Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 20

< April 19	April 21 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was spooned into the bit bucket (delete). Unfortunately we require articles to cite sources, which none of these articles have. The content may be worthy of an article again once sources are cited. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-20 09:35Z

Handforged flatware[edit]

(View AfD)

The creator has been posting this text to various locations, possibly for some kind of a promotional. In addition to the above two articles, he created Handforged (deleted by me since it was blanked by the creator), and added a similar text to Spoon. - Mike Rosoft 05:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what they mean by a 'content fork' - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete - as the author of Plated ware I feel a sort of kinship here, but this as it stands is content free & at most warrants a subsection in Spoon. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to this so please bear with me what would be the best course of action should i remove the section from spoons or should i keep the subsection in spoons and deleate handforged flatware i had intended to add a lot more content to the handforge section pictures and history as it is my profession and is in danger of becoming a lost craft please feel free to advice it is not intended as a promotion i was just concerned thier is no record of handforged flatware/Cutlery Davidbaggaley 19:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered this in detail on your talk page to save cluttering up this discussion. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice @Iridescenti i fould your relpy very helpfull I have placed a subsection in spoons but what about forks and knives as they would all warrent a subsection the articles would be very similar in content would this be alowed or should i consentrate on the handforged flatware page and place links on the spoons andd forks and knives pages?Davidbaggaley 10:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally - and this is my opinion not any kind of policy - if the text is going to be the same, have a separate article with links in from fork etc, but make sure it's referenced etc (see Metal injection molding, Plated ware or Shot peening for some examples of well-referenced metalworking stub articles, or Case hardening for a good example of a longer article). - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reluctantly (per Iridescenti) but I would change if the article had references outside of the creator's website. I think this is a valid topic but the burden of at least some refs is on the creator. There's not a way for anyone to make it encyclopedic without that.--killing sparrows 06:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ugg per trying to take an objective view. the article is viable and exists, but taking it as it is, it cannot exist as unsourced. if i knew enough about flatware i'd try and save the_undertow ^talk 08:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 04:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Nova[edit]

Only claim of notability is having won a Venus Award, which were presented for 3 years in Germany. I cannot find sources for this: the Venus Awards website does not have a list of past winners, her own personal website has nothing but a half-dozen photos of her, and the modeling profile linked at the bottom consists of nothing but a series of the same photo. (Also, her first name is spelled wrong). If the award cannot be confirmed, this article fails WP:PORNBIO and thus should be deleted. Natalie 04:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't look into this, but I trust the nom since the article doesn't say much anyway. YechielMan 15:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The spelling of the name is no big deal, as a simple page move can change that. If an external reference can prove that she's won the Venus Award, then she's possibly notable, and probably fulfills WP:PORNBIO, and the article should be kept. I'll go ahead and give it a shot and try to find some info on her. If I or the rest of the participating Wiki community can't find anything in five days, then we should delete. Rockstar (^T/_C) 06:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that this page was translated from the Italian Wikipedia. Rockstar (^T/_C) 06:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, after a short search, I found her IMDB profile, which doesn't have any info on her Venus Awards wins, but IMDB's own Venus Awards page is pretty severely lacking for 2001, as it only lists one winner. Wikipedia's own Venus Awards page does list her (as Tara Young) as a winner in 2001, but as the nom said, the Venus Award's own webpage doesn't list winners before 2003... I don't know, it's a tough call, as she probably did win the award, but there's very little way to verify it. I could go either way on this one, but maybe it's good to err on the side of caution and possibly keep. But that said, I wouldn't care if we deleted it. Rockstar (^T/_C) 06:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OR. the_undertow ^talk 08:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence as to the claim of notability is forthcoming in spite of the efforts of more than one editor. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable; get rid of it. Jmlk17 19:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. 'Lemonflash^talk

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony T. Roberts[edit]

Minor performer, notability not established or sourced per WP:BIO.RJASE1 ^Talk 16:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has performed on three major stand up comedy shows, has appeared in movies and has links to his own website as well as IMDB. Seems notable enough. Kntrabssi 16:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Links to his own website" - how does that confer notability? And IMDB has entries on every bit player, make-up artist and grip in Hollywood - hardly a badge of notability. RJASE1 ^Talk 16:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was not a make-up artist or a grip, he was an actor. We have an article on Louis C.K., who hasn't done much more than Roberts. Kntrabssi 16:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources per WP:BIO? Also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. RJASE1 ^Talk 05:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Protect, deleted twice before as Tony_T_Roberts. --Sneftel 16:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per 3 tv appearances - Tiswas^(t/c) 17:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has a few TV appearances, looks like he got at least one appearance on HBO, and got a BET award. BET is prominent, HBO has their bar of entry - so with that, he's weakly notable. Somebody wanna improve this? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple TV appearances, a number of published performances, references... he's not LBJ, but he's suitably notable. Lemonsawdust 06:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, on the basis of the BET award, but why are the other AfD's not linked to here? If the article title was different, lacking the 'period', they should still be linked to this AfD.--killing sparrows 06:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - with outside refs, this should be kept. afd is about the article, and it doesnt cut it. the_undertow ^talk 08:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak KeepNot entirely convinced, but he has been on nationally known shows, and seems to be famous at least enough for an IMDB entry. Jmlk17 19:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thousands of non-notable persons have IMDb entries. Anyone credited as "Man No. 2" or "Woman leaving Grocery" in even one film can have an IMDb entry. Having an IMDb entry is no test of notability whatsoever. --Charlene 21:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, no game development yet, WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-20 09:40Z

General War (game)[edit]

Entry for a nonexistent/speculative product and sounds somewhat like advertising. Discussion page seems to be used for private communications. Craw-daddy 18:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its talk page has so far only been edited 3 times by 2 people (including creation). Anthony Appleyard 18:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, however one part of the page is an email quote, and the discussion is about the design of the product on the page in question. Craw-daddy 18:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who first listed this, I thought I should chime in again. The article reads more like a business proposal to me, more so than an encyclopedic entry. It all appears to be speculative. The opening line says this is the "working title" for a "proposed" game. At the end you see that "no game development has been put into General War" so this is really talking about a non-existent game, for which there's no foreseeable time frame for development. The article's discussion page, while only having a few edits, also seems to be personal communication, and starts out 'The "plan" (which is little more than a dream or a vision or maybe just a wild assed idea)'... In other words, definitely not an encyclopedic article. I think the case for deletion is pretty clear. Craw-daddy 00:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Er... from the page: "At the time of writing, no game development has been put into General War." So it's a game that will probably come to be in the future, but no one knows when or even if it will? Seems pretty clear case of crystal ballery. Rockstar (^T/_C) 06:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Percy Snoodle 06:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No game development at all? I can't imagine this is notable enough, at least not yet. Lemonsawdust 06:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as something made up in game developers school one day.--killing sparrows 07:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per it's a crystal ball issue. the_undertow ^talk 08:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, might be notable... if only sources were provided. There weren't any. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-20 09:43Z

Kaiser Bengali[edit]

no sources, notability not established. Delete Jefferson Anderson 18:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 19:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Az haris seems to have created several of these files about minor Pakistani intellectuals. Anthony Appleyard 20:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE. The scholar enjoys a unique standing in economics and his activism in his country. He is the author various books, one is cited. Notability is there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Az haris (talk • contribs) 15:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- I'm not seeing the notability. Please, provide the evidence? If you do, I'll change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff)
Delete I see no evidence of notable impact beyond academia, and no notability above and beyond that of a standard academic, per WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd 21:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pete gives the same arguments above that I would give. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Acalamari 01:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence It is really not reasonable to write these articles without giving sources, and expecting us to add them here at Afd. The ed. is much better positioned to find the external references,and also articles by and about these people. DGG 03:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Dennis' rationale. He may be notable in certain academic circles, but if there isn't evidence of somewhat broader notability I don't think there should be a dedicated page. Lemonsawdust 07:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per unsourced. the_undertow ^talk 08:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus keep. Marskell 17:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shireen M. Mazari[edit]

