Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 26#Love Hina plot summaries

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now but one moment let me stay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It's a poem. The article must be deleted or move to Wikisource. -- Magioladitis 19:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I'm going to clean up what's there.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Delete - No ghits, not verifiable/notable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• More details about this poem can be found on Rhiannonsmoore (talk · contribs), however I'm not sure whether it is correct. John Vandenberg 16:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears valid: [1]. John Vandenberg 16:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment since the poem removed and there is an article instead, I think we can keep it. Magioladitis 08:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this poem is unknown, althought there is no guideline on when to include poems, AFAIK. Clearly some poems, like Jabberwocky or Ozymandias, are acceptable; also clearly it would be insane to include all poems. As this poem is thoroughly undistinguished, I can't imagine keeping this. --JayHenry 18:54, 28 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, no consensus to delete. Merge proposals do not belong on AfD. -- Visviva 13:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable radio show guest. Article has no third party reliable sources (only sources are Stern show website and a new york times article that doesn't mention his/her name.) Needs to be severely cut down and merged to the Wack pack article. — Ocatecir^T 00:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If you want to merge this rather than delete it, AfD is probably not the place. Capitalistroadster 02:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well its already there, I want the history deleted so it can't be simply reverted. — Ocatecir^T 03:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging from this article and then deleting the history would be a violation of the GFDL; this is why it is not appropriate to bring merge proposals to AfD. On the other hand, "merge and redirect" is a valid outcome of an AfD discussion. DHowell 03:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect this is fairly well referenced compared to other Stern show related individuals, but it still isn't enough to maintain a verifiable page. Optigan13 05:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Subject's inclusion in the Howard Stern media empire has made them one of the most well-known trans people in the world which is no small feat. I wouldn't expect to see many sources outside the Howard Stern show as the show itself documents it's own work and people so unless someone writes a book or pulls a stunt they pretty much stay in their universe. Siobhan Meow has been cited in some articles about squatters rights in NYC so that certainly could be added to article as well. Also the article about the Wack Pack folks is already pretty lengthy so re-adding this there would seem to hurt both. Suggest better writing and quoting show transcipts of appearances. Benjiboi 08:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  So by your own admission the subject doesn't have many sources outside of the stern universe. How do you reconcile this with WP:BIO's requirement of significant coverage by independent third party reliable sources as the threshold for notability? — Ocatecir^T 09:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know that I need to. Subject was plucked from obscurity and made famous by Howard Stern and his related media. Few if any other media outlets gain much by re-circulating Howard Stern content and may even be prevented from doing so. If "significant coverage by independent third party reliable sources" is the standard then much of WP is much worse off than this article. Benjiboi 21:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. For third party reliable sources which do mention the name, see this 2006 article from The Brooklyn Rail, and this 2002 article from City Limits. DHowell 03:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Ashford (activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable character who started his own autobiography, SqueakBox 23:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. —Eddie 00:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete thoroughly non notable, fails WP:N, WP:COI.--Sandahl 02:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Simply not notable. --MichaelLinnear 03:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are many reliable news sources, including interviews, documenting his activities and in many different languages. There is also a big campaign to get his website shut down. Clearly, this article is receiving attack because of what he is doing. Christopher Connor 10:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. After looking at the article and Googling him, I've concluded that disgust with his cause is affecting this discussion. WP:NOTCENSORED. COI is an editing guideline, not a reason to delete in and of itself, and the article has had other editors. His notoriety also seems to have increased since the last AfD, when it was more iffy. --Groggy Dice T | C 13:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. This guy has been discussed in multiple independent reliable sources. He has rather outspoken and inflammatory views, and this has attracted a good deal of media attention. This sounds like the very definition of notability to me. JulesH 18:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is not a non-notable person, unless pedophilia activism per se is to be considered ground for non-inclusion. __meco 20:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are sufficient sources for notability and for the facts. The article should probably be reduced a little. DGG 22:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Whether editors and readers agree or disagree with Lindsay Ashford's viewpoints, this individual is definitely notable. Not only is he a leading force in modern pedophile activism, he has also been featured in many articles and several news programs. All the while, the article, as it currently stands, does need some editing to make it more NPOV, because criticism takes up a disproportionate amount of space in comparison to the discussion of the actual perspectives Ashford promotes. If anything, the article should be expanded, but definitely not deleted. Thus, unless better evidence is presented for deleting this article, I suggest that we keep it. Homologeo 08:57, 29 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. -- Longhair\^talk 11:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

There are zero hits on google about this "gang" or its founder and the supporting articles provided by the author have no mention of it. There is no reason to believe this group even exists. RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 23:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May wish to examine/add Sword Boys to this AfD as well... 68.39.174.238 00:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - possible hoax, certainly non-notable. I note the article claims they are often found guilty of "grand theft auto", which is not the name of any crime in WA (it is just called car theft). At least the "Sword Boys" were mentioned briefly in a panicky and overly credulous TV news story on Perth gangs. The Magnums, alas, were not. Euryalus 06:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7. Where is the assertion of notability or the sources to back it up? -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 08:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To clarify, the speedy delete only applies to the magnums. I have no opinion on the Sword Boys. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 10:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete; I cant find any sources. OTOH the Sword Boys have been a well known street gang in Perth since the mid 90s. i.e. as that name by police and any media. I'm about to trim that article down to the verifiable facts. John Vandenberg 09:26, 27 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. Friday (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wonersh Players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable theatrical group. I could not find any secondary sources to confer notability, and most of the article is unreferenced or referenced only from their web site. Kevin 23:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not appear to fulfill notability requirements at this time. Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Naconkantari 06:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are three reviews quoted on their website, but without giving sources; the articles also says reviews, without specifying where. Depending on that, this might be notable, but for a local group like this the assumption is the reviews are not significant. DGG 14:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete per article -- "amatuer", "friends" -- and as per nom. Bearian 18:05, 28 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. --Coredesat 04:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xi Chapter of Psi Upsilon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

