among the ample list of available sources, and plenty more can be added. Alansohn 17:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources are adequate. If you've driven through and not noticed, it may be because the interchange is so complicated that it is not clear from the ground that it is a single complex. I unfortunately know it well. DGG 22:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it does have so many accidents in the past, it must have been mentioned by countless newspapers, and that gives some notability to it. Also, since it's a complex piece of infrastructure, it also is notability due to that.--Kylohk 15:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Newspapers were talking about it (as the "pretzel") even before it opened in 1936: [57] The Library of Congress has four historic photos specifically of the interchange. --NE2 23:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are lots of reliable primary, secondary, and tertiary sources out there. Add the fact that this one is large and has lots of accidents reported on it; it's definitely notable. (→zel zany - is one angry user) 00:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a former ~~London~~ NYC resident, I too unfortunately know this absurd transportation maze. As WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete an article, I'll go by reliable sources writing about this thing. Similar to the SF Bay Area's MacArthur Maze. --Oakshade 01:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- London? Is [58] or another nearby interchange called the "Kew Gardens Interchange"? I don't see anything on Google, but it's not always perfect. --NE2 05:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hah! I'm spacing. Meant NY. Was in London before that and there's a Kew Gardens there too! (but no internchange). Too much Tylonol PM tonight. --Oakshade 06:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of both historical and current interest, and plenty of material is available for expansion. Dhaluza 16:22, 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. DES ^(talk) 20:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spriggan (list of ISBNs)

A directory list of ISBNs, and Wikipedia is not a directory. Masaruemoto 01:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this should be CSD. Delete it as per Masaruemoto. - Hairchrm 02:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a directory. Resolute 03:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. -- Satori Son 01:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Spriggan (manga), from whence it came. John Vandenberg 06:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge In it's current form, this list is confusing and of little use. It is also completely unnecessarily to provided every ISDN of every version of the manga in every country it was printed/translated. Instead, pair it down to just the first run of the Japanese manga, reformat it using a table, and merge it back into the parent article. --Farix (Talk) 18:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOT reasons given above, or merge a compressed version somehow. Extensive lists of ISBN numbers don't add much to articles except doubling the size of the scrollbar. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 20:02, 22 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. Despite the the contention that this article clearly meets WP:BIO I don't see this as being the case. There are citations in the article from reliable sources, but Ben is not the primary subject of these sources; he is mentioned in passing along with other vloggers. I would consider this to be trivial coverage. That said, there is quite a bit of trivial coverage; enough that I think the gestalt establishes that the subject meets the spirit of WP:BIO if not the letter. There is also the issue of a number of newer editors with a fixation on this particular AfD opining here. Distilling out just the opinions of more established editors leads me to declare that there is no consensus to delete at this time, thus defaulting to keep. That said, some of the sourcing could use tightening up; not everything being used is a reliable source. --Isotope23 16:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben_Going

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete Article is nominated but it is lacks factual information and is written like a fan site and/or autobiography for a person who is currently living. It lacks neutrality based on edits made by close friends and appears to be an advertisement for Vlogger. The page has been up for over a year and the content is misleading and counter factual. It redas like a resume/cv or advert for "his career". This "vlogger" has threatened to delete his youtube account several times, and uploads copyrighted material which against the TOS of both this site and YouTube.Sexyorge

Keep - I'm seeing reliable sources including The New York Times, The Associated Press, and CNET. The article is a little spammy, but it looks like it just needs a little clean-up. --Haemo 01:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - He got a passing reference in the NYT article, a passing reference in the CNet article, and a passing reference in the AP article. In none of those three did he receive significant coverage. He doesn't meet the notability guidelines, there is really nothing else to it. cacophony ◄► 18:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, you are mischaracterizing his coverage in the sources you mention. You also neglect to bring up the two Australian sources, of which he is the subject. Ichormosquito 06:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No, YOU neglected to bring up the two Australian sources, one of which is a blog and the other of which is a youtube video. cacophony ◄► 05:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are the links for editors to judge for themselves: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UW7wlyeajSY and http://blogs.theage.com.au/lastlaugh/ One is a recording of an A Current Affair segment, another is from a blog owned and operated by The Age. Since what I'm citing is the existence of the segment itself, A Current Affair is a reliable source. If your concern is that the only proof the segment aired exists on YouTube, the Age confirms it did, indeed, air. Wikipedia:Reliable sources contains within it some measure of flexibility, hence the "guideline" template. Ichormosquito 20:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The blog in question is not owned and operated by The Age, but in fact by one of their reporters. The blog itself is not affiliated with the news, it's just a courtesy provided to employees. The views of the blog do not represent the views of the news. It is an Op-Ed blog, and nothing more. cacophony ◄► 23:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Primarily for Haemo's reasons. It was already nominated for deletion review, and that seemed to go well.[59] For the record, I wrote most of the article; but I am not, as Sexyorge accuses, the subject's "close friend". I've never once corresponded with Going, either in the "real world" or through the internet. Ichormosquito 02:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Haemo. Also, note that the nominator appears to have placed a second prod tag instead of an AfD notice on the page. I have since fixed this. Maxa megalon 2000 05:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per existence of WP:RS.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm seeing unreliable sources including The New York Times, The Associated Press, and CNET. For example in the NYT article, never did it state he auditioned for the movie Jackass.... Associated Press, Going ranks as "one of the best-known members of the YouTube community is a lie, the AP never stated this information...Information was never given from these sites, they were all made up to advertise the story..... The article is a little spammy,it looks like it was made a fansite it totally needs to be deleted. --jillgobean0 16:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're blatantly misrepresenting the article's sources: everything you said is false. I took the liberty of resubmitting your comment in the order in which it was posted. Ichormosquito 17:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

disagree, in fact you Ichormosquito the one you wrote edit and article are misrepresenting and misciting your sources such as New York Times article. I agree with other users. No where does the article state that Boh3m3 was part of Jackass or auditioned. In fact, all it said was that he was inspired (techincally "aspired"). the "video" in question is set to private, and lacks credibility because it's inutile. nevertheless, the article needs expert attention and less bias. nevertheless, the article needs expert attention and less bias first-person ,opinioned worthless material. Sexyorge

The quotation from the AP is real ... someone is lying. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The quotation from the NYT is real ... someone is lying. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sexyorge is an account created just to vote on this, and another youtube related deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A summarily inaccurate representation of said user's contributions. Stop lying. cacophony ◄► 22:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

jillgobean0 is an account created just to vote on this. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts created just to comment and vote for deletions concerning Youtube:

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment New one for the list: User:ChuckImania Ichormosquito 08:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And another: User:Hopeftw Ichormosquito 21:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User Shoopshoop's first edit is over 10 weeks ago. Does he or she have a time machine, or did he or she just see into the future to forsee this AfD? cacophony ◄► 22:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is there any chance that it is you creating all the accounts to vote on the Youtube deletions? I didn't say the Shoopshoop account was created to vote on THIS youtube deletion. Please reread what I wrote. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please refrain from misrepresenting statements. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) did NOT claim "User:Shoopshoop" was created for this AfD. He is right to claim User:Shoopshoop has done little on Wikipedia except work toward the deletion of content, especially YouTube-related content. Just today I cleaned up some of his vandalism at Caitlin Hill. User:Shoopshoop and User:Mikeskehan, mikeskehan on YouTube, were involved in the circus that became of YouTuber Cory Williams's AfD, which was tending toward a final decision of "no consensus" had Cory Williams himself not complained through Wikipedia:OTRS of rogue Wikipedians who CALLED HIS HOUSE to argue against his article's existence.[60] YouTuber antagonists, and I use the plural even though I have doubts whether there are more than one, are utterly relentless. I realize I'm going off topic and getting a bit ad hominem, but this whole charade is driving me nuts, which, I suppose, is its point. I can only hope they (he?) don't (doesn't) have Ben Going's phone number. Ichormosquito 03:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "He is right to claim User:Shoopshoop has done little on Wikipedia except work toward the deletion of content, especially YouTube-related content."