No sources, notability not established. Delete. Jefferson Anderson 18:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 19:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE. Notability established. Sources given.
--Comment added by User:221.132.113.214ST47Talk 14:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete I don't think this passes WP:PROF, and I see no evidence of any notable impact beyond academia. Pete.Hurd 21:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is an apparent copyvio from the references given. But she might be notable--If the article is rewritten in a proper way, it would help to have a list of her publications. This is not included in the references provided: [1] says it is "available on demand" It is difficult to evaluate academic people who do not have a current list of their publications online. DGG 02:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete doesn't seem to be notable.--Sefringle 05:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Keep. Notably, she is cited as a highly respected expert in this Frontline article. Frontline ([2]) is a sister publication of The Hindu. Stammer 05:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Notable expert that has been cited.--Kirby♥time 05:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Again, absent significant sources to the contrary, this person really just doesn't yet seem notable enough for a dedicated encyclopedic entry. Lemonsawdust 07:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep per outside sourcing the_undertow ^talk 08:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The sources furnished do not show that she satisfies WP:PROF, but some references might exist somewhere to strengthn her claim to notability. Did she publish more than the one book? Did she have a major influence in her field? Did she win awards for her research and teaching? Did she have notable students who were positively affected by her teaching? Does she serve on panels and boards in her discipline and edit journals? Edison 14:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She has 1400 G-hits on the Pakistani Google [3], and those include a bunch of solid, serious news hits. (Although I must admit her interview on Larry Flynt's website is one I skipped). RGTraynor 14:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Director General of Institute of Strategic Studies, gets some good hits on news search [4]. Reports like this portrays Mazari's importance and notability. --Dwaipayan (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral it's hard to establish notability, but my fellow Wikipedians do bring up a good point of in Pakistan she may be much more notable. Jmlk17 19:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DON'T DELETE. She is the author of Kargil War: Separating Facts from Fiction (1999), and I think that is enough to prove notability. So, a message saying that the article needs to be improved should be enough. Other than that, she is the director of ISSI, which I believe is the only civilian think tank in Pakistan. Razzsic 04:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Whilst various people have asserted 'notability' (whatever they mean by that) no sources have been provided for any of those assertions. This is a BLP and even after this scrutiny remains substantially unverified. -Doc^g 00:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Sikander Mehdi[edit]

No sources, notability not established. Delete. Jefferson Anderson 19:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 19:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of a family of pages created by User:Az haris, whose talk page contains several warnings for Wikipedia misbehavior. Anthony Appleyard 20:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and one of a similarly large number of grouped AfDs by another user. Now let's get to the subjectsDGG 05:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE. One should amend the articles or prescribe changes rather voting for the deletion. The text looks similar as the scholars are of a same field and the works they have done are almost similar. The scholars are noted in their fields and their entries should remain intact. Sources and references can be clearly seen under External Links. 14:28 & 14:29, 14 April 2007 User:221.132.113.214
Weak keep I think he barely passes notability. I didn't check the external links, but they might help sort this out. YechielMan 16:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, I agree with YechielMan on the level of notability. However, the articler is sourced and could be tightened and improved. It meets the standard of the day, which is not any type of resounding endorsement. --Stormbay 00:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep Although an academic he is not really a scholar--he has never obtained a Ph.D., and the twenty nine articles & four book chapters are respectable, but not scholarly. He therefore has to be judged by his public and administrative career--he is clearly what is sometimes called a "public intellectual", It's hard to judge the importance of this from the CV; proper references are needed; if the career is as specified there must be newspaper accounts. DGG 03:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete not having a PhD is not really an issue, the question of notability does not boil down to academic rank, but rests on impact outside of their academic circle (29 articles and 4 book chapters is modest). I think the real claim to notability made here is "invited by TV channels as an expert for their Current Affairs programs" and "completed several reasearch[sic] projects and has arranged & participated in several dozen national, regional and international seminars/workshops/conferences" I'd really like to see some kind of source describing the Local/National impact level of this press coverage, "completing a research project" doesn't seem worthy of mention, nor does merely participating in attending seminars/workshops/conferences. Pete.Hurd 04:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are uncountably numerous academics who participate in regional, national, and international conferences. I'm always willing to consider people who may be at the edge of WP:N, but the credentials listed here don't demonstrate to me any notability beyond that of a fairly distinguished tenured professor pretty much anywhere. Lemonsawdust 07:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete per the article itself needs a stronger ref base the_undertow ^talk 08:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while I support having more pages about academics... he doesn't appear to have contributed to any major journals nor does he has any notable monographs or books, he doesn't hold a Ph. D., I can't find him cited anywhere, he doesn't teach at particularly well known university. As far as I can tell the immigration specialist in my (small) department is more well known than him... and I would question if he should have an article. gren グレン 12:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:PROF. Fewer than 30 articles published plus 4 book chapters and no degree beyond a masters is no that impressive. Edison 14:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Per discussion above, his accomplishments seem acceptable but not exceptional for an academic. Seems to be an average professor but not more than that. —David Eppstein 03:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The person seems quite notable and a Google Search produces many links. The article could do with expansion and referencing, though. → Aktar ^{(talk • contribs)} — 10:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep He has twice been quoted by The Guardian as an authority. Specifically, the September 18th 2001 and August 11th 2001 editions of The Guardian. I strongly suspect many more references could be found if we knew how his name was spelled in Urdu and the other languges of Pakistan.Chris Croy 12:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guided self service[edit]

Article lacks content and reasonable notability Calltech 19:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete, but I could be persuaded otherwise if the article improves.Ezratrumpet 01:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems notable, little content is no reason to delete. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guided Self Service

weak delete per it has the hits, but fails sourcing the_undertow^talk 08:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the very definition of an unneeded article. Lancaster D Mistletoe 11:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be WP:OR lacking any sources to the contrary, and nothing to establish notability. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 but rewrite. I tried my hand at reworking the lead paragraph. But the article will need cleanup. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-20 09:50Z

Gelco[edit]

non-encyclopedic advert; PR puff piece; was speedied once previously Delete --Mhking 21:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was created by User:Voyageurit; and a search found web sites http://www.voyageurit.net/_dev/gelco/new-hp/feed.xml http://www.voyageurit.com/clients.html http://www.voyageurit.com/portfolio.html that advertise Gelco. Anthony Appleyard 21:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - If the company is legit, then some legit editor ought to create a new article. This one reeks of the PR office puff piece factory. --Orange Mike 02:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep and suggest areas for improvement - The article was originally written from purely a historical viewpoint and only after a suggestion from a Wiki editor was the business services section even added to the article. I recently edited the document to highlight the business process aspect and remove any suggestion of it being PR. The company is old with over 100 years in the business process management industry which already has a significent presence on Wiki. I welcome any other suggestions to improve article. --Voyageurit 03:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The "history" reads like a press release or a fluff piece for a local paper, with lots of "colorful" but irrelevant detail. Strip the whole thing of "interesting and colorful" nonsense and praise of the company, its founder, its products, etc. (Letters of credit, for instance, date well back to the Middle Ages, and were no innovation.) Give us hard, cold facts, with impartial sources of impartial, objective facts about the company and what it does or did. --Orange Mike 04:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Orangemike thanks for the constructive comments, I appreciate the blunt approach. I reorganized the article with your suggestions to make it more objective, shorter and easier to read. I agree Gelco certainly did not invent letters of credit although they did create a business around credit as a convienence getting the cooperation of hotel chains. They also enhanced their business by being early adopters of technology advances that improve their services such as SAAS over client server. Like it or not (I don't) execution is often more important to business success than innovation (see Bill Gates)- thanks again and any more suggestions are welcome - --Voyageurit 16:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep but rewrite. The history is confusing: was their Credit Letter a Letter of Credit of a prototype of a credit card? The relation of the Products to the two sub companies is unclear. DGG 00:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At first I thought this was Geico...the company has been around for a hundred years, and there are three references. That's good enough not to delete it. YechielMan 00:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite Could easily be a good article, but needs to be rewritten so it doesn't seem like so much of an advertisement. Jmlk17 03:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Looks notable enough and is referenced. It does need a rewrite though, especially the introduction (as it reads like an advertisement). --Razor ICE 05:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but take out the bias the_undertow ^talk 09:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and cleanup. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MagicPoint[edit]

This is a piece of free software, but with no sources, and no significant third-party coverage that I could find about it. I do not feel it meets the standards in WP:CORP. FrozenPurpleCube 22:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only an IP adress, so my vote doesn't count, but MagicPoint does seem to be a major piece of presentation software in the Linux world. A Google search for "Linux presentation programs" specifically mentions MagicPoint (and nothing else, not even OpenOffice Impress) - the rest of the links are to general HOWTOs, reviews, etc. They also seem to mention MagicPoint as a major alternative to Star/OpenOffice and KPresenter [5] [6] [7]. From what I can find, MagicPoint is notable in that it is markup-based (like LaTeX) and good enough to produce slides used in Linux/open source conferences [8] [9] (Dave Jones) and [10] (same link as 2 above).