According to WP:ORG, individual chapters of national organizations are not usually notable in themselves. Prod removed by creator, see article talk page for his explanation, which, summarized, is that he disagrees with the guideline. FisherQueen (Talk) 22:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn suborganization of a fraternity. Carlossuarez46 18:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete CSD-A7. Article makes no assertion of the chapter's notability outside of the very local area. The consensus at WP:FRAT is that individual chapters shouldn't have articles unless they are especially notable for some reason.—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 21:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• RTFM -- The original author explains, clearly and concisely, on the article talk page (as acknowledged by FisherQueen]], who has at least read it) the far braoder impact of this chapter. This ought never to have been brought to deletion -- it is an example of proper recognisition of outstanding achievement. -- Jubelum
• Delete--for consistency's sake, this needs to be deleted. The case for notablity has not been made (I read the discussion)DIDouglass 04:42, 29 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 & Redirect. The merge, however, will be a hack job cut-n-paste since I know very little about this kind of stuff... — Scientizzle 20:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Subject To" Mortgage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is WP:OR fork from mortgage. The "subject to" is not actually a mortgage product but a non-notable deduction from the purchase price of home, such an assignment of an exisiting mortgage, loan or other liability. Gavin Collins 21:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. —Gavin Collins 21:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mortgage assumptions are actually quite common (at least here - about 40% of mortgages are assumed) and not a big deal. It could take up one small paragraph of the mortgage article; why does it need its own article? --Charlene 22:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge at least portions of this text to mortgage and redirect. The mortgage article needs a section on transferability generally, that covers the rights of both the lender and the borrower to assign or convey their respective rights under the document and the security. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to mortgage, per Smerdis of Tlön. No need for a seperate article.--JayJasper 14:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to mortgage. The article has no references and no apparently useful material. It gives no insight as to why the effective assumption of a non-assumable loan could be considered legal, or why the previous borrower should be allowed to trade away a pledged security. The main article Mortgage should be able to deal with this issue. I'll join in the call for a merge, to simplify the closing. Note that the first three commenters seem to have different ideas of what a "Subject to" mortgage actually is, so it can't be a totally simple concept. I like Smerdis of Tlön's suggestion for a new section in Mortgage to explain transferability. EdJohnston 04:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Even though NFT is not a csd category, article made no claim of notability, had no sources, and was of interest to only a small group in England. Be bold.— Ocatecir^T 00:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:NOT — Wikipedia is not for something made up in school (or in the street) one day. The fact that it was made up as such is mentioned in the article itself. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 21:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete God I wish Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day was a speedy category. Improbcat 21:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If this is notable, my gym class thought of it first while playing dodgeball in 1970. Acroterion _(talk) 21:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That deserves a barnstar of Good Humor! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, and I second User:Improbcat's wish for a WP:NFT-flavored speedy category. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — I have no idea if there's a proper place for proposing such a thing, but a CSD for things made up in school one day would be very helpful. Such things are never going to be notable, and are always going to be deleted. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 21:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete and I wholeheartedly third the WP:NFT speedy category idea. dtony 22:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete non notable silliness. Bigdaddy1981 22:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete and hit the creator in the head with a baseball, or something hard. Kwsn^(Ni!) 23:04, 26 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 02:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable actor, only credit was a short from six years ago. Corvus cornix 21:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NN. Kevinwong913 ^{Speak out loud!} 21:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:N, only one credit to his name, and it's a film that isn't even on Wikipedia (not that said film is non-notable...). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; I also note that a single use account created this stub. Bigdaddy1981 22:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:N 128.12.69.52 22:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BIO, there is nothing else but a brief mention of his participation in Hero, but does not explain his role.--JForget 01:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The film is apparently not notable enough to have an article. The picture looks so amateurish that I suspect this may be a user taking on the name or coincidentally with the same name. Hu 08:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Magioladitis 09:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom (while I edited the initial nonsensical article to make a proper stub of it, I won't argue for keeping it) --Bonadea 12:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Snowball delete per everyone else. Film doesn't seem to be notable, but I wouldn't be the best one to judge that.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:39, 27 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. Reproducing Bearcat's google search shows a lot of relevant hits including tours/shows in the US & regular performances at Country music festivals. Notability is therefore established. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Claims of notability, so I'm bringing it here instead of nominating for speedy deletion. This band fails WP:MUSIC in that the only Google hits I find for '"Wild Minds" higgins "Coming Home For Christmas"' are their own website. Nothing at allmusic.com, nothing at artistdirect. Corvus cornix 20:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- not notable ChrisLamb 21:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unsourced claims of "a massive following of fans" notwithstanding, these chaps are totally non-notable. Bigdaddy1981 22:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Tagged as such. Naconkantari 22:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• As I've stated before, allmusic is not a fully reliable gauge of notability for bands that haven't gotten known in the United States; it's not at all unheard of for allmusic to have no entry whatsoever on bands that are unknown in the US while simultaneously being chart-topping stars in their home countries. The article does need some cleanup, certainly, but they've toured in both Canada and the United States and have performed live on national television and radio in Canada. Plus you get far more useful Google results with the term "The Higgins" country music. That clears the bar in my world. Keep. Bearcat 00:23, 30 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 nonsense (CSD G1). WjBscribe 04:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Trio (gang) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This appears to be nonsense. If there really were "1k killings" attributed to the gang and they were wanted by the Detroit Police, I would expect to be able to find a news article about it, or at least mention on the Detroit Police website.[2][3] -- Anomie 20:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Appears to be a hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisLamb (talk • contribs)
• Strong delete, obvious hoax. I wish they'd make a CSD for hoaxes already... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:46, 26 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. --Coredesat 04:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Undead (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod removed without comment by an anon. Album belongs to either A. a non-notable band, or B. a non-existent band making the album a hoax. Kwsn^(Ni!) 19:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Band does not seem to exist in Wikipedia. --Sdornan 20:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The band article was deleted as NN and salted after it was re-created 18 times (!). However, improbably, they might well soon have some notability as the first band to be signed to the new Interscope/MySpace label. At the moment, though, still NN. EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:43, 27 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:51, 4 July 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}}.

Austin Ryan Fuentes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Quick summary: Non-notable bio. Long version: I've had an eye on this article from the day I saw in on the newly added articles list. At the time it was fishy, but I decided to give it the inclusionist benefit of the doubt. Over time I haven't been convinced: Merely being rich heir doesn't always make you notable (There are literally many hundreds of billionaires these days). The primary notability hooks within the article are: Having a one credit IMDB sheet (coincidentally a documentary that was specifically about rich kids who have no particular notability); (2) photos of the subject with notable people (again many people have such photos and it doesn't make a person notable); (3) being involved with charities (millions of wealthy doctors and lawyers do the same, where are their articles?). If he was the head of a company, or some kind of famous investor, a notable artist, or something, then there would be a hook. Right now, beyond copies of his Wikipedia, he flunks the Google test. I am not making these points to denigrate whatever noble work the subject is contributing to, but I do not see how these reach the level of notability yet. I initially brought up these concerns on the associated discussion page, but I found the answers to be inadequate: to summarize the given argument, because he's donated money to charity and hosted events, he's notable enough for Wikipedia. I disagree. If this nomination fails, I respect the decision, but this article just doesn't seem to warrant inclusion. Bobak 19:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the (highly detailed) nom. Just ain't notable. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 20:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; NN playboy. Bigdaddy1981 22:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm mostly not participating in Wikipedia anymore, but for context, I weakly supported the article, way back when because of the external verification of his philanthropy (I'm not sure if throwing lots of money at a charity and hanging out with celebrities is notable... it's notable in some contexts, I suppose). Still, if this article went away, I'm not convinced Wikipedia would be the lesser for it. -Harmil 15:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep How can you delete this guy? I heard about this guy one time at Citrus College he and his family have done so many things from helping hospitals to charities, I met him when he spoke in our Macro Econ class about world economics and social status in regards to family wealth, it was very interesting, when he spoke (Fall 2006) we where given packages from a production company he was starting with a friend, he also gave a little speech on world poverty and what we can do to help, he was/is designing a low-cost device to help those injured by land mines. We recieved a small bio (which i'll go over below) from our instructur which outlined his considerable donations, he and his family are the largest single private donor to the MS society, you can find his name engraved on walls at UCLA and John's Hopkins among others. I would think that if a person was courious to know who this person is they see on the wall(s) this site would be the optimal means of preserving who that person is. I know that he is also the primary sponsor for an MS Research Center at USC being developed and is often at White House events because the family is very political (Republican) and somewhat influencial especially in charity fields and aerospace (his grandfather owned and managed an aerospace company and was also a Boeing exec., he is also an accomplished inventor/engineer). I know that he translated that influence into Hollywood and made a point to help out other persons of Spanish origin. Thats not to mention any well known actresses/models he dated or all the other events he attends (Grammy's, Oscars, etc.) but none of that is really important in an overall sense, infact I would consider Austins notibility for more then any actor for the shear fact that actors or people that just inheret great wealth such as the young Onasis that got married a few years back. And I agree that in some sense wealth and social status alone does justify notability however in this case I think it goes far deeper then that. Now I dont know if all that constitutes notability but I just wanted to say that from what I heard from him I was deeply motivated to help others in my community (Pasadena) and I wouldnt want to ever take away from his contributions to others that are in my opionion very notable for many reasons beyond the abnormal cash ammounts to charities. Lets all keep in mind that this is one of the most level-headed, down to earth people you'd ever meet so I think if it was up to him he wouldnt care if this page was here, I mean thats why many of his donations are annonymous so that people wouldnt make a big issue out of what he thinks is just the right thing to do (his words). I just want people to know that truth, and the truth is he's notable and really an inspiring life story in so many ways. Thanks for taking my vote into consideration. -David Robinson
• Keep If being wealthy, young, single, philanthropic, and also be a minority and have such a diverse background and life doesn’t justify notability then what does? If it didn’t then we wouldn’t hear about all the other kids like we do; the Trump children, Georgina Bloomberg, Brandon Davis, Cassandra Mann, and even Paris Hilton who if you where recall came onto the spotlight due to that porn movie… Its not so much partying with all the other socialites or going to skiing in the alps that makes someone notable but in this case you combine the social-standing with personal wealth with good deeds done and I think you have a pretty good case for someone to be notable. As to agree with the above comment, I think that people would want to know about the guy written about on the wall or attending various invite-only events. I was looking back and originally the page talked about his ex girlfriends such as Eva Mendes and various models, it discussed the circles he traveled in and so forth but in time even these notable people where deleted off in favor of streamlining the page (I assume) and streamlined it showed the most notable characteristics of 2007; abnormal wealth, and abnormal philanthropy combined in a person that is really just a nice, down-to-earth guy. I also agree with the other argument that if wealth alone was/is not notable then this site wouldn’t have so much devoted to the topic but I also agree that wealth alone should not be the only thing you should be able to say about a person. PeanutMan 16:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've made my argument on the discussions page, I think other people on here have read it as well and integrated it into their arguments. If this page gets deleted I'm not going to jump off a building I just think it would be a shame and send the message that being extraordinary in the world of philanthropy doesnt mean you'll make the cut for the site, when you'll go to a list and see a dozen names of people of high net worth with nothing to say about them. If he's going to be on here anyway isnt it logical to say something about him when people click on his name rather then them just guessing? Bruce12 16:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (withdrawn by nominator). Anas ^talk? 00:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