Correction: He claimed that User:Shoopshoop had done NOTHING except work toward the deletion of content. You are softening up his statement and in the process completely changing the meaning of it. Namely, the difference between mostly and completely. cacophony

◄► 17:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shoopshoop's edit history speaks for itself. Ichormosquito 17:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, and it says something different than what RAN1958 would have you believe it says. He asserts that Shoopshoop has done nothing but participate in deletion discussions, and that's false. cacophony ◄► 17:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Accounts created just to comment and vote for deletions concerning Youtube"- So Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is speculating on motive. So what. If User:Shoopshoop's contributions to deleted article Cory Williams and its associated talk page were still visible, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s position would be stronger than it already is. Ichormosquito 17:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You are making this far more complicated than it needs to be. RAN1958 said that the only edits the account made were to comment and vote for deletions concerning Youtube. This assertion is incorrect. RAN1958 is wrong. Why are you making such a big deal out of this? It was an incorrect accusation and it has been proven incorrect. It is indisputable because his contribution history is there for everyone to see. cacophony ◄► 17:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See "Drama", below. jillgobean0 is an obvious spoof of popular YouTuber xgobobeanx, a friend of Ben Going. Sexyorge, nominator for this article's deletion, seems to be a spoof of TheSexyOgre666, a vocal defender of popular YouTuber Cory Williams, another one of Going's friends. Ichormosquito 17:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a more specific reference to the Jackass thing, try this: "ExcChatting With Ben Going (Boh3m3 On You Tube)" And just so we're clear, that bit of information was never meant to portray notability; it's just background. I'm sure many people try to get on Jackass. Ichormosquito 19:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - whilst some youtubers are notable, like geriatric1927 and LG15 i srsly doubt boh3m3 is - admittedly he was popular, but was assisted by the many fake subscribers he created for himself - and he is now much further down the list - he is losing popularity fast - not notable - delete Shoopshoop 16:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Admins, please be on the lookout for sock puppet accounts. I hate to be paranoid, but Shoopshoop posted three minutes after jillgobean0. Ichormosquito 17:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- admins - plz do check - i dont use sockpuppets and i am sure it will take little efort to realise than i am not jillgobean0

- thx Shoopshoop 19:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, user jillgobean0 attempted to edit out Haemo's "keep" comment. I brought it back. Ichormosquito 17:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This isn't even remotely deserving of Wikipedia coverage. We can't cover every youtuber... Internet phenomena like that are covered by other sources, and they do not belong on Wikipedia. --Josmul123 18:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are trying to use the slippery slope argument. Its better to quote Wikipedia guidelines. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't attempt to cover "every YouTuber". What cross-section we have at YouTube celebrities is closely monitored for notability and kept at a manageable size. I know this isn't the most valid argument, but Going is at least as notable as anyone there. Ichormosquito 19:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of reliable sources, he even has a photo in the New York Times article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. That is all. cacophony ◄► 18:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What specific part of the guideline are you referring to? Its like saying "Its in the Bible, go look it up", Please cite one or more of the very specific reasons for deletion from the guideline. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ones that dictate that a subject must have been the subject of significant coverage in several reliable sources. A passing mention is not significant coverage, yet that is what he received. He is not notable by Wikipedia guidelines, and thus I cannot in good faith vote to keep this article. cacophony ◄► 18:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They just have to have enough coverage so the facts can be verified, and this is a "slam dunk", to quote George Tenet. The New York Times and the AP are both reliable. The media determines notability, not Wikipedians. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. The subject of a Wikipedia article must necessarily be deemed notable by Wikipedia guidelines, which you can find at WP:Notability. What the "media determines" is irrelevant, Wikipedia has long-standing guidelines on this very subject. To simply dismiss them as you have done is illogical and irresponsible. By the way, I indented your comment by a tab to improve the page formatting. cacophony ◄► 19:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I probably agree with you that such ought to be the rule, but I don't think we've convinced the community yet.DGG 22:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going passes Wikipedia:Notability (people) by virtue of multiple, non-trivial coverage. In addition to the sources in the article, of which he is *mostly* the focus, he is quoted in Newsweek and The New York Post, serving as a "go-to guy" for when mainstream media wants to touch base with the YouTube crowd. Going also has a significant "cult" following. For one thing, he is the 19th most subscribed YouTube account with over 33,000 subscribers. For another, the forum on his website, boh3m3.net, currently has 1,500 registered posters. Far from being a testament to Going's vanity, these users seem to have developed a community independent of fan worship. His over 1,900,000 Google hits under "boh3m3" might be worth a mention, too. Considering "boh3m3"'s unique spelling, this is a massive number. Ichormosquito 20:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's perplexing how you can say that unless you hadn't read the guidelines and the articles you posted. Wikipedia:Notability (people) states that they have to be the subject of multiple, secondary sources. Ben Going has been the subject of exactly zero news stories. In your Newsweek article, the only mention of Going is a single quote from him. To say that he is mostly the focus of this article, or even barely the focus, is simply false. Your NYPost article has the same amount of coverage: one, single quote. The notability guidelines even state, "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." The sources you are providing only provide trivial coverage of Ben Going. Again, he does not meet the notability guidelines. I appreciate your contribution to Wikipedia in creating articles like this one, but unfortunately the subject here is not notable. cacophony ◄► 22:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not claim he was the subject of the NY Post or Newsweek story. He is, however, given prominent coverage in the AP story, the CNET story, and the New York Times story, which printed his picture. Taken together, they constitute notability, per If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability. Regardless, Going is undoubtedly the subject of A Current Affair's segment The Australians are Fooling Us All, which you can view here. One might even argue Going is the subject of The Age's rebuttal.[61] If Going is not notable, why do all these esteemed sources continue to reference him or bother to look up his phone number? We're all working to better Wikipedia: please be sensible, rather than dogmatic. Ichormosquito 03:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You claimed he was "mostly the focus" of the sourced articles. He is not. Not even close. He is given a passing reference. How you can construe a passing reference as being "mostly the focus" is far beyond me. Regardless, multiple passing references does not constitute notability, it constitutes trivial coverage. Moreover, I most certainly will not use your blog link as a citation, because a blog is not a reputable news source, even if the owner of the blog is also a reporter. cacophony ◄► 17:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. --Mikeskehan 19:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gag name.--Edtropolis 19:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- although that is funny - wikipedia is NOT a humor site - i assume you mean't delete

Shoopshoop

Keep - Notability established with largely circulated publications as well as Australia's "A Current Affair" doing a complete segment as a result of "The Australians are Fooling Us All" and it's responses. I find it rather funny that as a result of a few sock puppet accounts this page is being considered for deletion yet again, in spite of the referenced sources. Bohemiabsinthe 20:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' are you boh3m3 maybe you could defend yourself? why are you notable again? then again maybe your a fan, like i said "welcome to his fanpage" aka wiki-boh3m3. but in all seriousness are you Ben Going Bohemiabsinthe Sexyorge 02:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Notability has not been established, as those "largely circulated publications" only go so far as to give Ben Going a passing reference. It's also odd that you should mention sockpuppets, because you have no user page and this edit is the first one you've ever made. cacophony ◄► 22:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

indeed http://www.myspace.com/bohemiabsinthe as i stated earlier this article has become a fansite/page for a vlogger, very confusing Sexyorge

Did he TRY to obscure his identity? No. If that is, in fact, Ben Going, he has every right to participate in his own AfD. His comment about A Current Affair's "YouTube on OZ News: Vegemite Wars" is spot on, too. Going is the subject of that piece, unequivocally. Ichormosquito 04:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, in accordance with WP:COI, he is not allowed to participate in his own AfD. cacophony ◄► 17:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pasted from WP:COI: Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when: 1. Editing articles related to you If that is even Going, "exercise great caution" would seem to give him some wiggle room. The user in question only posted once. He backed up his "keep" with valid claims. Ichormosquito 19:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In accordance with WP:COI, article subjects are not allowed to participate their own AfDs. cacophony

Comment I originally meant to paste in the second guideline. Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when: ...2. Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors "Exercise great caution" keeps popping out at me. Ichormosquito 00:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Excersise extreme caution" as in "don't do it and don't get involved with it". cacophony ◄► 23:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no notable reason for this page other than being a fansite. Sadisticloser 23:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't think pointing this out was kosher, but since everyone else is doing it: you have only two edits. This is one of them. Ichormosquito 03:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Drama I hate to dump YouTube drama here; but this AfD is already out of hand, so I might as well "be bold" and suggest that the nominator for Ben Going's deletion, Sexyorge, is a revenge account set up by User:Mikeskehan, mikeskehan on YouTube. On YouTube, a user by the name of TheSexyOgre666 is one of Skehan's more vocal detractors. Judging from Skehan's comments on Ogre's channel, Skehan seems to be fixated on him. Ogre makes a point to defend popular YouTuber Cory Williams from Skehan's indiscriminate, lashing criticism of YouTube celebrities. Ogre (as User:Viralmediaman) and Skehan tussled once before at Cory Williams's AfD and then through one of TheSexyOgre666's videos, MikeSkehan EXPOSED! Here's proof he uses DUMMY ACCOUNTS!. Whether or not he's Skehan, hijacking the name "sexyogre" would seem like the activity of a spammer. jillgobean0, another spam account posting at this AfD, is an obvious spoof of popular YouTuber xgobobeanx, first name "Jill", one of Going's compatriots. I know we should assume good faith; but, try as I may, this situation precludes me from doing so. Ichormosquito 05:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

response to drama. Ichormosquito i believe i can speak for myself. my name is not mikeskehan. again, its my feeling that you are missing the point for this nomination. Sexyorge

Comment - Ichormosquito, please abide by WP:Civil and immediately refrain from personal attacks, and especially lies. Your supposition is not proof. In case you did not already know, WP:Be_Bold does not include making up lies about other users and asserting them as facts. In addition to that, please WP:Assume_good_faith and refrain from these ad-hominem attacks and instead focus on the discussion at hand. We already have enough accusations from you, 5 to 10 in this AfD ALONE, I think that is 5 to 10 too many. Thanks, cacophony ◄► 17:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ichormosquito has since edited his post since I made the previous comment. cacophony ◄► 17:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did. Editors are free to look up the previous version in the edit history. Fearing a reprimand, I softened my attack on Skehan. Ichormosquito 18:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So do you, User:USER-cacophony, deny creating the sockpuppet accounts:

the previous unsigned comment was added by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ).