(Note: One of the sources implies that MagicPoint is no longer maintained. From MagicPoints's official site, it seems that is no longer the case - the lastest release was only two months ago.)

So, since the software appears to be fairly notable, maybe the entry should be expanded, rather than removed?

124.148.59.119 12:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're incorrect that being an IP address means anything. Any person can make an argument, and since this is not a vote, it's the substance, not the number that matter. If you wish to add your coverage to the page, go right ahead. I don't know that they are convincing of notability on their own, but they are better than the nothing there now. FrozenPurpleCube 13:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've added to it. I think I might have put too many references though. What do you think? I'd like to add a software infobox (like wxDownload Fast has). Hopefully that will happen over the next day or so. 124.148.82.28 23:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem that notable when compared to the CORP guidelines. And the article clearly doesn't explain its notability, besides saying it's been used for conference presentations. But it appears that 3rd parties have written about the product, and that from a Linux slideshow/presentation perspective, it is notable. I'm leaning towards a weak keep, but I can understand if others feel wikipedia shouldn't articles on trivial topics.-Andrew c 01:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! I've tried to make the notability clearer by saying that MagicPoint of one of the three major open source presentation programs (with a reference).

By the way, when you say CORP guidelines, do you mean WP:CORP? If so, I'm wondering how these apply to software projects. Some larger projects (such as Mozilla or OpenOffice) are organizations, but most open source apps are just that - projects. So, they're unlikely to get a book written about them - a Linux.com article is more likely. Is there a specific set of guidelines for software? The closest guidelines I could find were Wikipedia:Notability.

124.148.82.28 02:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep + Revise. Before I fell asleep trying to read one of the most confusing articles on Wikipedia, I did find some interesting information, making it at the very least somewhat notable. I'm referring mainly to the fact that it is free software. On a side note, to Mr. 123.148.82.28, try to keep your comments minimal, as you're clogging up the AfD log. Sens08 02:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There is a paragraph or so about MagicPoint in the book "Inside Linux" by Michael J. Tobler, but it's quite small and some may consider that trivial. It's very briefly mentioned in a couple of other Linux books. --Canley 04:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Quite well-known in the open source world. The problem is that non-web sources may be difficult to come by. I'll see what I can find. -- BPMullins | Talk 13:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please the software is important and corp is not the right guideline to apply anyways really yuckfoo 01:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Non-admin closure. YechielMan 19:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lion Capital LLP[edit]

Fails WP:CORP. Cool Blue^{Light my Fire!} 00:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep apparently doesn't fail WP:CORP [11], [12]. --W.marsh 00:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This should not be confused with the american "Lion Capital Group" which apparently had a controversial bankruptcy in the 1980s Savings and Loan crisis. --W.marsh 00:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep come on, Cool Blue: you afd'd this article 1 minute after I created it? Of course there weren't any references. This is a major European Private equity firm, and very notable. UnitedStatesian 00:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, tell that in the article, not here. It doesn't look notable by the way it is stated in the article. Cool Blue^{Light my Fire!} 00:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give a guy more than one minute, and he will! :) Now that the article is more than 3 hours old, and referenced, how about revisiting it (and your nomination). UnitedStatesian 03:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even as currently referenced, all it really shows is that it's a company. Granted, it's a company that's bigger than one I could incorporate tomorrow, but there's a difference between verifying existence and demonstrating notability. If there's something more notable about it, I would like to be shown as much in the article. Lemonsawdust 07:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, per Traynor. I feel like an idiot for not even bothering with a UK Google. I'll blame it on force of habit this time and try to be more observant in the future. Now that I actually did an appropriate search, this company is clearly notable, and I'm not as smart as I thought I was. Lemonsawdust 15:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The article can be expanded with the given references by anyone concerned enough to do so. Notability has nothing to do with the content of the article. It touches only on whether the subject has been written about elsewhere, and by whom, and how detailed those writeups are. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-20 09:59Z
- Also, this is a buyout fund... all it really does is buy companies and sell them (hopefully at a profit) after warehousing them for a while and trying to increase their value. Not much else short of a bankruptcy is going to get them news coverage. A reasonable expectation for a claim of notability for such a company is that it has bought/sold multiple notable companies, and this fund has done that. At any rate, the multiple sources show this meets the only real guideline here, WP:CORP. --W.marsh 12:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: For pity's sake, filing an AfD one freaking minute after the article's creation? Possibly that minute could have been spent looking this company up on UK Google, where there are hits referencing the company's multi-billion euro buyout of Cadbury Schweppes Euro beverages division. There are hits from the Financial Times, from Bloomberg, Deloitte, the India Tribune ... this is just plain careless nomination at best. RGTraynor 15:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep this is one of the biggest companies in Europe and I doubt there's a single person in this AfD who doesn't use at least one product of a company owned by them every day. And (on my pet hobby horse) how can an AfD within a minute of creation be justified? And how can the nominator have checked them out to find out they "fail WP:CORP" within that minute? Clear bad faith nom. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Come to that, I was hitting the nom's talk page to ask what was going on, and found that he has a strong pattern of doing this: I found outright complaints that he filed several prods or AfDs in less than a minute of creation, in more than one case with prima facie notability there on the page. (It wouldn't occur to me, for one thing, to file on a NASL soccer player who just by that fact alone clears WP:BIO). I wouldn't call the nom "bad faith," per se, but I worry that this guy spends hours refreshing Special:Newpages every few seconds and thinks an award is handed out for the fastest deletions. It's a chronic pattern that people just nominate (or !vote) without performing even the most casual fact-checking, but this is especially egregious. RGTraynor 15:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Of course notable. Does not fail WP:CORP.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy KeepNotable company--Slogankid 19:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 04:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese (cheesy music)[edit]

Article consists entirely of original research and unverified claims. No references or citations. Concept of the article is trivial. Johnatx 00:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Delete As per above. DBZROCKS 00:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's pure original research. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't need an article for the use of an adjective that some people associate with some types of music. Therefore, I believe the content isn't suited for an encyclopedia, nor does it meet the spirit of WP:MUSIC. Plus there are OR/sourcing issues.-Andrew c 01:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 01:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete — Completely WP:OR, fails both WP:N and WP:V. Wikipedia is not a slang guide. Razor ICE 03:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one person's cheese is another person's Brie. You know an article's in trouble when it uses another form of its own name as part of a disambiguation term. Daniel Case 03:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Complete bollocks. There is no recognisable musical genre called Cheese or Cheesy Music. This is a farrago of unsupported opinion and original research. BTLizard 13:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced article about a music genre that I'm pretty sure does not exist. --Cyrus Andiron 14:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is some grain of truth behind this, a la Richard Cheese, but that does not excuse unsourced WP:OR. An interesting concept and its too bad there don't appear to be sources to prop it up. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is cheesiness in music the same as Camp (style)? There's OR issues there, too, but it seems much better, and incorporates other things I've heard described as "cheesy" (films, etc.). Perhaps that can be directed to from Cheese (disambiguation). Obviously a redirect from this bizarre article title is not necessary. Rigadoun (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's more of a personal essay on musical taste rather than an article for an encyclopedia -- Whpq 16:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. -- The Anome 20:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 04:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Workspace Whiz[edit]