No reliable sources. Unverified claims of notability. Anas ^talk? 19:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn —Anas ^talk? 00:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to pass WP:PROF criteria 1 and 2 as being well-recognized and imporant in his field. The article needs cleanup, as it's a little too close to the reference listed at the bottom (Radiat Environ Biophys (2000) 39:1), a one page tribute to him in a journal. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 21:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Notable individual (the article needs a good bit of work though). 1976 winner of the prestigious Weiss medal in radiologiy (http://www.graylab.ac.uk/usr/arr/weiss.html), he is old so many of his papers are not online, yet Google scholar lists 65 (including co-authored papers – not unusual in this field). Also, a birthday tribute in the peer-reviewed journal Radiation and Environmental Biophysics suggests notability (https://doi.org/10.1007%2FPL00007680) Bigdaddy1981 22:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per above. Obviously notable, given his awards, high number of published papers, etc. etc. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:25, 26 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 a wintry delete per clear consensus and BLP concerns. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 07:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of self-harmers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a list page. Some list are "interesting" or "encyclopedic" but I do not believe that this specific list is any good. Astrale01^talk_contribs 19:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nom. Astrale01^talk_contribs 19:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information. ChrisLamb 19:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nice list if you are desperate for people to laugh at... but clearly not encylopedia content, too indiscriminate and far from provably sourceable. -- Jimmi Hugh 19:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think it's appropriate to refer to self-harmers as people to laugh at! Nor should that opinion of self-harmers be a reason to delete the article. Mdwh 22:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It wasn't my reasoning... my reasoning was clearly stated after my pathetic outburst. I just don't like people to like me too much, but i would never comprimise following the rules. -- Jimmi Hugh 00:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: For one thing, not all of those names are sourced at all, and therefore are major WP:BLP violations. For another, I just peeked at several of those links, and after picking six out at random I failed to find a single one that wasn't either broken or weren't non-descript websites mirroring purported articles; before I accepted (say) a Rolling Stone article backing up that suchandsuch (living) singer was a cutter, I want that link to come from the Rolling Stone website. Finally, what defines "self-harm?" Could we (with some justification) include all suicides on the list?  RGTraynor  19:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment See Self-injury. Explicity claims "without suicidal intent". Not that this is up for discussion. -- Jimmi Hugh 19:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then remove the unsourced names - that is not a reason to delete an entire article. And broken links certainly isn't. Reference links getting broken is a problem for any Wikipedia article - the more useful response is to report the problem, then we can find an alternative source, or remove the entry - not delete the article! There are also plenty of articles which reference offline sources, not everything has to come from a live website. Did anyone even bother to tag it with "unreferenced" or "fact"? As for definitions, at the least, a person self-identifying as a self-harmer or cutter should count, and I have no problems with restricting the list to such people. Mdwh 22:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Since when did we take someone's unverified, self-referential word for anything? We wouldn't put those names on a List of Boston Bruins players (for example) either, no matter how often they proclaimed themselves to be pro hockey players; we'd get reliable, independent, third-party confirmation of that, and this is a subject where such confirmation is extremely difficult. As far as the sourcing problems, this isn't a deal where there are just a few bad ones. Over half the names listed have no sources at all for the assertion, and of those which do, only five out of twenty-three links are from reliable sources. That's an outrageously poor track record.  RGTraynor  13:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete BLP minefield waiting to explode. Not everything is sourced, and even those that are many are not reliabble sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That some are unsourced isn't sufficient reason to delete the whole article, as long as there are some entries which do have reliable sources. Mdwh 22:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep This is just as useful and interesting as many other people lists we have (see Category:Lists of people by activity, Category:Lists of people). "Interesting" is subjective, and I fear editors are injecting personal POV if this is the basis. Mdwh 22:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on above - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isnt a valid reason to keep something non-encylopedic. Bigdaddy1981 23:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongest possible delete Sourced or not, this can be a WP:BLP minefield (unless the retentionists are willing to look at this article three or four times a day to delete all unsourced statements on sight), and I'd point out that when it comes to things like this even sourcing might not be enough. Wikipedia is not for edgy, ultra-conventional college guys to find someone to laugh at either. --Charlene 22:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, primarily due to BLP concerns as well as being an indiscriminate collection in violation of WP:NOT. Arkyan • ^(talk) 23:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Astranom --not a bad topic, a bad list. There's nothing more boring than a list of names with no explanation as to why they're on there. Yeah, it's reliable-- but so is the certainty that paint will dry. Useful? Maybe. Interesting? No. It's not POV, but it's ZZZ. I hate lists like this, where a bunch of blue links are placed, sometimes even in alphabetical order, and we're supposed to click on them and learn more. My theory is that the list was designed to be cut Mandsford 23:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete as with most such lists, they are interesting but 1) incomplete at best 2) terribly biased to the present 3) impossible to maintain 4) not appropriate for an encyclopedia Bigdaddy1981 23:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Charlene and Bigdaddy1981.--JayJasper 05:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Arkyan. MartinDK 12:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per most of the above, and especially per RGTraynor; regardless of what "self-injury" sets as its ambiguous definition, others will argue anyone who has undergone an abortion, had one's ears pierced, or such trivial things as picking one's nose or a blister or a zit until it oozes or bleeds counts -- and there are those who still think masturbation is self-injury -- so about 90+% of people might find themselves in this category. Carlossuarez46 18:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You should read self-injury. By wikipedia's own definition and by what i consider to be obvious the guidelines of what is considered self harming (e.g. cutting ones self to release emotional pain) will never be mixed up with unrelated acts like getting a piercing. The only problem with the article is verifiability though, as someone claiming to cut does not make it verifable. There must be other sources to verify that, that person cuts. The list is completely indiscriminate. -- Jimmi Hugh 13:10, 28 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. John254 21:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed Messianic prophecies of Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

PROD started by Java7837 on grounds that article is NPOV - but deletion is controversial - discussion required. Fayenatic london (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article is pov and does not belong on wikipedia it only lists supposed prophecies without listing reasons why most biblical scholars reject them as predicting jesus for example

I think it for npov reasons there should be a Messianic prophecies disproving Jesus article why should we not make Messianic prophecies disproving Jesus

Why biblical scholars are skeptical about the prophecies is below

Matthew 2:15 where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."

yet it says

Hosea 11:1 "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.

also look at

Matthew 2:23 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."

"the above prophecy doesn't appear anywhere in the old testament" http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=nazareth&x=0&y=0

This is obviously pov and one runs into the problem of christians disputing what a prophecy supposedly predicting and which one isn't