Comment i can't speak for other users but i am perfectly innocent Sexyorge

Comment - Absolutely. Also, I edited your post a bit for formatting purposes and added your signature. cacophony ◄► 18:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I said is a lie. I didn't mean to offend anyone. Ichormosquito 17:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you cannot prove your wild accusations then you might as well be lying. You are blatantly insulting editors to their face, calling them spam accounts for not agreeing with you. You may say you didn't mean to offend anyone, but you are offending me and hopefully others by muddling up this AfD with your baseless accusations. Although I cannot speak for other editors, I can definitively say I would be offended if you called me a spam account, too. Until you can prove these accusations, I challenge you to refrain from making them. Thanks, cacophony ◄► 17:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Correction: I accused them of being spam accounts after checking their edit histories and, in the case of User:Sexyorge and User:Jillgobean0, because of their blatantly provocative names, not because they disagree with me. Ichormosquito 18:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, I'm Michael Skehan. I am not a spam account as claimed by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

I do not have any connections to other accounts listed by this user. As far as User:Ichormosquito goes, I'd greatly appreciate it if you would refrain from immature personal attacks directed twords me. I have a vote just like everyone else who voted on this article, just as you do. If you wish to have a discussion with me, please take it to private message or on another website. As far as http://www.youtube.com/thesexogre666 is concerned, this 'man' made claims on Youtube that I am a pedophile. You can see by comments I posted that I was just attempting to defend myself and I kept comments to a minimum, as I did not feel this users maturity level was up to par. To say that I am "fixated" with this guy is a rather reckless statement considering this YT user made two videos about me and I made zero about him. Kind of seems like the other way around. Also, implying that I called and harassed Cory Williams (Mr. Safety) is also a reckless statement, as I would not have access to his phone number. The comments left by this user are slanderous and I'm not even sure what they have to do with this articles possible deletion. Have a day.--Mikeskehan 21:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You are confusing slander and libel. Please use a good source to learn the difference, such as Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You did not accuse them of being spam accounts, you called them spam accounts. Example: "jillgobean0, another spam account" cacophony

The correct term is sockpuppet, not spam accounts. They were created just to edit this and another Youtube article vote for deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

◄► 18:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're right. Let me assure you, I posted my slander in good faith. Ichormosquito 18:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just finished painting my house today and logged back onto to find my account accused of being "provocative". excuse me? but you're accusations are offensive frankly. i am a not a "sock" nor provocative. at this point i could care less. it should be clear what i stated already. i am a real person and believes this fansite should be removed due to neutrality and wp:rs. mainly because you are real life friends with thehill88 and boh3m3.Sexyorge

comment - any admin can easily determine that these are separate people - 6 accounts from one person is insane and paranoid - Shoopshoop 21:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable. Bradybd 08:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They seem to have the sources. I count three "reliable" sources in the reference list. The article still may need a rewrite, though... SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before editors who are not familiar with Going run a Google search for a cursory assessment of notability, I suggest they try running his YouTube handle, "boh3m3", first. "boh3m3" produces over 1,900,000 hits, which is massive, especially given its unique spelling. It gets a higher count than "lonelygirl15", approaches "renetto", and dwarfs many of the other notable YouTubers. I'm posting this bit of info again so it's not lost in the AfD's jumble. Ichormosquito 21:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ichormosquito - the google hit is hugely inflated becuse of all the spider youtube mirrors such as

this and the thousands of other sites like it- Shoopshoop 21:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, YouTubers with moderate subscription rates don't produce nearly as many hits. Even TheHill88 only produces a little over 95,000. My concern is that editors will try "Ben Going" and write him off in the process. Ichormosquito 21:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ichormosquito, please refer to WP:GHITS and also WP:SET and refrain from making such misleading arguments. cacophony ◄► 21:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's nothing in the links you give that disallows a Google test, just warnings to the effect of "proceed with caution". Quoting from WP:GHITS: Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine are no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The reality is, editors who wish to comment but have never heard of Going will probably do a Google test. I ask that they type in "boh3m3" for better results. What number comparisons I made can only support Ben Going's notability; but I realize an argument along those lines can only go so far. Ichormosquito 22:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's just it - the number comparisons you made don't support this guy's notability. To say that they do is false and may trick newer editors into thinking they can use a Google hits test to complement the notability of something. cacophony ◄► 23:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, they do support his notability, just to a lesser degree than more legitimate arguments. Enough editors have the brains to not weigh all evidence equally. I'm not "tricking" anyone. Ichormosquito 00:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since it is extremely unlikely that I will be closing this (I closed the DRV that led to unsalting after all), I note for the closing admin that some (not all) of the SPA/sockpuppet concerns raised above look credible, but in some cases look more likely to be the result of off-wiki canvassing. I myself am concerned with about 4-5 of the users. RFCU is only to be invoked if it is believed the users affected the close, which we would be better off without. I've added the not a vote template above. This article is about a you-tube user, I don't care enough to form an opinion on whether the article should be kept. GRBerry 15:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again, not sure why this inappropriate user page remains. needs to check for WP:BIO standards. This vloggers' content remains unsuitable for an encyclopedia. I checked out Ichormosquito user page on YouTube, turns out the person is "friends" with both boh3m3 and his girlfriend thehill88. It's my feeling this article has turned into a resume to help boost boh3m3s' "online" career. A pretty weak resume at best, it appears to be somewhat a stub and lacks facts / pictures/ and notable information. This page would be best suited for uncyclopedia or a site that deals in fansites. Sexyorge 02:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can't vote twice. I absolutely despise doing this, but here's my YouTube user page. Yes, I am listed as TheHill88's "friend", along with 4,735 other people. She approves for YouTube "friendship" whoever asks; we are hardly friends in any real sense of the term. And I'm not listed as boh3m3's "friend". When AfD is over, I want an admin to clear this information from the record. Since this AfD started, 5 noted YouTuber antagonists, or at least 5 separate accounts, have found my channel and subscribed. At least one has commented at this AfD. Ichormosquito 04:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He has a picture now. Ichormosquito 09:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone Dugg this AfD, which has brought it to prominence on Google results for "boh3m3". Quote from Digger: "wow this is too hilarious. i guess boh3m3 is up for deletion because his friends and him wrote his own article. ha ha" Don't be surprised to see more meat puppets. Ichormosquito 05:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 11 Diggs and counting. Ichormosquito 21:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