No evidence of notability. All sources point to sites controlled by Jensen (the author). No one has offered to clean it up yet. Rulesdoc 00:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Powered Delete. Aside from the fact that there's conflict of interest issues, this is an article that I would actually expect to see on Freshmeat touting this software - and we ain't Freshmeat. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam. Daniel Case 03:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Making your own plug-in for a Microsoft product is good. Trying to advertise for it on Wikipedia is bad. That is exactly what this article amounts to: spam. --Cyrus Andiron 15:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePer above, nn spam--Slogankid 19:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - both articles contain the same essay. If someone wants to have a go at writing an encyclopedic article from it, I'll gladly provide you with a copy to work on. WjBscribe 01:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criminality gene[edit]

Also nominating Genetics of criminality. Referenced, so I'm bringing these here instead of using prod. These articles(which are duplicates of each other) look very much like original research via synthesis, and I'm not sure if they should be kept, or simply cleaned up heavily. Salad Days 01:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as synthesis. Reads like a standard literature-based research/thesis/essay; very literary tone. DMacks 03:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep for Genetics of criminality only, which is by far the better title, if the article is rewritten. It does look as if it was a school essay, but it could easily be wikified sufficiently. It also needs more recent references--the ones given are standard, but a lot has been done since. DGG 03:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep — But needs a lot of work (I am referring to Genetics of criminality one). Like the comments above, it reads far too much like a thesis. --Razor ICE 05:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is neither a collection of essays nor a crystal ball. When someone finds a gene, we can have an article on it. This is pure speculation at this point though. --Selket ^Talk 06:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Criminality gene as original research. Keep Genetics of criminality - this appears to be a notable historical line of thought which still has its adherents - but per DGG needs to be updated. --Charlene 06:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text is the same, they just have different titles .... Salad Days 11:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The theories discussed here seem to be the same, or very similar, to the ones discussed at anthropological criminology. This might be a candidate for a merger. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Very non-encyclopedic style. Sounds like a "C" term paper from school. Very POV, such as: "As an evidence, we, Filipinos coined expression that relates criminality to its root: “Kung anong puno ay siyang bunga.” Edison 14:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete NPOV concern. SYSS Mouse 15:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak KeepSeems quite interesting but weird--Slogankid 19:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete NPOV / synthetic OR concern. If the article ends up being kept, the references/citations need to be footnoted, inline, so that other editors can check the work. Otherwise this reads like pseudoscience. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 23:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP includes pseudoscience, if anyone notices it and writes about it. DGG 06:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems odd to me that in Wikipedia, where I've encountered many folks arguing for more and more citations, notability accountability and verifiability, and where the common argument for censorship-like behavior is that it "makes Wikipedia look bad", it's OK to also write about pseudoscience, but I guess we're aiming for completeness, not avoiding self-contradiction. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 22:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict Online[edit]

non-notability DrIdiot 01:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reminds me of back in late 2005 or so when just about every MMPORPG was trying to get an article on. Probably did back then, too. Daniel Case 03:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete — The article fails to mention how it is notable (WP:N) and contains no references (apart from the game's own website). Looks like an amateur game with very little fan-base (I know I shouldn't judge it like this, but the "official forums" contain a whopping 41 posts by 55 members. This does not sound very notable to me at all). I'm sorry for being harsh, but this definitely does not need to be on Wikipedia. --Razor ICE 05:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 04:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tank Jones and Morning Solute[edit]

Non-notable 11 year-old kid and his projects, pratically all a hoax as well, but the Youtube stuff maybe true. Also nominating his "series" Morning Solute for the same reason. Masaruemoto 00:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources that I can find, fails WP:N, WP:V. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mr.Z-man. Acalamari 01:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - clearly not notable. And yeesh, the writing. -steventity 05:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But, but... it's on YOUTUBE! Oh wait, yeah. Delete, combined these articles fail WP:RS, WP:BIO, WP:WEB. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Send it to MySpace where it belongs. BTLizard 13:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and salt. WjBscribe 04:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scooby-Doo 3 (film) AND Scooby-Doo 3[edit]

WP:NOT crystal ball, WP:ATT, WP:V. Complete speculation about a film that has not been confirmed, or even widely discussed in the media. Googling "Scooby-Doo 3" with the new character "Alyssa Masters" gives zero hits; or with actress playing her "Kristin Chenoweth" gives zero hits; and the "tentative" title Scooby Doo III: The Haunted Ghost Ship also gives zero hits. Along with all the usual phrases like "It is rumored that", "Rumors have also included that","suspected to involve", etc. A related article was unanimously deleted a year ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scooby-Doo 3, but yet another article, Scooby-Doo 3, is in its place. I would have speedied that as a CSD G4 repost, but it's probably quite different to the earlier version. My nomination is to delete and salt both, until there is an official announcement. (Which looks unlikely for a while). Masaruemoto 00:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete this article? It is an upcoming film just like Spiderman 3! DO NOT delete this article.
Delete and salt per nom. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Sr13 (T|C) 02:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt If there was any real news on this, I would have heard about it. I like the revelation; "the plot is suspected to involve a haunted ghost ship." With a name like "The Haunted Ghost Ship", I'd say that's a safe assumption. Pufnstuf 03:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete and salt as per nom. -- The Anome 19:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GreenJoe 05:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 05:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lion King family[edit]

A badly rendered family tree of The Lion King, which could be original research if it was created by close analysis of the different films' plots - this is not the kind of information the average viewer would get from watching the films. If it's based on something else, then it still shouldn't be on Wikipedia, fails WP:N/WP:FICT. Masaruemoto 00:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some solid research here, all for not. The author really has to ask themselves, is it worth putting up the family history of a children's fictional movie character? As per Masaruemoto's comment onWP:N/WP:FICT, there's no use for it. Sens08 02:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A family tree on fictional characters is not needed. Sr13 (T|C) 02:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good effort, but poorly conceived and written. Jmlk17 03:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Although it is a pretty nifty idea, I think such articles should only exist on specific Wikis (such as a Disney Wiki if one exists?). Fails WP:N. --Razor ICE 05:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lion King -- Selket ^Talk 06:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A poorly drawn family tree. There really isn't a need to merge. This information is readily available in the main article of The Lion King. --Cyrus Andiron 14:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and rewrite. - Mailer Diablo 11:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major Sudip Bose[edit]

Does not matter where he got a mention. All he was, was a MD in the Army like 1000s of others. This is also an ad for his business. I, nadav, created this afd entry for User:203.10.224.60, who placed the afd template on the page without creating the entry. nadav 02:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. He did apparently receive a lot of press recognition. But it seems he created the page, probably with the intention of getting publicity. nadav 02:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but quickly rewrite. Waaaaaaaaaay too many media mentions (there are more than just those currently listed in the article) of this guy to claim he's non-notable. Whether he deserves to have been made more notable by the media than thousands of other army docs is irrelevent. The fact is that he has been made more notable than they. Like it or not. Now then, the criticism that the article, in its current form, is vanity/advertisement created by Bose himself is a valid and accurate one. But given that the subject is actually notable, the solution to siutation is not to delete the article (WP:AUTO discourages creating your own article, but doesn't absolutely forbid it); it is to rewrite it so that it no longer has those problems. Mwelch 02:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. Seems to violate WP:COI, but can be improved. Sr13 (T|C) 03:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite, because the subject is notable. The argument that there are "1000s of others" can be used for anybody in any field, and that why it does matter "where he got a mention" and what the article(s) about him said, because that's how we judge N. DGG 03:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I have a problem with the conflict of interest, but that is not cause for deletion. He may have created the page, but at least he can back up his claims with sources. That being said, this page needs a substantial rewrite to make it acceptable. There are POV problems (obviously) across the board. I'm only voting to keep because he does appear to be notable. --Cyrus Andiron 13:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Needs rewrite and/or inline citations.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 14:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - OR problems will not be resolved by merging this. WjBscribe 01:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of improv games[edit]

Original research. Article has been tagged as unreferenced since 2006, which leads one to believe that this list is largely unverifiable. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. These would be better suited on one of the improv wikis. Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 01:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an instruction manual and this borders on indiscriminate as well. Some are cited, but most are not. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a violation of WP:NOT. Acalamari 01:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. I must agree with Mr.Z-man and Acalamari in their remarks that there is evidence of original research. However, I still believe that this is a list worth keeping. Anyone who is looking for information on improvisational games will surely look here. If nothing else, I suggest merging this into Improvisational theatre. Sens08 02:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A waste of space essentially. Not a good list to have. Jmlk17 03:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio from its one cited source. DMacks 03:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I deleted it before realising there were clean non-copyvio versions in the history. I have restored only the non-copyvio versions. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-20 10:09Z
  - Mega-apologies for not looking deeper into the history. 12:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 08:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into improve comedy, as a list would be helpful to the subject. Links, individual or as a collection, to outside sites that do list what the games entail would also be helpful for an individual to understanding the subject. After all, examples should be included. And it probably wouldn't be long before somebody created the list again. JQF • Talk • Contribs 02:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Note that merger is an editorial decision that is not precluded (or endorsed) by a Keep decision at AfD. Newyorkbrad 03:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Croton Gorge Park[edit]

Does not pass Wikipedia:Notability. Previously proded but prod tag removed by Movie Eager (talk • contribs) because "That's stupid, it's part of the NYC watershed" 24fan24 (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What part does it NOT pass? It's insufficient to say "it doesn't pass notability". You have to say why. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Movie Eager (talk • contribs).