--Java7837 19:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- If it is just POV put it might be better to put a pov-check template up and help clean it up.ChrisLamb 19:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Weak Delete- Seems a bit like a indiscriminate collection of information to me ChrisLamb 19:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep- While I still think that this article is a bit "Listy" it has potential for clean-up, this discussion has gotten ridiculous and should be closed ASAP ChrisLamb 13:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - POV is not a reason for deletion. Fix the article.--Rocksanddirt 19:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cannot be cleaned up from POV problems, no different than Claimed proofs that Jesus was not the Messiah. Carlossuarez46 19:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Claimed and proof contradict. This article never claimed to proove anything but simply listed. --David Andreas 19:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? claims and proof contradict? so this article contradicts that Jesus was Messianic because it's about claims? Now that's a twist and further evidences its incurable POV problem. Carlossuarez46 18:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I sense sarcasm. Twist? Really??? I love English, it's so much more subtle than Russian. In any case, yes, arguably POV but if an entire theological consensus of many Christians, with plenty of sources to back it up, agrees that thus are the messianic verses that align with Jesus, then is it really a non-objective POV? Rather it's a paradigm of Christian theology. I could pull up plenty of theological articles regarding different movements and ideas in Christianity, that could be POVs under such an analysis, given that they present the claims of different paradigms. The only reason this article is in question is because it spills over into a subject that non-Christians care about.... the validity of the Bible. But I think I've said more than enough in all this as I'm getting tired of going back to it. So, hopefully, I'm done. :) --David Andreas 05:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Okay, controversial no doubt; but this article is very thorough on listing the commonly known messianic prophecies, that even Jews accept as being messianic, regardless of secular retionalistic analysis. I believe the nomination was in bad-faith since it's reason is simply skeptical argumentation. The article could use an expert on the subject to contribute and make it neutral, but not deletion. Should we delete Christianity simply because someone thinks the religion may be false? Also, Java's argument about the nazarite prophecy is again out of place. Matthew could have been referring to a number of Biblical prophets in writings that didn't make it into the Bible. So, if he/she feels inclined, add such an analysis to the article. But geez, this article has plenty of sources. --David Andreas 19:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment David Andreas Jews don't accept any of those as prophecies i would know i am one --Java7837 19:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment One... --David Andreas 19:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Oh yeah a text of a prophet survived all the way to 100 without being mentioned by anyone else and not only that matthew who was a jew had it come on why would a jew being using a text that other reject --Java7837 19:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- If you are concerned about that please place the POV-check tag on the page and help clean-up ChrisLamb 19:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional Comment This is not the place for such discussions. Provide a valid reason for deltion without your personal bias involved. --David Andreas 19:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously make Claimed Prophecies disproving Jesus and i will agree --Java7837 19:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am ready to make Claimed Prophecies disproving Jesus if this encyclopedia is really npov this would be fine but if i do i know it will be deleted because wikipedia has a christian pov--Java7837 19:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't disprove anything with a prophecy. æ² ✆ 2007‑06‑26t19:53z

• Speedy keep; POV can be fixed without requiring deletion. æ² ✆ 2007‑06‑26t19:53z

Actually i can debunk jesus with 1 prophecy Jeconiah is listed as an ancestor of Jesus in Matthew 1:12 yet Jeremiah 22:28 Is this man Jehoiachin a despised, broken pot,an object no one wants? Why will he and his children be hurled out, cast into a land they do not know?29 O land, land, land,hear the word of the LORD!30 This is what the LORD says: "Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime,for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah."

--Java7837 20:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead with your proposed article; I'd be very interested to read that. Wikipedia is certainly a place that includes challenges to our own points of view -- there are articles that summarise criticisms of certain Christian beliefs & practices. Meanwhile, I consider that this article contains matters worth keeping in an encyclopedia. At present it's unwieldy, having two sections pasted together from different articles, structured by text and by subject; I would like to have the opportunity to edit it and give more prominence to different established viewpoints. Strong keep. - Fayenatic london (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment-This is not the place for this discussion if you want to add that to Wikipedia please do it at the article Criticism of Jesus or Rejection of Jesus ChrisLamb 20:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jechoniah is listed as an ancestor of Jesus in Matthew 1:12 yet in Jeremiah 22:28-30 god promises to not allow Jechoniah to have a royal descendent --Java7837 20:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus didn't rule Judah. æ² ✆ 2007‑06‑28t18:54z

• Speedy Keep Come on. ~ Wikihermit 20:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3delete ChrisLamb,Java7837,Carlossuarez46
3keep æ²,David Andreas,Wikihermit

• Keep. This article sucks, but it should be fixed, not deleted. johnpseudo 20:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I find myself almost irritated at the unprofessional tone that Java7837 is taking in a complete unfamiliarity with the AfD process: debating the Bible, which is already highly subjective enough, displaying plenty of personal bias, attacking one out of many other religious articles regarding Jesus, pitting person against person in the AfD debate, attacking wikipedia for having a Christian pov (it does?), and cluttered editing - making this even more confusing. I almost want to say WP:SNOW keep for common sense, but maybe someone thinks this is a substantial debate? --David Andreas 00:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

results
3delete ChrisLamb,Java7837,Carlossuarez46
4keep æ²,David Andreas,Wikihermit,Johnpseudo
--Java7837 01:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say give it a day then if we keep the article or not will be decided--Java7837 01:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

of note http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Christian_claims_of_fulfilled_Old_Testament_prophecies the result of the discussion was delete list of christian claims of fulfilled prophecy--Java7837 01:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sigh I don't think you read or hear what any of us are saying. Learn the AfD process.... Anyway, if I had a vendetta against the claims of evolution, atheism, and a number of other worldviews than Christianity (which I personally dont) I could likely do as you are doing and pour my bias into AfDs against such articles... because they could be arguably POVs. However, there is a big difference between claims and proof. Evolution is a claim (theory) with some scientific evidence, Christianity is a religion with historical, though not necessarily moral, validity. Since this article is listing the claims of Christians regarding messianic prophecies, then it is arguably objective in that it is displaying the Christian paradigm on these prophecies. The title itself says "claimed" not proof. Like Merzul said below, if a an actual Judaist contributed it would find more balance. But deletion, simply because it is the POV of Christians on the prophecies, is unnecessary as long as counterpoints can be contributed. Give the article some time and it will likely improve. But I don't think Java should be the one to contribute these counterpoints. --David Andreas 14:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say the results of the dispute should be done when there is 50% + two or more voting for keep or delete --Java7837 01:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the above for the end of tomorrow though --Java7837 01:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)so if there is 1 pushing for[reply]

You seem unfamiliar with the process here at AfD. If discussion is heated, especially as close as this one, the full 5 days is warranted. Given this was only begun on the 26th, that means it will not close until July 1. I am not !voting in this one, but I would suggest you take some time and read through various older AfDs to get a feel for the process. -- Kesh 02:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Java7837, please don't tally responses. AfD is not a vote. æ² ✆ 2007‑06‑27t06:32z

So there was no need to use your sockpuppet, but having done so you should not have deleted the response either. - Fayenatic london (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Fully agree with JohnPseudo (see also here). Something should be done about this article, but there is enough material here to make at least an encyclopaedic list. I wouldn't mind each prophecy having a Jewish response as well (as long as it is sourced), because it is great to know how people interpret these prophecies differently, but these NPOV concerns should be addressed on the talk page. --Merzul 07:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and fix As the creator of this article, I have to remind critics of its purpose, and that is to list and explain the Old Testament verses which are interpreted by a reasonable number of people to be prophecies. But, in order to be included in this article, one must supply a legitimate reference to prove that what he or she is writing is not original research. I don't think anyone would disagree that this is a necessary article, a crucial one for anyone studying religion; this is simply a matter of upholding Wikipedia policies. AdamBiswanger1 16:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It presents only one pov. By reading the article, I felt that I was led to believe the "claim" by the structure of article. It should refer to the counter arguments. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.145.47 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 28 June 2007

It does refer to them. Everybody agrees that it needs to do so more prominently. The article should and can be fixed, and does not need to be deleted. Fayenatic london (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article is about what a particular Christian belief is, in other words, what the Christian POV is. If accurately expressing what specific religious beliefs are is grounds for an article's deletion, then every article about religious beliefs from Abrahamic religion to Zoroastrianism should be deleted. Edward321 03:20, 30 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. --Coredesat 04:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Little known artist in France. Fails WP:BIO in that she does not have wide name recognition, very few secondary sources, no independent biography, and no major contribution to the arts. David Andreas 19:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep: Yes, this article reads like a cut and paste from a gallery bio, and yes, the notability is probably shaky. It's still questionable to file an AfD only hours after the creation of such an article; I suggest giving the creator a chance to finish it and come up with sources.  RGTraynor  19:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep for now, per User:RGTraynor. Article is still rather fresh, give it a couple days first. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article looks more like a job resume than a real article. I don't really see the reason it was created/cut pasted there in the first place. Gtadoc 23:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I see a delete in this article's future unless some one comes back to it shortly. There is a glimmer of notability in the resumé style. If not a speedy, it should have had some time with a less intimidating tag. --Stormbay 23:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I apologize, I didn't check to see if it was just created. I will do so in the future. (I only found it because someone placed a wikify tag on it while I was in the process of wikifying articles.) However, even if it were edited, the person wouldn't fit with WP:BIO per my original nomination. --David Andreas 00:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Certainly no apology necessary and, in reading my previous, it sounds judgmental. I tend to tag with things like "importance" and "sources" and watch for a day or two in the hopes that the initiator or others will rescue. {I agree that your assessment is likely correct). --Stormbay 01:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- is it possible that there has been a mistranslation here, based upon the phonics between french and English, and that the subject of the article, and therefore the "notability" criterion, is Stephanie Goodyear ?? -- Simon Cursitor

• Reply: No, the name is correct. There aren't many Google hits for the name, but the lead one is Goodger's website, showing the artist's portfolio. Like the nom, my gut impression is that the artist probably fails notability.  RGTraynor  13:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the article needs to be completely re written. Modernist 15:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Everyday working artist, not-notable, and with a very poor article to boot. Johnbod 17:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Crap entry on crap figure. --Attilios 17:15, 30 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 02:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Fast and the Furious 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Supposed sequel to The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift. "Sources" in article are user-submitted, and thus, unreliable per WP:RS. Very little info as well.