commentDELETE This is ridiculous! How is this possible!? I guess wikipedia will just let anyone makeup an article. Bo3h3m is a waste of bandwidth. When I first read this article on Digg I couldn't believe my eyes. You can't be serious can you? It's rather obvious that Bo3m3's friends are trying their hardest to keep this article up. ChuckImania 06:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User is a meat puppet and probably a sock puppet, too. I don't believe the user's story, considering how soon he posted after my Digg warning. The story has only received 1 Digg so far. Ichormosquito 15:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Boh3m3, or Ben Going admits to cheating the terms of the service for youtube. By begging for money on a various youtube clips in fact, in his latest video clip "e-begging" he admits to begging for money and then states he would do "anything for publicity" including having his friends edit and manage his wikipedia article to help advertise his career. Hopeftw 20:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Meat puppet. And Hopeftw is grossly mischaracterizing the video he mentions. If Going were, in fact, stupid enough to mention Wikipedia in one of his video blogs, there would be a heck of a lot more spam on this AfD than there is now. Ichormosquito 21:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’m assuming you label everyone that disagrees with you on this matter a “sock puppet”. Boh3m cheated the Youtube terms of service and used his “E-buddies” to help keep this article up. If Wikipedia ever wants to be considered a reliable source of information they’ll do the right thing and terminate bogus articles like this one. ChuckImania 21:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet Notability guidelines. OverlordQ 22:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I took the liberty of resubmitting User:OverlordQ's comment from its original placement to the order in which it was posted. I also noticed that User:OverlordQ and User:USER-cacophony, a fervent contributer to this AfD, are the sole contributers to a project in User:USER-cacophony's user space, and that User:USER-cacophony has a history of vote stacking. Plus, Wikipedia admin User:JzG once accused User:OverlordQ of being a meat puppet servicing the aims of User:USER-cacophony at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Myg0t_%28second%29 . Ichormosquito 02:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the last time, Ichormosquito, please abide by WP:AGF and refrain from making unfounded accusations immediately. If you take a look at User:OverlordQ's contribution list, you would notice they have even more contributions than me, on a more diverse variety of subjects. Yet your only proof that OverlordQ being a meatpuppet is that he and I both once contributed to the same page? Get real. Not to mention that JzG's accusation of vote stacking was a complete lie, as can be seen on my talk page. If you do not cease harassing Wikipedia contributors immediately, I will be forced to take the issue to a higher authority. Stop now. cacophony ◄► 15:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I edited my post to show that User:OverlordQ originally placed his comment at the very top of this AfD. Ichormosquito 20:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notableBalloonman 20:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article now has 6 reliable sources, not counting the Australian ones: The New York Times, The New York Post, CNET, Newsweek, and two stories from the Associated Press. Going is quoted in each. Their publishing dates run from September to the end of February, and they were published a good amount of time away each other. Unlike some other YouTube celebrities, Going has received sustained news coverage. I also tried to make the opening less spammy. Before they see video links, readers must get through a description of him first. I added some more details from primary sources, as well. Ichormosquito 03:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are some titles these six sources throw at him: "one of best-known members", a possessor of "Internet fame" "Video Star" "prominent figure of the YouTube community" and "YouTube Celebrity". Also, the description of his fans at the YouTube gathering in the CNET article goes some way to proving Going has a "cult" audience, per Wikipedia:BIO, if his 33,000 YouTube subscribers, what CNET refers to as a "regular audience", aren't convincing enough in themselves. Ichormosquito 07:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I got the "33,000" from YouTube, not the CNET article. Ichormosquito 07:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just found a link to a CNET news blog story called YouTube hosts New Year's Eve Bash. Quote: Special video messages from YouTube celebrities, such as Boh3m3, Smosh, Terra Naomi, Renetto, Chad Vadar, and The WineKone, along with artists from WMG labels Atlantic Records, Warner Bros. Records and Warner Music International will be featured on the home page. According to Going at http://www.moviepicturefilm.com/inter.php?itemid=1162, he got paid for this, which might help him pass Wikipedia:Notability (web)The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster YouTube is certainly a well known medium, and this New Years promotion, plus Going's connections with the YouTube staff, http://www.moviepicturefilm.com/inter.php?itemid=1162 says he is in regular contact with a high ranking employee, argue against his output's being, from WP:WEB Trivial distribution such as hosting content on user-submitted sites. The CNET link is another source, anyway. Also: if we delete Ben Going, he would be the only "YouTube celebrity" on that link's list without a Wikipedia page, not that "well there are other pages like it" is the most substantial argument. Ichormosquito 17:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And here's a link to a joint Coca-Cola and YouTube press release for a promotion similar to the New Years one, this time for Christmas and sponsored by Coca-Cola. Again, "boh3m3" gets a mention. Quote: For the first time people will be able to send their own personal videos as a holiday greeting card online. Visitors can share their holiday spirit by uploading their own videos, customizing video greetings created by popular YouTube personalities, Geriatric1927, Boh3m3, TerraNaomi, Renetto, TheWineKone and LisaNova, or sharing holiday-themed videos from Coca-Cola including clips from vintage Coke advertisements. Another link to back it up: http://www.onlinereporter.com/article.php?article_id=8392 I think this feeds into my WP:WEB argument pretty nicely. Going mentions this instance as a time where YouTube paid him at http://www.moviepicturefilm.com/inter.php?itemid=1162, as well, along with the New Years instance. This was before YouTube implemented its YouTube partnership program, of which Going is a member. Again, everyone on this press release's list of "popular YouTube personalities" has a Wikipedia page, again, not that that is the most substantial argument.Ichormosquito 17:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll incorporate these into the article ASAP. Ichormosquito 17:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These sources also work to argue for WP:BIO's Commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products, especially the Coke one. Ichormosquito 17:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google news turned up this, which references Going's involvement with savetheinternet.com, but I haven't paid to read the article yet. Quote: In a one-minute, black-and-white, tech-age public service announcement, personalities demand "Keep your Internet free." But the ad in support of Net neutrality was not produced by the Ad Council, hasn't been broadcast on television and doesn't include Hollywood stars. A 21-year-old waiter from Huntsville, Ala., Ben Going, wrote...

Newsday (New York), BUSINESS & TECHNOLOGY; Pg. A51 October 10, 2006 BY RICHARD J. DALTON JR. STAFF WRITER 1459 words Ichormosquito 02:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's the whole Newsday story, provided by Free Press: Grassroots Movement Wants Laws to Keep Big Media from Controlling Internet The story gives him a hefty amount of coverage. A description of his video provides the lead in, and the story returns to him for this: YouTube appears to be the perfect forum for raising awareness about the issue, says Going. Fans of the site are among those worried that telecommunications companies and cable providers could try to stifle the growth of online competitors. Going represents the potential risks these sites pose to cable companies. He not only posted a video supporting Net neutrality — he hardly watches television. “I look at so many videos online, and that’s where I get the brunt of my entertainment,” he said. Unless someone else wants to, I'll incorporate this and the holiday promotional stuff as soon as possible. Ichormosquito 02:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This quote is particularly interesting: With more than 464,000 views by YouTube users, the video demonstrates how the seemingly obscure topic has transformed into a grassroots movement that claims its goal is to keep the Internet free from interference by telecommunications giants. Ichormosquito 03:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Two sentences is not "a hefty amount of coverage". cacophony ◄► 03:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did you read the article? His video was the impetus for the story, and got more than "two sentences". I don't want to argue with you anymore. Ichormosquito 04:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He got two sentences, and the impetus for the story was net neutrality, not Ben Going's video. cacophony ◄► 05:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're lying. Stop trolling. Ichormosquito 06:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ichormosquito your comments and accusations personally I find embrassing, hurtful and disturbing. It's becoming abusive and unwarranted. This entire topic needs expert attention and review for TOS Sexyorge 13:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Sexyorge. Ichormosquito has been nothing but hostile to pretty much anybody who voted for this article to be Deleted. This user has made many unfactual statements about me in a rather uncivil way. I also think this topic should be reviewed for TOS. --Mikeskehan 14:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't pass WP:V, WP:WEB, WP:RS. Block all the puppets. -N 15:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to keep, just needs a touch of work. -N 15:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The verbiage needs to be brought more into line with WP:NPOV, and the YouTube videos need to be stripped out of the references, but article style is not all that relevant to a deletion discussion. The main question at AfD is, "Can the article be saved?" This article's subject has coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, and is thus notable. I see no major problems involving WP:BLP in the present version of the article. That's all there is to it. Oh yes, and block all the puppets. --Dynaflow babble 15:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - POV is not an issue for deletion and the article is reliably sourced.Baka man 15:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The deletion review gave general support for Ichormosquito's rewrite. It's clear the subject has received some attention from the mainstream press so I see no reason to deny on WP:WEB/WP:BIO grounds. There's plenty of sourcing, which meets WP:V as well. While the current article may be a little too fawning for my tastes, this relative deletionist (hell, I prod2'd & twice db-repost'd the prior incarnations of this article) smells something fishy with this AfD... — Scientizzle 15:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the extensive coverage of this topic in reliable sources as well as the subject's acts make it clear that this is an appropriate topic. The article clearly passes the relevant policies in that regard. The sourcing and neutrality seems pretty good to me, too, so I see no reason we need to delete this. Mango juice^talk 15:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative note: I've blocked the following accounts as obvious throwaway accounts created specifically to participate in this AfD:
- Jillgobean0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sadisticloser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- ChuckImania (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Hopeftw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bohemiabsinthe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