Note: This user was blocked as a sock puppet of this article's creator. --24fan24 (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as unreferenced and no viable assertions of notability. Could be a stub I guess, or a redirect to the Croton Reservoir or related hiking trail, but notability for the park on its own is absent. "It's notable because it's a park at the base of a damn of a reservoir that supplies water for a major city" is just too many degrees of separation from "notable" to "this article". DMacks 03:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Parks are not always notable, but large parks near major cities often are. Its relationship to the development of the NYC water system is important, there is interesting history involved. But this article is merely a stub and needs expansion and references. There should be many that will deal in considerable part with this. DGG 03:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't believe that the park's proximity to New York makes it notable. This article is lacking in sources and thus does not assert the notability of the subject. It is in need of multiple non-trival sources to verify its notability. It is also poorly written and does not convey an encyclopdic tone. It would need a substantial rewrite to be an acceptable article. --Cyrus Andiron 14:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the links check out and there appears to be enough interesting history here to warrant a keep - but this needs a total rewrite as at present it reads like a babelfish translation from Japanese - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. It's the site of the Old Croton Dam, the first large masonry dam in the United States. The Old Croton Dam is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and the Croton Aqueduct is a National Historic Landmark. The article needs a lot of cleanup, though. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If the dam is the notable thing, then maybe the park should be a section in an article about the dam, not the other way around? DMacks 16:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That might make sense. I'll wait to hear what other people say in this AfD discussion, though, before proposing a page move or refocusing the article. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 00:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Appears we already do have an article about the dam (or at least it's got the same structure in its picture; the history of construction on that page is kinda confusing). Still not sure the park itself is notable...we're still missing any ref that is non-self-published or that that asserts notability for it. DMacks 07:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The park is on the National Register of Historic Places and is notable for that alone. The article has four references, at least. Not sure why someone would nominate it for deletion except that the original wikipedist who wrote the stub does not seem to have English as a first language. This smacks of discrimination. -Enjoyclear 23:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user was blocked as a sock puppet of this article's creator. --24fan24 (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The article didn't originally mention that the dam is on the National Register. I remembered (vaguely) the article about the Croton Aqueduct, so I did some research on this park and found that it contained a structure on the National Register. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 00:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if it does need a fair amount of work, there is still enough in the article to warrant its survival. Otebig 01:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elkman. This park containing the historic Croton Dam alone makes it "notable." --Oakshade 04:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Oakshade. Being the location for the U.S. equivalent of the pyramids makes it notable. -t h b 20:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ change to merge and redirect (see comment from Shenme below), seems pretty notable. David D. (Talk) 04:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now for the other option, Merge. This article seems 'light' and the other article New_Croton_Dam needs a rewrite ('president'?). Seems to me one article would serve better, as the dam is the setting and the park is simply part of the attraction. Shenme 19:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I support a merge. --24fan24 (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The series of articles about this and the other landmarks need cleanup. It would be over reaction to delete this before the cleanup of the articles was complete. Vegaswikian 02:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, also, I'd recommend to include important links into this article. Environment friendly IBM World Headquarters in Ossinning, NY, sits right in the middle of the park. Scenic Taconic state road goes thru it - remains me of The Long and Winding Road by Paul McCartney. So what else is new? greg park avenue 18:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 00:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Fraternity of Crocodiles[edit]

Delete - there do not appear to be the requisite independent sources which establish this subjects' notability. Otto4711 03:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ Delete — Article does not show how the characters are notable, and is unsourced (failing WP:V). However, there seem to be other articles about characters in the same comic, as well as a category. I think deleting this article would require the other ones to be deleted as well... no? --Razor ICE 05:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are other articles for other characters which do not pass WP policies and guidelines then those articles should also be deleted. They can't serve to justify this article. Otto4711 06:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I changed my vote, but I think the other characters should also be nominated, then. --Razor ICE 08:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per WP:FICTION, and merge any useful content into Pearls Before Swine. MastCell ^Talk 18:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- -- Ben 22:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and move to Lily Goddard. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Goddard FCSD[edit]

I appreciate that the author wants to create a page for his mother, but I don't think the supplied sources satisfy WP:BIO. The external links seem to establish the fact that she produced a couple of books—at least one apparently self-published—but I'm not seeing the notability here. Deor 03:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep - RSA membership implies a certain level of notability in her specialised field, as does who she worked for. If the article is kept it should be moved to Lily Goddard without the FCSD.Madmedea 13:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article's a bit thin in its present state, but I'd argue that her FRSA (much more of a distinction than the FCSD in my opinion) confers notability. Further, her work's in the V&A and some of the clients listed are impressive. I'd say the author's done enough to justify being allowed - and encouraged - to carry on fleshing out the article. A photograph would be good, as would be a couple of illustrations of samples of her work. BTLizard 13:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps my nom was badly expressed; what bothers me most is the lack of sources. The article seems to depend wholly on one obit in the CSD magazine, to which I don't have access (and the wording of the citation makes me wonder whether the article mightn't be a copyvio). I realize that Ms. Goddard's period of activity in her profession predates the WWW, but Google turns up nothing at all about her memberships or professional activities. I think more RSs are needed to satisfy WP:BIO. Deor 14:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - IMO writing the definitive guide on coalhole rubbing (most kids who grew up in London, Manchester and other coalhole-heavy cities will be remember it from primary school) is in and of itself grounds for N, quite aside from her own creative work - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and move to Lily Goddard - probably squeaks by WP:BIO based on FRSA/FCSD. I'll assume "coalhole rubbing" is more innocent than it sounds to American ears. MastCell ^Talk 18:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and move to Lily Goddard, as per MastCell -- The Anome 19:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having been invited to comment, it is clearly obvious that it is impossible for me to be objective. It should also be obvious that gratuitous and patronising observations on my motivations and alledged copyright contraventions are somewhat objectionable at best . I completely agree that the article is poorly titled and had already considered changing that to a more standard form (apologies - newbie alert). I could also upload a picture and samples of her work both from her main field of textile design and the subsidiary field of poetry although I personally feel that this would be overstating her notability. As this is the second time this article has been flagged by the same person, I am reluctant to expend time on this until the powers that be make up their minds as this makes very little difference to me at the end of the day. I am very grateful to those commentators who appeciate that that fellowship of two organisations with Royal Charters is not to be dismissed too lightly and to the fact that having one's work housed in a premier London museum suggests a certain notability. Sadly the WWW is a difficult source for work that produced 20 or more years ago. If someone would like to tell me what more is required I will consider the contribution further. Larry Goddard 19:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gardendale High School[edit]