Also, this was already deleted before here.Hondasare^{GOOD (talk)} 19:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Again. --Sdornan 19:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, arguably speedy as G4. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 19:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt: fails WP:CRYSTAL. A sequel that doesn't even have an IMDB page yet is too far from the radar to merit any sort of article.  RGTraynor  19:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - but its OK if I create The Fast and the Furious 8, right? - eo 22:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL --JForget 01:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above Recesende 01:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:21, 27 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 Remains unsourced and many keep arguments are of the ILIKEIT variety. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subject is apparently a "character" in a few songs. Fails WP:FICT. No sources cited (other than lyrics in songs). Kevin Walter 19:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge but don't delete entirely I was interested in knowing about this character, so if this page was deleted I wouldn't have been able to learn that he was fictional. Merge it if you like, but please don't destroy this source of knowledge, even if the subject doesn't interest you, it interests others.
• Delete or Merge IAW Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters: "trivial characters from major works should be deleted as unencyclopedic". If it really matters that much to Eminem fans, then perhaps include a small stub on Eminem page or somwhere more appropriate. --David Andreas 19:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I was going to add merge but seemingly homophobic lyrics and remarks from Eminem have been expunged from wikipedia, O well. As this is the only article that seems to address his homophobia should be kept on that grounds alone. Please note Eminem fans probably have no interest in seeing this article exist as it shows Eminem in a less positive light. Benjiboi 08:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Theoretically, some of this could be merged into Eminem's article (in its own section, if the fact that it shows his homophobia is important). However, as it stands, it falls foul of a number of traps. Firstly, it's unsourced: Sources for some of it shouldn't be hard to obtain, but none of it is sourced right at the moment. Secondly, and following on from that, it suffers from BLP issues and will suffer from the more if it's merged: Calling anybody homophobic without proof is problematic, so there'll need to be sources regardless of where this goes. Thirdly, this is a minor character whose sole claim to fame is that a notable rapper mentions him in some songs: That has to be close to the definition of non-notability, if anyone wants to categorically define it. And for the record, before anyone accuses me of being an Eminem fan, I'm not. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's unlikely the Eminem's fans would let any of this homophobic material exist unless watered down beyond use or recognition. You might as well delete rather than bother merge.Benjiboi 21:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, that's actually irrelevant. If the material is well-sourced and contributes to the article (or is worthy of an article itself, then the opinions of his fans really shouldn't matter. After all, I'm sure there are Michael Jackson fans who wish that the information about his extra-musical activities would go away, but it doesn't. What matters, though, is whether this can be sourced and then whether there's a good place to put it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. This could be probably sourced to WP:RS. I'm a bit stuck on this one though.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Ken Kaniff features in a number of Eminem songs and albums. He represents a significant part of Eminem's music. Kaniff has also been part of various court cases: (http://www.peace.ca/eminemlyrics.htm), and this could be integrated into the article. --Reynolds45 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The court case you mentioned referenced one of the skits titled "Ken Kaniff," not the character. --Kevin Walter 21:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This one line article does not serve any purpose other than spamming Wikipedia. The article was created in late 2006. Since then, it seems to be abandoned by the creator (who himself faces ArbCom and may not be available in future to expand its content). No serious activity is visible [4] though a earlier Speedy request tag was removed without discussion. I propose deletion or merge with other Bengali cuisine related articles.Anwar 18:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep we have plenty of other cuisine stubs. I removed the spam link and added a few sources. Otherwise, could be merged and redirected into Eggplant. EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- IMHO a valid entry, albeit short. -- Simon Cursitor 07:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a valid cuisine entry/stub. Bearian 18:08, 28 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 the subject of the article. Attack revisions go this way. - Mailer Diablo 02:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Sing-nan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Pretty much just a series of unsubstantiated attacks on a Chinese politician, who I assume is real Katharineamy 18:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - In addition, is a taiwanese mp notable enough for the english wikipedia? --Rocksanddirt 19:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • English Wikipedia is not restricted to covering only topics in Anglophone countries. See Wikipedia:Countering systemic bias. cab 01:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I removed the attack text and flagged the article as a stub. Perhaps the version with the attack text should be removed. As a member of a national legisture, he is automatically notable. --Eastmain 19:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The parcel bomb attack seems properly attributable[5][6]. --Dhartung | Talk 21:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Provincial politic elected members no matter where he his, automatically passes WP:BIO.--JForget 01:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable politician. I re-added the content about the mail bomb and cited it to one of the websites provided by User:Dhartung. cab 01:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:52, 27 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 made by User:Nihiltres, non admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animal testing is wrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article duplicates Animal testing only with POV and incoherence. Acroterion_(talk) 18:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete POV Original Research. -- Jimmi Hugh 18:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. For same reason. --Sdornan 19:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Once again, for same reason. Unconscious (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as OR and non-POV distortion of existing article.PCock 19:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There's an active prod on this article; I suggest closing down this AfD unless the prod's contested. Let's let the process run its course first.  Ravenswing  20:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably better to let the AFD run its course instead, so I removed to the prod. PCock 20:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, AfD trumps PROD, since prod can be forced to undelete later on if anyone contests it ever. AfD is at least somewhat binding unless there's good reason to overturn. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hopeless POV, right down to the title. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POV/Original Research fork without even the merest of effort to look like a real article. Probably doesn't meet CSD, but would WP:SNOW count? 68.186.51.190 22:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This should be a speedy delete because it is patent nonsense. dtony 22:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obvious POV fork per title--Sefringle^Talk 22:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete even though its been happing for so long. - eo 22:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Poorly written, unsourced and OR.--JForget 01:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete: Point of view, no information. Hu 01:18, 27 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 02:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