And I'd recommend a checkuser after the discussion closes to mop up the rest of the likely sockpuppet or meatpuppet accounts, assuming they have influenced the final decision to some extent. MastCell ^Talk 15:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not every person who occasionally gets interviewed by reporters passes our notability criteria, and this one doesn't. It appears that he is not the subject of multiple (or any) non-trivial, reliable, third-party sources (or, in the current lingo at WP:N, the coverage is not "significant" with respect to him).[62][63] In other words, it appears to be impossible to write a comprehensive, neutral encyclopedia article on M. Going.
So where'd this great article come from? I checked every reference. Almost the entire article is either verified from sources that are unreliable (e.g. a Youtube channel, a blog, a press release, or an interview with M. Going himself: ref #'s 2, 4, 9-11, 13, 15, 17-19, 21-23, 25-28); or original research gleaned from the references (ref #'s 3, 6-8, 12 14, 24). The only content that is properly sourced is sourced to ref #'s 1, 16, and 20, all of which are about something other than Going and are trivial with respect to him. Pan Dan 16:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Once notability is established, WP:V can be met by primary sources, which includes press releases, videos and interviews (blogs should go, as should any OR). If three mainstream media sources present this guy as a well-known figure, even if Going isn't the sole or main subject of the article, that (along with Youtube rankings and such) is a sufficient sum assertion of notability to meet the guidelines, IMO. Of course, that's a matter of opinion, but that's what consensus-seeking is for... — Scientizzle 16:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, the NYT source says that Going "creat[ed one of] YouTube's most popular channels." And the AP says that Going is "one of the best known members of the YouTube community." However notability is neither fame nor importance.
    Even if the NYT came right out and said that Going is "notable," that would not show that he is notable is the sense we mean on Wikipedia. Notability on Wikipedia has to with sufficient quality, quantity, and depth of coverage to write an encyclopedia article. It doesn't have to do with pronouncements by anybody (even a reliable source) that something or someone is "notable." Pan Dan 16:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pan Dan's Google News search found a source I hadn't seen, not that it contains much I couldn't find in the Newsday one. Maybe a quote. http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2006/10/02/slayers/index.html Ichormosquito 16:31, 20 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. Sr 13 05:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yves Lejeune

Seems to not meet notability in WP:BIO and might be self promotional. Serlin 01:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Marginally notable as a manager/agent, non-notable as a coach.--Ispy1981 03:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:BIO, WP:V, WP:SPAM and probable WP:COI and WP:HOAX. There are only 20 Google hits for "Yves Lejeune" + "coach," the bulk being non-related, e-mail messages or cut-and-pastes of the article. I also have deep concerns about the article's (unsourced) assertions, such as the one that claims that at the time he retired from coaching at age 27 he had been a head coach in international play for nine years ... excuse me, I rather doubt that any international team in any sport has ever had a teenaged head coach, even if we're talking the Singapore bobsled team. Somewhat unsurprisingly, neither the FIBA nor the WNBA websites (linked in the article) have search results for him. RGTraynor 18:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 03:29, 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 wasDELETE per concerns established below. Nick 12:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kiruba Shankar

Previous nomination

Strong Delete - I was an editor for his article (my edits), but I have to agree with others here. It was a mistake. Unless someone can produce reliable news articles where he is the primary focus, discussing him as a subject - I vote delete. His company f5ive looks like a web design company, nothing to establish him as Internet Personality or a Tech Guru. Backers, please provide an peer verifiable/recognizable award (not online Top10 badges/banner exchanges) or some national recognition, other than 2-3 line quotes in local newspapers. - Redindian 18:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend Delete - As per his Blog & Google News Archive results - he has organized some blog meets and given some soundbytes to media/newspaper about blogging in Southern India (Chennai). And so have countless others everyday (Engadget/BoeingBoeing/TechCrunch etc) all around the world. Unless I am missing something here, this is not enough to be deemed as a Noteable Person WP:N

Nominate for Delete - Subject not a notable person. This article falls under the category of vanity articles. Being a famous blogger doesn't constitute an entry in Wikipedia. There are 100's of thousands of them, and 1000s attend/speak at conferences, get quoted in media articles - Wikipedia cannot hold vanity articles for each of them. I cannot see the noteablity (according to WP:BIO) (like a published Author, popular entertainer or noteable scientist). He is a popular Indian blogger, just well known to fellow bloggers and colleagues.-PokhranII 00:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin should note, User:PokhranII has 5 edits. -- Ganeshk (talk) 05:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then the smear campaign begins again - Did you notice the others who have voted 'strong delete' have 1000+ edits (Contributions Sarvagnya 1000+ edits, Contributions Edtropolis 1000+ edits, Contributions Gnanapiti 1000+ edits). So instead, please discuss the merits of the article/individual. What has he achieved to be given an encyclopedic entry? Pioneered any new Technology, won any Internationally recognized awards (no, online popularity poll in Indibloggies doesn't count) published any bestselling book? All he is, is a blogger/podcaster. Have you visited his blog lately? All of it is self promotion; I have no problems with that. He can do all the self promotion he wants in his blog - but not in public encyclopedia.

Strong Delete - I can see popular singer/blogger like Chinmayi having a wikipedia entry due to her popularity. There are many in technorati 100 who don't have an entry in wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a resume or ad service. I don't see what knowledge being imparted here in kirupa's article. -- Prem Paul 01:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Closing admin should note, this account edits as 24.17.191.101 and has 13 edits. -- Ganeshk (talk) 05:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin should ALSO note, I am 24.17.191.101, who edited the article many times, because 50% of the links there are dead (404 error) - I deleted the references. This article is user Ganeshk's pet project (he seem to have started it). Anyway, I don't want to point out the obvious - but click the links in the reference section and see for yourself
24.17.191.101, Just so you know, this is what happened. 63.251.11.202 comes around and vandalizes the external links section removing characters from the URLs, then you go next, and mark them as invalid. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - bad faith nom. The voters above 5 and 13 edits each, most of which are related to this AFD. Notability has been established in the previous AFD. -- Ganeshk (talk) 05:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ganeshk, these 13 edits were done to clean up the bad file-not-found links - click blogstreet top100 & blogstreet and see if its still valid. Also, voted in as indiblogger in 2004? It shd also be noted that there were 20 other winners of Indibloggies award in 2004, and 20 more in 2005...2006..so on.
"Internet Personalities" as it is claimed in his article is a far reaching claim, which is backed by 2-3 of local newspaper links. He is listed along with real Internet personalities like Kevin Rose (founder of Digg) Mark Zuckerberg(founder of Facebook) just to name a few. Internet does span outside chennai,india or the Indian blogger community. On a side note, its funny to see other Indian bloggers also have listed themselves in that elite list.

Note: this is the link which establishes the subject as India's Top Blogger Top100 Blogger. Its not only outdated, but its dead.
Clean Up and fully establish notablility, else delete. If it can be shown this guy is notable then the article should be kept and cleaned up with a bit more information. A quick googles search suggests there is potential for this, something which the article is, at best, vague about at the moment. If this is not shown, then I think it should be deleted - as having a blog is hardly something notable michaelCurtis ^talk+_{contributions} 14:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I voted Speedy Keep during last nom, because the nominator was a single-purpose account, and had nominated a number of articles for deletion one after another (the noms were left incomplete, and were completed by other editors). No vote this time, but news results might be of some interest to those who want to vote Keep or Delete. utcursch | talk 15:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This news result may be of interest too. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No these news results dont prove his notability. They only prove that the media is evincing interest in blogging etc., and that it is easy for 'encyclopedically non-notable' people also to piggy back on the high visibility that technology has in the media. Neither is Kiruba's pretty ordinary blog notable(like Churumuri) nor is Kiruba himself notable like KrishnaPrasad, former editor of Vijay Times and owner of churumuri or U. R. Ananthamurthy who has his own blog. Sarvagnya 20:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - This guy has had his ~~15-16~~ 10-12 mins of fame. No doubt. But that doesnt make him encyclopedic. And what is this Indiblogger rating? Indiblogger is not Slashdot for God's sakes! And putting him in Cat:Internet personalities is a joke. Sarvagnya 16:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - I had seen this article couple of months back and was in a wonder why this person even found a place in Wikipedia! He has to wait, may be few more years, but as of now, this article is fit to be deleted.Gnanapiti 16:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Wikipedia is not a place for bloggers. Fails WP:BIO and WP:Notability.--Edtropolis 18:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and needs clean up. Not only does Kiruba Shankar yeild more search engine hits than some of the "notable" individuals mentioned in this discussion, his website has a reasonably high PageRank, according to Google. It scores 5/10, as can be seen here, which is not too shabby for an Indian website (The Indian portal www.sify.com scores 6/10 and the above mentioned "popular" newspaper's website http://www.vijaytimesepaper.com gets a 3/10). Of course, the article could use some clean up. Lotlil 03:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please check Google Test Argument - high page rank is not a measure of noteablity. Not bad for an Indian Website? - what criteria are you suggesting? Is CheckPageRank a guide by which we can add/delete articles?
While notability is highly subjective, Google Hits adds a measure of objectivity. Yes, a website can be manipulated to generate a lot of search hits, but the high page rank adds another level of authenticity to it. It simply gives an idea of what other authentic and important websites think of his website. We are talking about this guy as an Internet personality, the data I provided simply says he is not a "nobody" at what he does. Blogging may be a trivial activity, but not every blogger has got so much attention (and hence, notability) as he has. Lotlil 04:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention, popular newspapers such as The Hindu and Financial Express have quoted his opinions about podcasting, blogging etc. Lotlil 04:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lotlil - By that standard, please create a wikipedia entry for A.Vignesh, Syed Razik, Sandeep Shrivastava(Head Yahoo India), Aditya Mhatre and Abhishek Kumar whose opinions are also quoted in that publication you suggested. You see the absurdity of this?
First of all, please get an account and comment. It makes it easier for everyone. Coming to your point, if any of those people have a regular presence in the media, feel free to create an artice and if it ever comes up for AfD, you know how I will vote. Lotlil 04:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a mention in the Chennai page or the Metroplus in Hindu is no big deal. Tintin 04:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "a" mention, he is routinely quoted by mainstream media when they talk about blogging, podcasting and the likes. Lotlil 04:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Measuring notability through Page rank is a big joke. Note that most hits in Google points to his own blogs, Wikipedia article and mirror sites of Wikipedia. And yeah, as Tintin said, getting mentioned in newspaper is not a big deal. Even I have my name mentioned in TOI. Routinely? Where?Gnanapiti 04:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most hits point where, again ? Go check once more for yourself and tell us how many of the hits you counted were "his own" blogs and wiki mirrors. And, check the links that have been provided in this discussion and you will know he doesn't get noticed by fluke. Lotlil 04:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial mentions in newspapers and large number of Google results don't indicate much notability. Are there any news articles which discuss him as the primary subject? utcursch | talk 05:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, we want to ignore the many articles that quote him and his opinions ? And, being the primary subject of an article would establish notability in a way that his Internet prominence and all other articles don't ? Lotlil 17:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not going to vote because I have a conflict of interest - Kiruba is a friend of mine, and someone whose work I have admired for years. I have been part of my country's IT industry, and I was stumbling across Kiruba's name long before I met him. Every IT company in the country worth its salt has at one time or the other had him over to speak to them, or advise them. In blogging circles, he is without doubt of the same stature in India as Robert Scoble (so much for "Wikipedia is not a place for bloggers"). His direct impact on the country's cyberspace through the event's he has been organizing is measurable and notable (both Jimmy Wales and Robert Scoble have participated in some of these events). He coerces, encourages, bullies and pleads with people to get them to particpate in blogging, wikis, podcasting and other stuff. And he is highly successful at it.