There could not be a more inferior article for AFD, one sentence article proves non-notable cruft. Know pedia 04:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V and WP:ORG. No sources, article just says the city the school is in and thus isn't even merge worthy. TJ Spyke 04:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I could support a merge into the city article. TJ Spyke 20:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep try to expand --Miamite 04:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~or Merge~~ — Changed my vote to keep. The article is now improved greatly. Good work! ~~I think it either needs a lot of expansion, or just merge it as the single sentence it is into Gardendale, Alabama.~~ --RazorICE 05:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do either of you have an actual reason to keep? There are zero reasons to keep the article right now since it fails several policies and guidelines, and there is nothing to merge. TJ Spyke 06:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I'd say keep is if it was expanded. Other than that, I said merge. --Razor ICE 06:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- No... If merging is the answer, merge into school districts. Districts and municipalities don't always share boundaries and are entirely different entities with different missions. ccwaters 19:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of content ("Gardendale High School is in Gardendale, Alabama" is really empty). I'm almost tempted to call this an A3 speedy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the expanded version. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article about the city. A little research in the local newspaper's files and the local historical society could probably produce enough references about the history and importance of the school to make an adequate article, since high schools are important to their communities, and consolidation, mergers, the expense of their construction, controversies about policies, problems and achievements, athletic prowess, notable alumni are usually topics of news articles. If someone ever cares to do the work, perhaps a stand-alone article could be created in the future. Many high schools have been the subject of multiple stories in reliable publications with nontrivial content sufficient to satisfy WP:N, Edison 14:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:V utterly. Keep: Notability now quite well sourced. Good work. RGTraynor 16:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. I'm familiar with the rationale stub articles but surely there should be something to read? BTLizard 16:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Much improved. BTLizard 08:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. It would have been helpful if the nominator had done a search on Google before nominating this article. --Eastmain 19:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search on Google before nominating this article. So Delete. --Know pedia 20:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: the burden of proof is not on the nominator. ccwaters 20:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless there something extraordinarily notable about this school, its mention in it school district's (Jefferson County Board of Education) article is sufficient enough (as well as any other individual school). ccwaters 19:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — It takes a couple of minutes to merge these small-town school articles, and it's a better and less cynical solution than yet another school deletion rehash. — RJH (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: re: Eastmain's new reference ... it's pretty close; a proposed merger written up in the city paper is a good ref. But this article is about one notable issue away at present. RGTraynor 20:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Another article where ample reliable and verifiable sources were available and added to establish a strong claim of notability. I strongly encourage those who voted based on the original "one sentence article" cited in the original nomination, and to look at the substantial changes made since the article was put up for AfD. Furthermore, any AfD nomination that uses the word "cruft" (or any form thereof) is worthy of retention in my book. Alansohn 22:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much improved article now establishes notability easily. Davewild 15:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All high schools are notable. Postlebury 20:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep this expanded article please it shows notability now and has sources too yuckfoo 01:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above, and I disagree, some but not all of the burden does fall upon the nominator. It doesn't hurt to do a minimal amount of research before verifying whether or not an article should be improved rather than deleted. Burntsauce 20:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slang used in StarCraft[edit]

Purportedly, this article is about "Slang in Starcraft" - that is, it's supposed to be an encyclopedic article about the use of slang in Starcraft. However, it definitely isn't - at best, it's just a list of slang terms used in Starcraft games, which is something Wikipedia is not - and it's probably not even appropriate for Wikitionary at that. I can't find any WP:RS which back up any of this, and in fact can find sources differing about many of these - which are basically in-game neologisms, designed to save time while typing - and this article certainly doesn't provide any, thus totally failing WP:ATT. Furthermore, I can't for the life of me tell why this is even a remotely encyclopedic, or notable topic. Why is slang in Starcraft important, and not Slang in Baldur's Gate, or Slang in MechCommander? This article neither provides, nor supports, the notion that this is notable, or encyclopedic as a topic. To summarize, this article fails multiple policies, and should be deleted. Haemo 04:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I like StarCraft, but this is FanCruft. Dppowell 06:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete unsourced and likely original research. I doubt strongly that any sort of context or greater meaning beyond the list itself could be found, a brief look into google and lexis show nothing (unsurprisingly) that would comport to reliable source guidelines. Wintermut3 07:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly fancruft.
Delete Completely unsourced but easily discernible acronyms that refer to various aspects of the game. The page is not needed and clearly OR, it's StarCruft. --Cyrus Andiron 12:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is more like, "Slang used in Starcraft chat". Completely unencyclopedic, no sources, no reason to keep the article. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikipedia is really not a slang dictionary. Wikipedia is really, really, really, really not a StarCraft slang dictionary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fancruft, and particularly dull at that. BTLizard 17:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Doc^g 00:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Cannabis[edit]

This article is about a comic book and was created by the author of said comic book. There are no independent reliable sources demonstrating the notability of the subject. Does not seem to meet ~~Wikipedia:Notability (books)~~Wikipedia:Notability. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 05:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smoke it per nomination. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-20 10:13Z
Delete - Same as above. Lancaster D Mistletoe 11:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Athænara ✉ 14:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retain with NPOV edit The character and book has now been cited [by consensus] as notable in the 420 Cannabis Culture article. The Captain Cannabis article is in need of an edit to bring it in conformity with the NPOV policies of Wikipedia, but should be kept for encyclopedic completeness. Verne Andru 15:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV is not the only issue, there is no independent indication of notability. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect:

High Times Magazine, February 2007, The Buzz section page 13, "Sensi Superman"
Skunk Magazine, Volume 2, Issue 8, Cool Stuff section, "420 Verne Signature Series"
Weed World Magzine, issue #66
Playback Magazine, March 19 2007, " Getting a buzz" by James Careless
QsHouse Radio/iPod Interview - Verne Andru: the George Lucas of the comic world

Verne Andru 21:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable enough, SqueakBox 15:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what you are basing this off of? The amazon listing, the copyright certificate or the screenplay that has not yet been made into a movie? All three of those do not require any notability to attain. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is ironic that an article with the name Canabis was nominated for deletion on 04/20. That being said, the subject is not notable enough to warrant its own page. The sources do not verify notability as pointed out by HighInBC. --Cyrus Andiron 15:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried for awhile and could not find any source to verify notability. Even mildly obscure comics you can ussually find somehting, I found nothing, suggesting this was probably self-published origonally with very little circulation. As for the screenplay, being registered with ScreenWriters guild is pretty meaningless, 10s of thousands of screenplays are registered and never made into a film. Now if there was an actual deal in the works to make a movie, thats something else, but there is no evidence of that, as well as if there was an active third party fan site for the comic, but that does not exist either. Not at all notable. Russeasby 15:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a "fan" forum recently created for Captain Cannabis at ProjectFanBoy.com. Both ProjectFanBoy and the forum are both relatively new. My sub-forum was only created a few weeks ago and I have not had time to put any attention to it. Their introductory topic thread states, "Welcome to project fanboy Verne, as you can see we've added a forum for you to discuss the ongoings of your character Captain Cannabis." which absolutely ties Captain Cannabis to it, even though the forum is titled "Verne Andru." Verne Andru 18:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion forum that you have created and you are the moderator of does not qualify as a "fan site", it is in no way a third party reference to the notability of Captain Canabis. Russeasby 19:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While this is immaterial to the matter of determining notability as per the policy cited, for the record I was invited to that forum by the owners and made a moderator by them. They had seen chatter of the Captain Cannabis character on another forum and approached me. They are independent and arms-length. Verne Andru 19:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~I Delete two articles in the morning, I Delete two articles at night, I Delete two articles in the afternoon, it makes me feel alright. Krimpet (talk/review) 16:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Now that a few independent sources have been added satisfying WP:N, I'm leaning towards a weak keep and cleanup. Krimpet (talk/review) 16:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional citations added to Captain Cannabis for those unable to find notable references. Verne Andru 19:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I looked at Playback: Getting a buzz, and I see no mention of "Captain Cannabis". I am wondering if anyone out there has access to the other magazine articles he quotes. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That article goes into lengths on the 420 movie/screenplay which is the Captain Cannabis origin story. Verne Andru 19:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet the words "Captain Cannabis"(the name of the comic) are not in it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the comic book and the movie which features the Captain Cannabis origin story is "420" as you will see on the Amazon.com page. The article is correct. Verne Andru 19:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the guidelines on Wikipedia:Notability (books) as indicated above and submit that the additional citations recently added to the article in dispute more that satisfies the criteria of - "A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." Those guidelines specifically state "Notability is not subjective" and "Notability is not popularity" the criteria that appears to be applied by those seeking deletion. Verne Andru 20:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Verne Andru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created the article—first edit after registration. — Æ. ✉ 23:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no policies or guidlines precluding this as long as the article is done from a NPOV, is properly cited and notable Verne Andru 15:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- -- Ben 22:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Captain Cannabis shall live on! Nardman1 01:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or, at the very list, rename/move to 420 (comic). Given that citations are primarily about the comic book (not this specific character), it seems such a page would have room for growth. — Hiplibrarianship 13:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it suvives this AFD, I agree that 420 (comic) would probably be a more appropriate article for it and I would support this move, but as of yet my vote for delete above still stands. Russeasby 15:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, at least until some kind of widespread recognition is gained and it is written up by some reliable accessible sources. Plus, comment, it was not agreed by consensus as notable on Talk:420 (cannabis culture), it was agreed by consensus as relevant. Relevant things can still be non-notable and unsourced. Sorry Verne, this whole thing is going through the wringer somewhat. Jdcooper 15:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasons are both subjective and based on popularity - 2 criteria specifically precluded from the policy for Wikipedia:Notability which has been cited. That policy is very clear in that it precludes any discretion. Once the threshold tests in that policy have been passed - as I submit they have - Captain Cannabis must be deemed notable and the case presented here must fail.