No evidence has been provided that this article refers to a notable work under Wikipedia's guideline for the notability of films. I have suspicion that this may be something made up in school one day, although any evidence to the contrary would of course be appreciated. JavaTenor 18:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete:, completely fails WP:V, WP:NN. Any film IMDB's never heard of doesn't merit mention here.  RGTraynor  20:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable and unsourced, even if it is not a hoax. Bearian 18:14, 28 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 02:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compulsory Sampling License (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject is largely original research and speculative in nature. Some discussion of this topic in music blogs; however, not enough to support the claims of the article. In addition, the text reads like an essay or a proposal, not like an enycyclopedia article. While a CSL strikes me as a good idea, until reliable sources exist to describe such a thing (especially since it doesn't exist in law currently), Wikipedia ain't the place to discuss it. EngineerScotty 18:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The concept doesn't exist in U.S. law, but I think other countries have such licenses (not that the article refers to them). I am not an IP lawyer or connected with the music industry, so I can't really speak with any authority. But I think all the expressed criticisms seem fair. --Legis (talk - contribs) 20:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Also, contains mostly WP:OR and is clearly what Wikipedia is NOT. --Evb-wiki 03:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CBALL and hence WP:OR. This is a speculative article and not suitable for WP EyeSerene^TALK 10:27, 29 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 Anthony.bradbury. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:CSD#A2 Vzmi 18:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I suppose this applies now. A few hours earlier there was no article in the Italian Wikipedia. --Pekaje 18:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • it was when you said it was not Vzmi 18:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I originally tagged it for translation, there was no article. If the Italian Wikipedia shows the history times in local time, then that article showed up the same minute you marked the article for speedy deletion. I'm going to assume that you posted it there, given the timing coincidence. This could all have been avoided if you had noted this in your edit summary. --Pekaje 18:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • me added link to italy page to article when marking speedy, why not you see it? Vzmi 19:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sometimes there can be a slight delay updating the database, the article did not seem to be there. A notice in the edit summary explaining that you just then posted it over there would have resolved this a whole lot faster. I think we have debated this issue far longer than necessary (both here and on your talk page), so I'll leave it at that. --Pekaje 19:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • [7] - look bottom Vzmi 20:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, I'm not disputing that. Read what I wrote. --Pekaje 20:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - okay, . . . I'm not clear as to what is being proposed here and for what reason. --Evb-wiki 03:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There was a misunderstanding about whether there actually is a corresponding entry in the Italian wikiepdia. As it is now, this article in Italian is eligible for speedy deletion, so I've re-tagged it accordingly. However, the Italian article is nominated for deletion because it does not appear that the player has a full season in the Swiss national campionate, so we shouln'd waste any further time here. --Tikiwont 11:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This article, which exists on Italian Wiki, is about a non-notable footballer, and I have speedy-deleted it.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 17:57, 27 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 withdrawn by nominator. Seems to be OK by current understanding of inclusion guidelines, and further discussion on the topic really should be somewhere other than here. Arkyan • ^(talk) 20:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vicks, Arkansas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Moro Bay, Arkansas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Johnsville, Arkansas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These Arkansas towns appear to be fictional, or at the very least created with fictional information. They each reference statistics from a "2006 census" which does not exist. The demographic information listed under Johnsville is a copy-paste from the legitimate demographics for Banks, Arkansas. As for each of them individually - Vicks, Arkansas turns up 0 Google hits, does not appear on maps, and I can find no proof of its existence. Moro Bay, Arkansas turns up a number of hits as a lake and a state park with the same name, but no cities or towns by that name. Johnsville, Arkansas does turn up a couple hits and shows up on a couple maps so it may be a legitimate town, in which case it requires a rewrite and not deletion, but the other two have no supporting evidence as to their existence. Arkyan • ^(talk) 18:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unless it's real fiction somewhere. --Rocksanddirt 19:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vicks and Moro Bay, no opinion on Johnsville. Vicks' lack of existance on maps is rather tellling. The Johnsville article may be a copy-paste of another town's legit info, but if there's really a Johnsville (which there seems to be), then maybe it should be rewritten. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Moro Bay and Johnsville, now that they've been replaced with legit info by User:Carlossuarez46. Vicks seems to be a typo for Vick, AR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vicks nosuchplace. Keep Moro Bay - which is real and I've replaced the junk with what the USGS website has to say about the place. Keep Johnsville will do the same as for Moro Bay. Carlossuarez46 19:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: there is a Vick, Arkansas in the the same county as Moro Bay and Johnsville (Bradley County), and that may be what's meant. The contents of Vicks, Arkansas are unsourced and may not be factual. Carlossuarez46 19:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Bear in mind that the USGS information concerning populated places is severely outdated - in the case of Moro Bay, 27 years old. The FIPS-55 list has a bunch of "populated places" that really aren't, and can't be used as a reliable source to say what is and isn't a real place any longer. Arkyan • ^(talk) 19:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Noted, although formerly inhabited places meet notability guidelines and verifiability rather than absolute truth is our guiding principal. If Moro Bay, Vick, and Johnsville became ghost towns in the intervening 27 years, a source for that can surely be found and that information added to the articles. As of now, the USGS says that they are populated places and given USGS's constant updating of its database the fact that it has not overridden that assessment, so in some sense the data are current. Carlossuarez46 20:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The United States Postal Service zip code lookup site can be useful in cases like this because it distinguishes between unknown place names and those that are recognized but should not be used for mailing. Vicks, Vick, Moro Bay and Johnsville all fall within the category of "Not Acceptable", meaning that they are recognized but should not be used for mailing. I entered "P.O. Box 1, Vicks, AR" and got a "Hermitage AR 71647" response rather than an error message, meaning that the USPS would route mail addressed to Vicks through the Hermitage post office. "Vick AR" and "Johnsville AR" also get a "Hermitage AR 71647" response. "Moro Bay AR" gives a "Jersey AR 71651" response. I have replaced the Vicks, Arkansas article with a redirect to Vick, Arkansas. --Eastmain 20:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, we've worked this out now it seems. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! resolution!--Rocksanddirt 20:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Humm. I'm still not satisfied that the issue of whether or not a 30 year old entry on a USGS map and the fact that the USPS will forward mail addressed to one town name constitute proof of existence of a real populated place, but I suspect that is a question more deserving of a broader input than one single AfD. Perhaps WP:LOCAL needs to be revisited. Anyway since this issue seems satisfied per current understanding of guideline I'll close the nomination - but to me it doesn't quite feel like proper resolution on the broader topic. Arkyan • ^(talk) 20:24, 26 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 02:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make Me a Tory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod removed by an IP address with no explanation, seems to be non notable so bringing here. The Sunshine Man 17:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:HOLE. Shalom ^Hello 18:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unless there is a general article for it to be added to, then delete.--Rocksanddirt 19:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cannot see how this is notable --- wikipedia is not an archive of the tv guide. Bigdaddy1981 23:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I think it's a hole in the ground. --Evb-wiki 03:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a TV guide, non-notable programme. Davewild 18:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Extremely weak keep only as it is IMDB referenced & it does include David Cameron as one of the interview-ees. Other than that, pretty non-notable. SkierRMH 20:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. (See also 4 items below.) — Athaenara ✉ 09:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Actaeon Films, Nightwalking, Amelia and Michael, and others
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amelia and Michael
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Fitting Tribute
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nightwalking

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last Piece Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Made up theory. A total of one ghit. Lurker 17:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for above reason. --Sdornan 17:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Obvious original research. BassoProfundo 18:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "We have enough food to last 30,000 years, but we've only got one after eight mint left, and everyone's too polite to take it." - Holly (Me²). Someguy1221 21:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per nom Bigdaddy1981 23:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: nonsense, original research, no real information, just links. Hu 06:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete could be a real phenomenon, but without citations, comes across as total OR. Debivort 06:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even the example is hilarious. -- Magioladitis 09:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, WP:OR or Urban legend. Bearian 18:16, 28 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 a7, no assertion that band is notable. NawlinWiki 17:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does not meet notability criteria at WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles Evil1987 17:19, 26 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 Nomination Withdrawn Corpx 17:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cherie (porn star) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Nomination withdrawn. Epbr123 16:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Even though, WP:PORNBIO removed the 100 title cutoff, I still think doing 129 titles asserts some notability. Also, some of her titles have been nominated for "Best DVD" at AVN Awards. LINK Warning:Link Contains pornographic material Corpx 17:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid number of films isn't a good measure of notability. The AVN Awards were awarded to the film, not her. Epbr123 17:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If it matters, she was also nominated for a X Rated Critics Organization Award. Again, this goes back to my earlier statement; if somebody did over a 100 films, they're bound to be nominated for some award. Its just harder to find in this case because of the one word name Corpx 17:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:28, 26 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 - copy vio & spam'. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contested speedy G11, spam. Shalom ^Hello 16:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable and is bordering advertising Corpx 17:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Spammy, advertising tone, seems to be cut-and-pasted from their website or advertsing materials (™ after each mention of the product's name, one paragraph in Spanish for no apparent reason, weird formatting, etc). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's an advertisement. --Sdornan 17:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - "One of the main advantages is that" it is WP:SPAM. --Evb-wiki 02:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete^TM Copyvio copy-paste of tagsme.com site. --Breno ^talk 07:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advertising for a non-notable product as well as copyright violation. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:21, 27 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 a7, no assertion of notability, WP:NFT. NawlinWiki 16:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per WP:NOT - not for something made up in school one day. - Philippe | Talk 16:08, 26 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.--cj | talk 05:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tagged as db-nn, but I thought it needed a full AfD as the article does make claims to notability - "recognized as a valuable asset to the Australian Film and New Media Production Industry". Seems to violate WP:COI as article creator has same name as subject. 17 GHits for "matthew pratley", only one of whom seems to be our man (came 5th in a BMX competition). FiggyBee 15:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Page was created by the person in the article. He has no notability. --Sdornan 16:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, insufficiently notable, no indep. sources, autobiography. NawlinWiki 16:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for all the reasons listed above. Just not notable. — PyTom 16:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete absurdly non-notable. Creator's username is "Mattpratley", just in case there were any doubts about WP:COI. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sdornan.--JForget 01:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: puff piece for a non-notable new graduate. Hu 02:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also Matt_Pratley article by the same CoI author, Special:Contributions/Mattpratley. Hu 06:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Google News and Google News Archive doesn't have any documents referring to him so he has not received recognition as yet. If he does, it would then be appropriate to have an article on him. Capitalistroadster 02:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• If his work has actually won signficant awards, then they should be referenced, and then he might warrant keeping as notable. Otherwise delete. Assize 11:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as noted above, esp. per Starblind/Andrew Lenahan. Bearian 18:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a single source saying how "valuable" he is to the industry in Australia. COI as well. Lankiveil 10:37, 29 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 01:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Dominic's International School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability whatsoever. Vanispamcruftisement. Húsönd 15:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I deleted some POV lines. Doesnt just being a high school make it notable? It seems that almost every HS in US has an article Corpx 17:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Schools status as the only International Baccalaureate Organization school offering the IBO diploma programmes at all three levels makes it notable. Alansohn 19:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, serviceable stub on a notable high school. The IBO diploma thing also proves notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Definately notable Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N and WP:V. While notability is arguably asserted, participation in a nonnotable program does not equal notability. The only source is the website of the aforementioned nonnotable program, which is an affiliate of the school and therefore not sufficiently reliable to use as the sole basis of notability. Incidentally, that program's website is the only source for the article on the program as well, so they both fail WP:N and WP:V. --Butseriouslyfolks 05:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, one google books result, but the page is not accessible. Bom Sucesso has a few useful hits; does this look like the same school? John Vandenberg 06:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep just over the bar. The basic status as given even by the directory-type sources seems sufficient for notability.DGG 22:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List_of_schools_offering_the_International_Baccalaureate_Diploma_Programme#Portugal. The IB program in and of itself is insufficient grounds for establishing notability for its own article. Eusebeus 11:53, 28 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. Wizardman 01:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