In times of emergencies, such as the Tsunami tragedy a few years ago, he used his widely read blog to gather resources and distribute them. When someone in the neighbourhood has an accident, he uses his influence to gather resources for his treatment. Local papers (who may not be online) cover him. He is quoted all over the place by national media.

From http://www.hindu.com/2005/01/01/stories/2005010114241000.htm :

Chennai's Kiruba Shankar (www.kiruba.com) has been consistently blogging about tsunami and relief since December 26. Since then, his blog has become a sort of nucleus for information pile up about the tsunami. Information, comments, seismographs, charts, animations, name it and it is there on Kiruba's blog. In addition to putting the contact information of people who write to him with requests for details about where they can contribute, Kiruba also browsed other blogs to provide the latest information.

And this is a man who is not notable?

Just because there isn't an article *about* him as a primary subject available online?

The problem I am seeing here (over and over again) is that editors aren't editing - they are using AfD as a proxy for editing. And the people standing at the roadside cheering them on are people who really know nothing about the subject, and are using that fact as a reason to support deletion. This is not the first such instance I have seen, and I am sure that it won't be the last. Maybe we should listen to User:Bhadani when he says "Indian editors shouldn't edit Indian articles". :)

In this particular case, rather than do some research, "motivated editors" have been quietly snipping away pieces of information saying "not verifiable", instead of tagging them with {{fact}} and giving people a chance to provide references. Finally, when the article has been gutted enough, someone pops in a AfD nom. Don't take my word for it, check the history. Frankly, I am not seeing people playing by the rules that they keep referring to.

To people here in India, Kiruba *is* notable. But I guess that doesn't count, right? Because for some people, "notability" means "*I* must like him" or "*I* must have heard of him".

Achitnis 10:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, back to his claims:

On Kiruba's magnanimous Humanitarian Assistance:

Here is another example - [A Glass of Water to a Worker]

"When they (a worker carrying a heavy cylinder) climb up to my second floor apartment, they are invariably sweating and clearly beaten by the sapping heat. The least one can do is offer a glass of water" and the punchline "that's a welcome help and they always gladly accept it"

And someone replied "I have been making this difference (giving water to people) for more than 20 years now. I never thought I could claim credit for it. Damn, I am slow."

You learn from kiruba's blog everyday - how to be self centered about even a simple basic human gesture….I bet you thot “gee - I can’t wait to blog about this good deed”, when you handed him a glass of water… has basic human decency replaced the need for advertising about it? (Link)

"you think that you are the only good samaritan in chennai? First you write abt visiting your servants function, now offering water to service men who come to ur place, maybe its your alter ego....... you dont need publicity for such trivial things kiruba, of course its ur blog....... but it getting over the limit.....maybe if you don't have any content......simply shut off this blog of yours...... " (Link)

On being India's Robert Scoble:

Have you seen Robert post a high-res picture of him clipping his toenails? If not, here is your indian equivalent (How I clip my Toenails - with pictures)

So in essence, I request Achitnis, instead of rhetoric ("I guess that doesn't count, right? Because for some people, "notability" means "*I* must like him" or "*I* must have heard of him") and tirade against Wikipedia Editors ("at the roadside cheering them on are people who really know nothing about the subject") - please go over his blog, and show us what puts him on the same podium as the founder of Digg, Founder of Facebook.

And, why he conveniently snipped other bloggers and folks who were quoted in the same article he pasted (And none of them have their own encyclopedic article). Was it because it dilutes Kiruba's importance, as he is just one of 10-15 bloggers who gets interviewed?

More reviews of his blogs from some Indian bloggers Urban Legends, Kiruba as top blogger?,Kiruba does it again, Fight for being India's Top Blogger

So as with any blog, there are people who love the author, and some who hate the author. So as neutrality demands, check the actual tangiable differences a person makes/creates/contributes, instead of going by 'you scratch my back, i scratch yours' or local media links (a person maybe the only blogger in Somerset, VT (population 5), does that mean he is encyclopedic?). If this is the low threshold of entry into wikipedia - I'll ask my friend to create my own page :) (I have been quoted many times in Times of India (Bombay edition), topped IIT national rank, wrote 2 books, featured in amazon, microsoft mvp, won 3 awards and to top it, my google page rank is 5/10) :) - PokhranII 18:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added: If you are looking for true Indian tech gurus check out Anoop Gupta (president's gold medalist, and VP of Technology at Microsoft), Sanjay Parthasarathy (VP of Development at MSFT), Sridhar Vembu (co-founder of Zoho), Peeyush Ranjan (Head of Engineering at Google)...etc and there are plenty. (And guess why their names are in red). And Kiruba has not even done anything remotely this noteable, except being a very ordinary blogger (check it out yourself). So, I am guessing comparing his blog with Scoblizer (who does breaking news scoops, latest tech reviews) was a joke. PokhranII 21:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom per Sarvagnya Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 06:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems WP:Notable per WP:RS sources such as The Hindu. Thanks Taprobanus 17:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems very notable indeed as The Hindu and other news sites (out of India) cover his story. He is not a 1 hit news. He's been on the news more than a couple of times and thus warrents a notable tag placed on him. Watchdogb 18:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is noted by The Hindu as "India's leading blogger" and he is related to wikipedia's growth in India as well (The Hindu). He is also a professor on blogging (Rediff). As for allegations about crooks in mission, I dont think they are remotely in cahoots. Sarvagnya is educated enough to make his own decisions as are iwazaki and utcursch.Baka man 23:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I do not see any reasonable reason to let these bloggers to have their own biography on Wikipedia. Just because someone wrote a blog and it was ranked by local blog rankers as a creative one, does that person become a writer notable enough to hold an article in the Wikipedia? NO! And for this guy you call a tech guru? You got to be kidding, Indians. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 08:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall anyone calling Kiruba a tech guru. It is probably the usual misconception that only techies are true bloggers that is causing your to say this. Achitnis 13:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:BIO - non notable person G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 00:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep

Like Achitnis I do think,

The problem I am seeing here (over and over again) is that editors aren't editing - they are using AfD as a proxy for editing. And the people standing at the roadside cheering them on are people who really know nothing about the subject, and are using that fact as a reason to support deletion. This is not the first such instance I have seen, and I am sure that it won't be the last. Maybe we should listen to User:Bhadani when he says "Indian editors shouldn't edit Indian articles". :)

In this particular case, rather than do some research, "motivated editors" have been quietly snipping away pieces of information saying "not verifiable", instead of tagging them with {{fact}} and giving people a chance to provide references. Finally, when the article has been gutted enough, someone pops in a AfD nom. Don't take my word for it, check the history. Frankly, I am not seeing people playing by the rules that they keep referring to.

To people here in India, Kiruba *is* notable. But I guess that doesn't count, right? Because for some people, "notability" means "*I* must like him" or "*I* must have heard of him".

Some Users who hate Tamils are here to remove this article from wiki. See what happened on this Keep and on this Delete. Where there are AFDs for Tamils' Articles, You also can see the Crooks in Mission there.