Some of the early nominations in favor of deletion may not be valid. HighInBC changed his original charge from Wikipedia:Notability (books) to Wikipedia:Notability, and additional citations have been added which brings this article in line with Wikipedia Notability criteria. It is unclear to me what the time lines for these events are, but submit all voices prior to these two additions must not be given any weight in the final determination. Verne Andru 16:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I realize this action is being taken against Captain Cannabis, the following links citing the author [Verne Andru/Verne Andrusiek] may help some editors comfort-level. The citations are available when you know what to look for and where. This list is not exhaustive, just what is easily available through a few quick google searches:

As a point of interest, the article Playback - B.C. reps explore Singapore treaty, Nov 30. 1998 is the first published account of the 420 story. While it does not make specific reference to either 420 or Captain Cannabis, the oKee story and character form the basis from which the 420/Captain Cannabis movie/comic book were derived. The oKee character is pivotal to the 420 story and makes an appearance in a subsequent chapter. Verne Andru 18:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to show your notability or the notability of the subject of this article up for AfD? None of these seem to have anything to do with Captain Cannabis. Russeasby 18:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, this is merely supplemental data. The notability of Captain Cannabis must stand on its own merits. Verne Andru 18:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this vanispamcruftisement. IPSOS (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scope Reminder I would like to remind the editors that what is at issue here is whether or not Captain Cannabis is considered "notable" as per the Wikipedia:Notability policies, which I invite you all to review. To summarize, the criteria include:

A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject.
Notability is not subjective
Notability is not popularity

This policy makes clear that if the article is able to pass these tests objectively, as subjectivity is precluded, it is deemed "notable." It is insufficient to make a claim that you believe the article deleted and give no explanation. In order for your position to be given proper weight you must address the Wikipedia:Notability policies and prove where the article fails these threshold tests, just as I have had to prove where it has passed them. I have provided multiple citations that meet all criteria to satisfied Captain Cannabis to be deemed "notable" according to published Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

For the sake of completeness, the Talk section of that page explains:

I encourage editors to read the section on dealing with non-notable subjects in these guidelines again. Deletion is not the only way to deal with non-notable subjects. Nominating zax (tool) for deletion in order to make a point was poor form. The problem with that article was that no-one had yet written an article with a broader scope into which it could be merged. It is only as of today that we even have an article about the trade of slater. The zax is discussed in published works in discussions of slater's tools as a whole. The guidelines say very clearly to rename, refactor, or merge articles where the subject is discussed in published works as part of a broader scope, and to create any necessary broader-scope articles if they don't already exist. Stop treating deletion as if it were the only tool in the toolbox! You are Wikipedia editors. You can write articles, too, as well as deletion nominations. Please follow the guidelines. Uncle G 04:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Verne Andru 22:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Does anyone have access to the print sources that are being given, because I cannot find any mention of this character(which pre-dates the comic book "420") in the only online source given. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

420 Movie Citations I would like to add that proper citations are made to the 420 movie in the following independent sources:

High Times Magazine, February 2007, The Buzz section page 13, "Sensi Superman"
QsHouse Radio/iPod Interview - Verne Andru: the George Lucas of the comic world
Playback Magazine, March 19 2007, " Getting a buzz" by James Careless Verne Andru 15:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and as COI. I'm unimpressed with the so-called cited sources which don't come anywhere near making this comic the primary subject of multiple nontrivial published works. The Playback thing is just a short blurb, the High Times piece sounds similar, and the QsHouse "radio" interview is a podcast which is a dime a dozen. 75.62.7.22 07:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is subjective. The citations comply fully with the policy which states:

In order to have an attributable article, a topic should be notable enough that the information about it will have been researched, checked, and evaluated through publication in independent reliable sources.
In order to have a neutral article, a topic should be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources; and that those interested in the article will not be exclusively partisan or fanatic editors.

You people have to abide with your own rules. The decision is a binary one - either the citations comply in being done independently, at arms-length and state the subject specifically or they do not. Length, breadth, popularity, etc. are not determining factors. Read the policy and follow it. All discretion is precluded from your deliberations. Those are Wikipedia rules that everyone is expected to follow, even Wikipedia editors. Verne Andru 15:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motion To Dismiss I submit the article under review fully complies with Wikipedia policies. There is no consensus for deletion, it is written from a NPOV and is notable with multiple independent citations. Dismiss this matter and let the article stand. Verne Andru 15:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dismiss? An admin will look at the discussion and close it soon, but we don't dismiss debates here. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if it gets deleted you can appeal at WP:DRV though it looks to me like a delete consensus, SqueakBox 15:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that people can ignore the Wikipedia policies with impunity? The policies are very clear in stating the determining factor for notability must not be subjective, yet that makes up the reasons for those seeking deletion. It wouldn't be an issue if they could point to where the article/citations run afoul - even a singular instance - of the Notability policy, but not one has done so. Frankly this process resembles a lynch mob more than a scholarly pursuit of encyclopedic knowledge. I argued at bar for 10 years and this motion would have been tossed out long before now. Verne Andru 16:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I am saying exactly the opposite, that if an admins decision is considered wrong we have DRV to appeal that decision. I think we should let a closing admin make up his mind before commenting further, s/he will, I am sure, take your views into consideration, SqueakBox 16:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. — Athænara ✉ 19:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis? Where does it run afoul with the Wikipedia:Notability policy that has been cited as the reason for deletion? Verne Andru 19:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Treacy[edit]

Vanispamcruftisement which is a pastiche of copyvios (see, for example, [13], [14], and [15]). MER-C 04:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Treacyandco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
207.172.211.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Added userlinks for the only two users to add content. I'll wait and see as per MER-C's post on WP:COI/N. — Athænara ✉ 14:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete clear Vanispamcruftisement. --Helm.ers 15:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Not much more to add, although I suspect it could have been speedied. Ohconfucius 09:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Silva[edit]

Non notable pro-wrestler, yet to make his debut Ga rr ie 04:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable per my nom.Garrie 04:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure if creating articles with a {{tl:sprotect}} is commonly accepted either? Garrie 04:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's definitely not kosher, same as with adding the template to non-protected pages. I suspected a re-post after prior deletions but couldn't find any in the log. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-20 10:16Z
Delete can't have notability when he hasn't even made his debut yet, article reads like a promo for the guy, either a hoax or a vanity piece MPJ-DK 14:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As MPJ-DK suggests, there seems to be a lot of informaton given for a wrestler who hasn't even made his debut yet. However, I did find the claim He is the second wrestler in history to be billed from Parts Unkown, somewhat humorus. MadMax 17:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After reading the article I'm finding it difficult to keep my comments to a NPOV so I will simply point out the article fails WP:BIO, WP:BLP, WP:NOT and... ahh sod this, I'm requesting a speedy delete. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Bobet 10:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valor tale[edit]