total non-notability of one-year use building Chris 15:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's a single building at a junior high school. Most definitely delete this one. Sdornan 15:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The energy efficiency and up-to-date technology might have made the case for notability if they were explained and if they were truly notable (for example, if it was the first school to use cold fusion to heat the building in the winter), but as it stands, the article doesn't give any indication that the building or the institution is notable. So, delete. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Absolutely non-notable building Corpx 17:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Golly, with notability like "successfully operated for one complete school year", I might just have to rethink those Disneyworld vacation plans and come here instead: "The marvel of the age! SEE! The amazing building which has stood without falling for one full year! WATCH! As it continues to stand... before your very eyes! GUARANTEED! Your money back if it happens to topple over while you're visiting!" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, there are plenty of energy-efficient buildings in the world, no indication that this one is special or well-known. NawlinWiki 17:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak deleteMerge to district (Poudre School District); I'm probably the only one here who thinks it's interesting, but then I design schools for a living, many of them still standing after a year, and even energy efficient. Seriously, this building's won some awards, and is kind of notable, but I'd put it into the school district page. If it becomes a landmark in time (assuming it's still standing), then somebody can write about it. Acroterion_(talk) 19:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's interesting that the school's official website and history section doesn't appear to even mention this building at all, much less anything special about it. I don't even think they consider it notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're the architect, it's just depressing. It's amazing how things get taken for granted. That said, a pretty good criterion to delete. Acroterion _(talk) 20:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - While I like school articles, a building at a school is a bit thin. Perhaps it should be added to a more general school/school district page per a suggestion above. --Rocksanddirt 19:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N and WP:V. No sources. Don't bother redirecting -- you can't even ascertain the building's proper name from the article. (It lists three, not counting the one with the typo.) --Butseriouslyfolks 05:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Acroterion, can you specify the awards?--its the sort of thing which might make for notability, probably though of the school, for being in a award winning building. The article could then be renamed to Kinnard Junior High School. We've accepted truly notable building as a criterion for the notability of schools. DGG 22:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's won the Building of America Honor as one of the 50 best construction projects in Colorado (yawn), the Fort Collins Urban Design Award for Green Design – 2006 (therefore notable within the city limits of Fort Collins), and CEFPI (Council of Educational Facility Professionals International) Rocky Mountain Chapter Peak Design Award – 2006 (umm). My personal criteria for notability via awards for recent buildings would be something along the lines of at the very least an award from the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects, or for green buildings a US Green Building Council LEED silver, gold or platinum certification. It doesn't have one of those. I'm trying hard here, but I think my original proposal stands. It should be mentioned in the Poudre School District article, and does not warrant its own article. Acroterion _(talk) 01:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agreed that the awards do not seem notable. DGG 04:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I believe I'll take a stab at writing some notability standards for architecture, since no particular guidelines appear to exist. Acroterion _(talk) 01:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am unconvinced by the assertion of notability. Buildings erected to a green standard are hardly that uncommon. Eusebeus 11:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this moment, completed green buildings are surprisingly uncommon. However, in the near future that will change, which is why I omitted mere LEED Certification and propose to set the bar higher, at least at the silver level. In any case, this building doesn't even have an official certification, so for the purposes of this debate, my proposal still stands. Acroterion _(talk) 12:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinard Core Knowledge Junior High School

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to Red hair. Sr13 08:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Neologism, though I was not sufficiently sure that this counted as a "Newly-coined neologism" which would have been grounds for speedy delete as per WP:DELETE, number 10. Yamla 15:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NN neologism, seems to have been used in a BBC online magazine once and that's it. Lurker 15:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's been substatially used in British media not just by the BBC. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gingerismJayneyalice 15:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Term is in wide use in the UK, and the subject it describes is one that should be discussed: there is a British prejudice against people with red hair, for some reason. See reliable sources: [8] [9] [10] JulesH 15:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge to Red hair#Negative attitudes towards redheads? FiggyBee 16:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge per FiggyBee. --Evb-wiki 16:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge per FiggyBee. NawlinWiki 17:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete It might be a BBC Neologism, but it a Neologism none the less. The BBC termed it purely for shock value in that article and to place it anywhere on here would affirm it's status and be an entirely negative choice. Perhaps if without wikipedia's help it reaches some larger status (i hope we don't get quite this pathetic) it can be included at some later date, but for now it has no place on Wikipedia. It does not have wide spread use in the UK as stated above. -- Jimmi Hugh 18:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. For above reasons. --Sdornan 19:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• (i hope we don't get quite this pathetic) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayneyalice (talk • contribs) [Clearly quoting from Jimmi Hugh's foregoing comment.]

• Note: Jayneyalice tacked User:Jimmi Hugh's signature on the above comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC). further note - Jayneyalice did not tak his signature to the above comment but did reference or attempt to reference that the above quote is a quotation from the wiki user Jimmi Hugh - the following comment was initially signed by me and i am unsure as to why it has been marked as otherwise and is clearly my response to this quotation from the above comments by jimmi hugh.Jayneyalice 20:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem to be heavily influence by POV rather than actual word usage. http://www.workplacelaw.net/display.php?resource_id=8669 (another use of the term not BBC based) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayneyalice (talk • contribs)