Users who were impersonating themselves[64], are here worrying Kiruba Shankar is kidding Indians.Madrass Express 11:34, 22 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 --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 06:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brady R. Allred

Notability not clear, originally written as a thank-you and not an article, and no sources to boot. Sentence structure and style aren't too good either. JoeyETS 01:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I may be dense, but I'm not seeing the evidence for "originally written as a thank-you and not an article" in the article's history or talk page. Could you be more explicit? Deor 01:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heck, I'm just going to say keep on this one. I've added a source to the article and cleaned it up somewhat, and I think he satisfies the notability requirements for a person in his profession—per the awards listed in the external source if nothing else. Deor 02:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Meets criteria of WP:BIO. Needs improvement, though. User got bad nom faith.--Edtropolis 18:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brady_R._Allred&oldid=132693426 is where the thank you article was, on further investigation it looks like there might be more notability to this article than I first though when I nominated it. The thank you seemed to be an isolated instance of vandalism. There was a lot of bio information, but it was removed because of copyright violation. Once this discussion closes, and at this point I'd the article will most likely, be kept, someone should nominate it on wikipedia cleanup. Sorry for the mediocre call on nomination. That's the beauty of wikipedia, mistakes are filtered out by discussion. JoeyETS 22:08, 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 Keep. Cúchullain ^t/c 07:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chonos tribe

While the Mongolian word "chono" does indeed mean "wolf", the rest of the article seems to be entirely OR. It is the only work of its creator, who is unlikely to return for adding sources. Other than stated, Genghis Khan belonged to the Borjigin, which is probably the only Mongolian tribe notable enough to justify its own WP article. --Latebird 01:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a template on article page [65].--Sandahl 01:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed John Vandenberg 02:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice to re-creation, unless references are found and added. I disagree with the nominator that no Mongolian clan other than the Borjigin is worthy of an article, but that will have to be decided when other such articles are made. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sirs, sorry for references - they are just added. There are Rashid ad-Din and Altan Tobchi, also Gumilev and Kozin. The tribe is still exist, so I hope you do not want to delete the article. Some people say Chonos is a remains of Ashina (Gumilev supposed that Ashina was a mongol-speaking tribe of Wolf, Kozin called 70 chonos boys, who was boiled by jamuha after Zeren, princes. - but. of course, in a such way big part of mongolians can calls themselves nobles... Chonos - tribe with a very long history, that still existing, so maybe it is no need to delete the article, just read Rashid ad-Din, where he writes about old and new mongolian tribes, or see Altan Tobgchi where about Zeren battle or Mongolian Old tribes. If somebody does not know books about mongolian history it is better to read than to offer to delete the article...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arasha (talk • contribs) 19:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that the tribe existed/exists. The question is whether the information you gave us is enough to justify an article in an encyclopedia. Right now, the text just claims they are "famous", but doesn't explain what it is that makes them famous. The only substantial information you give us is: "the tribe exists, and it joined Genghis Khan back then". That is not enough, and doesn't distuinguish them from any other Mongolian tribe. Listing half a dozen books doesn't really help either. The relevant information needs to be in the article. If you prefer that people read the books themselfes, then it is clearly not necessary to *keep* the article... --Latebird 19:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The story of the 70 boys (or princes) being boilt to death by Jamukha is also mentioned in one sentence in the Secret history of the Mongols, however this was the only reference I could find on the Chinos in that work, but then I didn't look too hard, either. But IMO it's hard to establish notability just because of some very short mention in old texts (or are the passages in Rashid ad-Din's work any longer?) and the fact that a same clan name exists today. Even then, Outer Mongolians seem to just pick a clan name they like, so the existence of that name there doesn't seem to prove much, and I'm actually unaware of clan names now being used in Inner Mongolia, though I might just be ignorant.

Maybe it would be useful to first create a useful reference on clan names among the different mongolian peoples, before proceeding to create entries for the more notable clans Yaan 08:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A general article on Mongolian clans would be most helpful, at least in my opinion, and give this article some of the context it needs to address claims that this particular clan is "not notable." If these clans are as wide ranging as this article's text suggests, they would end up resembling a Roman gens, and as such have no real notability problems. I gather that the references to Rashid ad-Din and the other added references are names of individual authors; letting us know the names of the books in which the information is found would also be helpful. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Altan Tobchi is the name of a mongolian chronicle from the 17th century, Rashid ad-Din is an author from the 13/14th century, Lev Gumilev's book is probably Ancient turks (wrong date in the english article?), Kozin is a Russian mongolist who also did some work on the secret history.

Are there sources that mention the usage of clan names in 19th/early 20th century Outer Mongolia (i.e. before the socialists allegedly suppressed them)? Just curious. Yaan 16:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Mongolia, information on the clan association of most families has been lost during socialism, because it was suppressed from official documents. After democratization in 1992, people were allowed to register their clan names again, but most of the claims were really unfounded, with a disproportionate number flocking to the most prestigious "borjigin". In some cases, new names were made up (eg "sansar" = "space" for the first Mongolian cosmonaut Jügderdemidiin Gürragchaa). All in all, the topic is only of historical relevance. Clan names are purely symbolic today, and have no practical purpose other than to brag about it with your friends. The situation may be different in Inner Mongolia and Buryatia, but most likely only marginally so. I have no idea if we'll be able to gather enough material for a Mongolian clans article (I'm not even sure if there's a comprehensive list of names available somewhere). Maybe a paragraph of two in Mongolian name would serve the same purpose? --Latebird 15:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understand your position, sorry for my bad English. 1. I just wanted to open an article about tribe I belonged to, and make our WP more rich of knowledge. Also, as I supposed, perhaps it was interesting to some mongolists. For example, L.N. Gumilev in "Ancient Rus and Great Steppe" wrote, that he did not understand why among thousands killed in battle od Zeren 70 Chonos are mentioned, and he wrote that it is interesting what is it. And he wrote in some books that Ashina was a tribe of Wolf and mongol-tongued. So for some people maybe it would be interesting. Then in Buryatia and Irkutskaya provence I met people who belong to Chonos too (I am from Kalmykia). Then one guy from China said that in Inner Mongolia there was a tribe in Chinese named LangZu, tribe of Wolf, but he did know Mongolian name. Some guys from Mongolia said that Chonos is a part of Borjigin or Borjigin is a part of Chonos, (Borchigin is a Bor Chono/Chino - Grey Wolf, when Chonos is Wolves). In May 2007 National Geography had took 50 probes of genetic of members of Chonos tribe to search it (and 250 of others Kalmyk tribes). And many old Mongolian tribes, as Kereits, Taichiuts (Chonos in 13 century belonged to Taichiuts), Merkets, Hoits and Derbet, Choros, Hoshud, Torgouts-Keshictens etc. 2.In Kalmykia we very carefully look at tribes, and during soviet period most tribes, relatives and male lines were saved. as you know, among western mongols was not a melting pot.

Well, any verifiable information based on reliable published sources would indeed be very interesting. Unfortunately, both are missing from your text.

Btw: According to my dictionary, "bor" means brown, not grey (that would be "saaral" or "orog"), so your "grey wolf" theory may also need some more checking. --Latebird 23:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's badly in need of more referencing, but it doesn't appear to be OR. Edward321 22:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

about grey or brown - hz - my english is not good enough and I do not have time to use dictionary. I suppose it is no need to delete the article. I do not have Rashid ad-Din now, but still remember that you can find description of the tribe, including one Persian emir, among descriptions of old and new mongolian tribes. Arasha 07:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep verifiable not OR, found a reference and added it, but needs more work and sources.--Sandahl 19:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - The existence of the tribe was never debated. But somehow the question whether the article sufficiently asserts notability seems to have fallen under the table between all the details. --Latebird 21:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but clean up and expand significantly. BovineBeast 23:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, possible OR G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 00:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of reliable sources; the first one written by Charles Darwin in The Quarterly Review about the adventures of HMS Beagle. The question of notability is laughable; there has been no clear rationale for why a tribe would be not notable. John Vandenberg 01:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough notability. Also, per the sources shown right above (Jayvdb´s "Keep")♠TomasBat 01:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Folks, the "Chonos tribe" reported about by Charles Darwin (and probably most of the other sources) has absolutely nothing to do with our topic here. Or did you seriously think that his HMS Beagle passed through Mongolia on the way to Polynesia? Those sources that actually do talk about Mongolia usually say little more than "this tribe exists". That doesn't make it notable, and it also doesn't offer enough material to "expand significantly" as some demanded (not that I'd object to any sourced expansion, mind you). --Latebird 01:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Latebird is correct; the Chonos tribe I linked to above is/was above the Strait of Magellan somewhere. John Vandenberg 05:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sources provided on the article all at least appear to exist. I've updated the article to point to two of them; the other two sources need to be clarified:
- "Gumilev 1967" returns three different results[66], but OCLC 477682 looks probable and is in English, but only held at Harvard University Library
- "Kozin 1941" returns four results[67] which all appear to be the same book
Given this, I think a merge to Kalmyk people (with history retained) is an appropriate outcome. John Vandenberg 06:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According the the passing mention in the external link (Mongol tribes in the 6th century? hmmm...), a possible place to mention the Chonos would be in Dörbet. But that may only be one of several other tribes that assimilated former Chonos members over the centuries.