• Had you checked the date of that article, you would see that it was posted the day following the BBC article "Is gingerism as bad as racism?". Clearly some people are going to copy use of the term for articles, but it still does not see wide spread usage, mostly because no one out side of the research done into it considers it as such. The only related term seeing great usage here is "Gingervitus", but there are definetly no signs of the majority of the population taking up use of the term "Gingerism". My opinion on this articles deleteion is definetly not based upon POV, i could not care less either way, i only wish to improve Wikipedia. -- Jimmi Hugh 17:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

then why bother adding in the "I hope we don't get that pathetic" line into your comment. There is a great deal of unpleasantness leveled at redheads based on their colouring - whether you wish to consider the term a neologlism or not - the inference with your statement is that this shouldn't be taken seriously. Jayneyalice 20:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you attempt to bring me down to your level. I obviously do not think that the act of bullying Gingers should not be taken seriously, i just hope the world doesn't get any more pathetic in assigning yet another unneeded word to it and creating even more rifts in a futile "attempt" to sort the problem. You clearly have no idea about either people nor the mind and i would rather you did not try to infer meaning from my statements which are clearly not present. -- Jimmi Hugh 01:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps then you should have actually thought about how your comment came across before makign it - it reads snidley and inappropriatly. I have not attacked you, i have merely pointed out that the use of your parenthesis here has an invalidating effect on any statement you have made - it looks as though you have made an attacking comment based on your own opinion that it's not valid to recognise one form of discrimination. Often to deal with a problem you have to accept its there - you can't just say "only this form of bullying and unpleasantness exists - we chose to name only this and deal with only this" which seems to be very much the problem regarding this an a lot of other issues. You are not descending to my level by name callign and using personal insults - i have directed none at you. Perhaps in future you may find it easier to avoid unnecessary confict over matters like this by not inserting unqualified personal opinion into your comments. The meaning is inferable there - otherwise I would not have inferred it - i am a stranger to you and whilst I would like to argue the case for the inclusion or acknowledgement of "gingerism" in wikipedia (whether it be merged into another article or have its own space as a seperate article) I have no personal gripesd with other people disaggreeing with me unless they chose to take the percieved attitude that "it's pathetic" to acknowledge that a form of bullying and discrimination occurs purely because they have never been at the recieving end of it. Jayneyalice 20:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete, seems to have some usage but not enough for it to be more than a neologism yet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as neologism Bigdaddy1981 23:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge per FiggyBee Pnkrockr 01:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• N Delete The less people know about gingerism, the easier it is to discriminate against those filthy redheads!--Perceive 02:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly hope you are making a stupid joke. I use the term "joke" loosely. --Evb-wiki 02:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Peacent 14:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of UCI ProTour records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Fails WP:NOT#INFO - Wikipedia is not long and sprawling lists of statistics. Article is also original research. Severo^TC 15:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Formula One records is a similar article, and it hasn't been nominated for deletion. And it's not original research - continuing with the Formula One comparison, would it be original research to say Fernando Alonso has twice been Formula One world champion, or that Sebastien Vettel holds the record of the youngest driver to finish in the points? -- Danilot 15:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The precedent for lists of common sporting records is overwhelmingly positive. Furthermore, nom falls into a standard misconception of the tenets of WP:OR. "Original research" is not defined as compiling a list of readily-available and easily proven facts. It is when an editor derives a synthesis from those facts. This article does not do so.  RGTraynor  19:42, 26 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. --Coredesat 05:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Forza Motorsport cars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Too trivial for an encyclopedia. Sdornan 14:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Another little gem of listcruft. Pedro |  Chat  15:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Topic is trivial. doxTxob \ ^talk 23:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:50, 26 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Taschner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable federal government employee, virtually nothing about him on the web and fails to meet minimum criteria in WP:BIO. Suggest speedy delete. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I just read the article and scanned the talk page, and this guy is notable within his scientific specialty. Wikipedia is not paper. Here's one example where the search engine test doesn't tell the whole story. Shalom ^Hello 16:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Shalom. Notability not so clear to a lay reader like me and it could use some references but this article (just five-months olds)and the Talk page seem headed in the right direction. Canuckle 21:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article not written to display the notability adequately--highest position is not specified exactly--the lede just said "a member of the technical staff" .DGG 00:23, 28 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 Denver Broncos. Note that merge is a form of keep, and the article history remains behind the redirect.

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

No need for a separate article. Also, falls under WP:NOT#INFO. Pats1 14:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is interesting and notable, but should probably go on the Broncos main page or one or more of the recent Broncos season pages. Adam 16:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete non-notable neologism, about as encyclopedic as the list of arrested bengals.. Montco 16:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Broncos article - not notable enough for a separate article per WP:NOT#INFO EyeSerene^TALK 10:49, 29 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, The Sunshine Man is now Qst 15:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge & redirect to 2005 Denver Broncos season. This was notable in 2005, when they signed the first five players listed (mostly because they were castoffs from one of the league's worst defenses). After 2005, the novelty wore off and it was quickly forgotten. On its own, there isn't enough here to merit a standalone article Caknuck 19:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect - a small section within a larger article. A punning nickname for those footballers signed by team A from team B is not really sufficient grounds for an article of its own. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as indiscriminate information. A mention of the 2005 Broncos having 5 former Browns linemen is perfectly reasonable, but a whole article just isn't necessary. 103 unique Google hits for "Browncos" isn't enough to sway me that this term is in enough widespread use to justify needing explanation. It's as useless as any other examples of players from Team A now on Team B article you might imagine. — Scientizzle 20:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Scientizzle, info is too trivial and the google hits aren't convicing enough to be merged somewhere. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as A7. The JPS^{talk to me} 18:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Very little context, does not meet WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. east.718 14:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete A1/A7 per nom. Shalom ^Hello 16:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete A7 - no true assertion of notability. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 19:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no context, no sources Recesende 01:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I see no reason why she cannot be included - she is one of Britains biggest Pornstars. In addition if Dani O'Neill (a simular model of far less significance can be included on wikipedia why can Talyor (with more acheivements) be excluded?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulGreasley (talk • contribs) 13:36, 27 June 2007 I have spoken with Taylor today. I have found out the following: Slept with Danny Grewcock (England Rugby player) Recently appeared in upcoming mainstream film Clubbing to death starring Dave Courtney which is due for release at the end of 2007. Singing Feature in Chicago rappers Ralph Dog song Hornay Worldwide advertising campaign for Globe footwear with Dirty Sanchez Is this sufficient enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.40.146.253 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 27 June 2007

• Delete, not notable. This is her website. I cant find the Dani O'Neill article. John Vandenberg 15:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake its actually Dani O'Neal!

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not a bad faith nom, but the commenters have refuted the nominator's rationale for deleting the article. Shalom ^Hello 16:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

While having an expansive writing career, article fails to establish any longevity or major impact his work have had, no awards or external new coverages, biographies, etc. Ozgod 13:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, very strongly. This is the fellow who created the Forgotten Realms D&D game world, and has had more than 20 novels published by TSR concerning its characters and events. His setting is used, not only in RPGs, but also in major computer games, including Neverwinter Nights, Baldur's Gate, and Pool of Radiance; these things have been appearing for nigh unto twenty years now, and in computer gaming that's substantial breadth. Easily meets WP:BIO. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep My pet Amazon.com test shows plenty of his books available, and with reviews, therefore implying recognition of his work and notability. Pedro |  Chat  14:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, fairly prolific author and shows evidence of notability. However this article really, really needs some better sourcing to prevent good-faith misconceptions about notability. Arkyan • ^(talk) 14:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. If the stuff listed above isn't "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in [role-playing game writing]" I don't know what is. JulesH 15:58, 26 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 02:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of All My Children (1970-1979) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

History of All My Children (1980-1989) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

History of All My Children (1990-1999) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

History of All My Children (2000-present) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete - Wikipedia articles are not decade by decade summaries of the plots of soap operas. Otto4711 13:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above, failure of WP:NOT. Brief plot summaries on individual episode articles are acceptable - a plot synopsis over a long period of time is not. Arkyan • ^(talk) 14:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge? the information into the main All My Children article. Useight 16:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as I'm not sure how something like this is not encyclopedic as it can definitely be referenced and concerns a show that has been around for a long time. --164.107.222.23 16:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All - Wikipedia is not the place for plot overviews. Corpx 17:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. These are just plot summaries. Jay32183 18:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and most others. Carlossuarez46 20:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nom. Terrible fancruft.Bigdaddy1981 23:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-- because as Us8 points out, this can be merged into the All My Children article, which has its own 1970-present history. These articles appear to be an extended version of the history of the show and its fictional world. That's what webpages are for. Mandsford 23:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this show is a part of popular culture and like many other soap operas, has served as a launching pad for various actors and actresses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom2700 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That has nothing to do with any of Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Jay32183 03:29, 29 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 02:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Neologism. It's another word for webmaster, except it's one who runs a pipe band's website. No evidence this term is ever used by anyone who isn't in a pipe band. Suggest deletion or perhaps a redirect to webmaster. Lurker 13:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per above - neologism Corpx 17:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Neologism. -- Jimmi Hugh 18:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Webmaster. to Epping Forest Pipe Band who orginated the rank. It's a rank not a neologism and could potentially be notable even if only used by pipe bands, provided there are sources. But it's too new and not even Pipe Major has sources. Canuckle 21:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - appears to be only used by single pipe band; not notable unless others followed suit. As they (apparantly) haven't, it isnt.Bigdaddy1981 23:26, 26 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.