As has already been mentioned, the ancient Mongol tribes were of a rather volatile nature. Tribal association was only partly a matter of inheritage, but also one of individual agreement. Tribes were created, merged, split, and otherwise remodelled along the lines of shifting alliances as a matter of routine. As a result, any group of Mongols existing today may include a few descendants of the original Chonos. The same can be said about quite a number of other tribes as well, and I don't see any information in the article that makes this one more notable than the other ones. I still hope that someone might dig up a list of the two or three dozen original clan names, which we then can collect appropriately into an article Early Mongol tribes (or similar). That would hopefully eliminate any desire to create a whole series of articles, all saying nothing more than: "this is one of the Mongol tribes that originally joined Genghis Khan and its descendents still exist among the Mongols of today". --Latebird 16:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not start it right now, with this one, and add others as possible? DGG 17:33, 21 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, no references arose to assert anything --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 06:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bugnux

Notability to come. Chealer 00:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article doesn't even assert notability, let alone support it. --Haemo 00:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs some work including sourcing. However, it appears notable based on a Google search which returned +7000 hits. Of course that's not everything, but a pretty decent indicator. JodyB_talk 02:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GHITS does not directly translate to notability. Morgan Wick 21:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything to suggest that this has been much noted by the Linux community. semper fictilis 20:14, 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. Sr 13 00:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baza (language)

Contested prod. Subject is a proposal made in 2003 to limit the vocabulary in Esperanto and its derivatives. Article makes no claim for the subject's notability, and cites no reliable third-party publications. The only provided sources are the self-published (and freely hosted) website of Greg Hoover, the proposal's creator, and the proposal's associated profile at the constructed language wiki Langmaker, which was also authored by Greg Hoover.

Attempts to use Google to establish notability or lack thereof prove difficult, as "Baza" is both a town in Granada and a common adjective in the Esperanto language. Baza's alternative name, "Inter-Esperanto" returns matches of the phrase "inter Esperanto" (no hyphen), which is quite common since "inter" is an Esperanto word for the preposition "between". Despite several attempts, I have not been able to find any reliable third-party sources on either Google or Google Scholar. A search on EBSCOhost, a search engine for academic journals, has also revealed nothing. -- Schaefer (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the nominator pretty much sums it up. This is unreviewed, non-peer reviewed material that evidently has not been published anywhere. It is therefore not proper for Wikipedia. JodyB_talk 02:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, complete failure of WP:V. Given the circumstances, it's incumbent on anyone wishing to save the article (as, per policy, it should be in any event in all cases) to provide proper sourcing before the AfD closes. Ravenswing 18:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR or WP:MADEUP. semper fictilis 20:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Search of major papers for Baza + language over last 10 years also turns up zip. - Aagtbdfoua 01:54, 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 afd not needed. W.marsh 00:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Thelogical Seminary

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Canadian Thelogical Seminary

the article title is mis-spelled Aepoutre 00:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)aepoutre[reply]

Comment Then move the article. AfD is not for move proposals. 63.81.44.161 00:26, 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 speedy delete as spaaaaaaaam. Sr 13 06:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayanns Corporation

Previous editor did not finish with the AfD work, so I'm doing some housekeeping. (I'd just prod it, myself). Reasons would be non-notable (company started in 2007), first several pages of non-wiki ghits are all pr sites, COI, spammy, and whatever else you'd like to throw in. Kathy A. 00:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very spammy, no RS to support notability. JodyB_talk 02:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam. Clarityfiend 04:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basically an advertisement.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:21, 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EMoviX

Non-notable dead Linux distribution. Chealer 00:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly not the most famous video program but there are some ghits which suggest it my be notable and just in need of better sourcing. JodyB_talk 02:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Project appears to be dead. Is not notable and last update on main page was over a year ago (2005). --_Hdt83 ^Chat 04:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom.--Edtropolis 20:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete on grounds that this is thinly disguised spam. --Gavin Collins 10:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just saw something in k3b about eMovix DVDs, so I immediately came to wikipedia to find my answer, and this article gave it to me. Why would you remove it? Psperl 20:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is still in K3b, is still notable.--mcornelius 01:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Leave the obscure software alone.--Mike18xx 07:15, 18 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. Sr 13 00:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Washington University Department of Biomedical Engineering

There isn't much of an assertion of notability and I'm having trouble finding specific guidance on whether any particular department can "inherit" notability from the institution of which it is part. I can't find any independent sources about this department that are not trivial listings (which IMHO includes a U.S. News ranking of programs). In general I don't believe that departments at universities should be able to take notability their stake of notability from the university (I think the farthest it should stretch is to schools within the university). Also, this article is practically a directory listing with a few tidbits of information about the department in general. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 00:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete looks like a faculty directory to me. delete per WP:NOT specifically, wikipedia is not a directory. Barsportsunlimited 00:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absent a showing of particular notability for a department, I'm not in favor of spinning them off. Washington University can have this kind of information on their own webpages. FrozenPurpleCube 01:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As an alumnus of the university (though uninvolved with this particular department), I agree with FrozenPurpleCube with regard to articles on individual departments. Deor 01:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with University article. However this material is very POV and someone should probably look at the website to see if this is a copyright issue. JodyB_talk 02:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- University departments can be notable themselves because of their histories, their importance, and the presence of reliable sources. (For instance, important histories of the departments of music at Columbia, Princeton, and Harvard have all been written; I would guess the like has been done for the Cambridge mathematics department, University of Chicago Economics department, etc.) However, I don't think departments are generally notable without these arguments, and a list of current faculty in a department founded in 1997 does not qualify. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 03:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The material is not written in a neutral tone and should be deleted since it dosen't establish notability. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 04:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I shudder to think of what would happen if every dept. could have its own page. Nothing esp. notable here. JJL 13:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. semper fictilis 20:04, 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. If this person becomes successful in the future, the article can be created again. Sr 13 00:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Lara

Tagged for speedy deletion but some notability is asserted. Still, the article looks spammish. Procedural nomination. Pascal.Tesson 02:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would prefer to see more reliable sources here, indeed, I think the first link is broke. Neverthless, I think the material sufficiently asserts notability and should be kept around. JodyB_talk 02:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically a promising student. May well become notable but not there yet. If we had articles on every music student WP would become unmanageable IMO. -- Kleinzach 02:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kleinzach CitiCat 03:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete definately not there yet---he may be talented, but he is not there yet.Balloonman 03:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lara completed his Masters in Music in 2006 - Let's give him some more time to work on notability. Ante lan ^talk 04:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article apppears to include enough non-trivial references from reliable sources to prove notability. --Eastmain 05:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Were a topical article and not a WP:BIO, I'd agree, but given that it's about a living entertainer, I don't think he quite makes the cut yet. Ante lan ^talk 08:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above + possible WP:COI. I also put the speedy deletion template on the article before, and the creator removed it, which is against policies.--Svetovid 08:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep...asserts notability, has RS. Svetovid, the speedy was then explicitly declined by a third-party editor, so the creator's improper action is now moot. DMacks 16:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Meets WP:Notability guidelines. Needs more sources.--Edtropolis 16:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While WP:MUSIC states that wining an important competition makes someone notable, this candidate was "Tulsa regional finalist". Basically, it's way too soon in this guy's career to know whether he'll make it. After he's made it, we'll write an article. semper fictilis 20:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he is not yet a regular performer: "one of the 11 talented singers chosen to train with the Seattle Opera Young Artists Company for twenty weeks." DGG 22:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all of the above. Eddie 00:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - come on, if this fellow was a rap star we'd be saying "You're 'aving a laugh, mate". This is no different. He does not pass WP:MUSIC, period. May do some day, but not now. Moreschi ^Talk 17:52, 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 deleted by User:DGG. I am not an admin. Morgan Wick 21:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frelinghuysen middle school

No content, let alone evidence of notability, Article was created maliciously Alansohn 16:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. As per CSD:A3.--Edtropolis 17:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per Ed. semper fictilis 19:59, 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. Sr 13 00:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Green

This article is about a non notable person, and fails WP:BIO - G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 23:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. I can't prove it, but I have the suspicion that the text is a copyvio--at the very least, it sounds like the language of a promotion, not an encyclopedia article. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the article a the promotional material assert notability I just don't see it. If he's as important as they claim we should see more immediate evidence of somewhere. JodyB_talk 20:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable independant souces listed and reads like an ad. Edward321 22:27, 17 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.