Contested PROD that was deprodded without a rationale given. Looks to be a self-published work that isn't non-notable. The content fails WP:FICTION; the author fails WP:BIO. Ultimately, it's a major violation of WP:V, considering the only information found anywhere else is the sales link at the bottom. Possibly WP:COI and WP:SPAM. Delete (note: page was moved to Valor Tale after start of AfD; deletion is for that article along with redirect from title seen above). Kinu ^t/_c 05:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this is a published novel, why can't I find anything on it anywhere? Definitely fails WP:V and notability as well. No sources listed that mention the book. Most of the article is character analysis information that could probably be found in the text, wherever that might be. --Cyrus Andiron 15:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should check my references I have provided at the bottom of the page to find info about my book. Also, if you looked at the date when it came out, you will see that it is fairly new. In regards to the information of the characters, those who have downloaded the pictures have provided the name of author, illustrator, page number that it is on, along with copyright info. You have to click on the pic, it should be right next to the file name of the pic. (i.e Dew.GIF....) Thanks

Dew3 10:33, 24 April 2007

Comment: Existence and notability are two completely different things. If this book is fairly new, and it is indeed yours, then creating an article on it may be considered advertising. Please see what Wikipedia is not, along with the information provided above, to find out what is considered an appropriate article for this encyclopedia. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Reply: If this is considered a form of advertising, then what is the point of having articles such as Final Fantasy IIV and any other book (i.e. Eragon, Frankenstein, To kill a Mockingbird, etc.) on here for viewing pleasure? I have no intentions of promoting my book for sell on here, nor have I suggested any means of such nature. Please let me know what needs to be changed so I may keep this up and running?

Dew3 13:19, 24 April 2007

- - Response: Per WP:FICTION, step one is to have your book published by an independent publisher and not what is considered a "vanity press." Then, have your book written about and reviewed by reliable, neutral, third-party sources such as the media, so that the article can be written from a critical but neutral point of view and not be a rehash of the plot summary. I'm sure the other published works you have mentioned satisfy those requirements. Yours does not, as indicated above. Comparing a book you publish on-demand to a classic such as Frankenstein is a gross misconception... and I also doubt that Mary Shelley wrote the article on it. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Comment: I am sure Mary Shelly would have done just the same thing, with no intentions of trying to market her story just as I wasn't. Unless you're a mind reader and knew Mary Shelly very well, because I am sure not and I did not know her. Plus, we all know that Wikipedia and the internet wasn't even around in the 19th century. lol In all seriousness; from what you are telling me, for my article to stay up here, it has to be from some one who has read the book already? Although I did not put the pics and the book synaposis itself up, I can see your point. I will talk to the book company then who has published my stuff, and they will be my third party. If that isn't good enough, in June with The New York Review of Books, I suppose whom ever takes grasps of my story shall put their neutral input in of my story. That is considered a third party, right? I thank you for the explantation and appreicate your help on this. Dew3 14:48, 24 April 2007

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

There was also a deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 26. --Timeshifter 00:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Deletion Review resulted in an endorsement of Doc's keep closure below. Xoloz 14:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No Consensus = default KEEP - merging is of course an editorial decision to be worked out on the talk pages -Doc^g 00:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States military aid to Israel[edit]

An unprecedented list which seems to be a fork of Israel-United States relations, and which is in any case mostly unsourced, including the central premise. Tewfik^Talk 04:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:POVFORK. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what exactly is POV about the article. Thanks ابو علي (Abu Ali) 15:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pov fork per above. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There also doesn't appear to any other "United States military aid to..." type articles for any other country. Certainly a POV Fork of Israel-United States relations <<-armon->> 05:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looks adequately sourced to me. If some statements are POV, they can surely be addressed by editing rather than deletion. Gatoclass 12:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject of US military aid to Israel is significantly developed enough that I believe it can sustain its own article away from the one on relations. The central premise is easy to confirm, here's a source [16]. If there's any problems with POV content, fix that. Not that I see any, but whatever FrozenPurpleCube 15:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepArticle has enough sourced material to deserve it's own article. Not an inherently POV article but rather an expansion of a section of Israel-United States relations. Any POV in article can be cleaned up. Davewild 16:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The article obviously needs work, and it should be supplemented with an article about the enormous U.S. foreign aid to Eygpt. — RJH (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge anything useful into Israel-United States relations. The article is mostly a list of donated weapons and a couple of tables; there is not enough cited text to justify the existence of a separate article. Beit Or 20:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge agree with Beit. --St.daniel ^talk 20:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge per Beit Or. -- Karl Meier 23:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete KazakhPol 06:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge with Israel-United States relations. Khorshid 10:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Davewild. But the article must be better sourced. Biophys 16:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Khorshid. -t h b 20:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete poorly sourced POV fork--Sefringle 21:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The information can be sourced easily, and the introduction can easily be reworded. There is nothing inherently POV about the title. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 01:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 14:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Davewild. nadav 01:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per FrozenPurpleCube. → Aktar ^{(talk • contribs)} — 11:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. IZAK 07:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to Israel-United States relations (which has enough room for such information.) IZAK 07:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to Israel-United States relations (i.e. delete) per IZAK Zeq 08:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC) 08:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - i'm sure voters for "keep" would vote delete if it were a "Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and Iranian military aid to Palestinians", article seems like weird POV pushing disregarding Israel's loans, and Israel's part in the creation of new weapons' systems and intelligence related matters etc. etc. i'm thinking that a "Merge" could be appropriate if the material was minimized to not create a non-encyclopedic "Israel gets money!" rant like article... a similar "article" could be made for both Jordan, Egypt (who gets more money than Israel) and Saudi Arabia. Jaakobou 12:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Delete per nom. Amoruso 13:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to who ever close this afdWe need to look into these votes. Are they for encyclopedic or political reasons ? I suggest that you carefully rad the arguments to keep or to delete . Especially look at merge as there is already article that include this very subject. Zeq 14:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is hard for me to understand why US aid to Israel which amounts to roughly $5bn per year is (more than any other country) is not notable. There are 5 references in the article. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 15:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The issue is that this is merely a list of American-made things. Their use by Israel, and more importantly, their supply as part of some aid package, are not sourced, and those are the central theses of the list, which also has no precedent. The sourcing that exists is for tidbits of information that already exists or can easily be merged into Israel-United States relations. Tewfik^Talk 22:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge into Israel-United States relations; seems like a pretty pointless article by itself. Number 5 7 15:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reads like a polemic, is full of unsourced assertions, and blatantly tries to make a political point. --Leifern 22:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect and smerge the useful material into Israel-United States relations. gidonb 22:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All relevant information can be farmed out to the appropriate articles. IronDuke 23:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Obvious pov fork.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite[edit]

This article gives two brief descriptions, with examples, of the grammatical category of the word. Why? Sounds like a dictionary definition to me. Amazed that there has been so little editing to it, and no log activity. Anyway... Delete. Milto LOL pia 05:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Minor update: I think this should be explicitly left open to recreation; surely such a common word has some encyclopedic, researched info on it somewhere on the internets, I just don't think it needs anything less than a fundamental rewrite, hence nominated. Milto LOL pia 05:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Dictionary def. -steventity 05:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nice definitions... for a dictionary. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 05:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Buuuurn! Milto LOL pia 05:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just turn it into a soft redirect to wikitionary. No need for AFD here. Friday (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, removing an article, even to replace with something else, should probably get consensus. But can that really happen? Just some template to another Wikimedia project? That's despicable. Milto LOL pia 05:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Meh. We probably didn't need an AfD here. Just be bold and move that bastard. Rockstar (^T/_C) 07:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect per Friday. There's no extra information here that isn't already covered at wiktionary. --Interiot 05:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Friday, but with no prejudice to completely firebomb sans AfD or even a disambig page if something encyclopedic comes up with the same name. Rockstar (^T/_C) 06:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No need for soft redirect here. Soft redirects to Wiktionary are only used for highly Wikified words (see WP:SRD), and "Quite" is not a highly Wikified word. Rockstar (^T/_C) 07:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - straight dictionary material. There are other dictionary-esque entries on WP, but those usually have some other cultural significance, such as some political neologisms. The article can be recreated if a female rapper named Quite bursts on the scene, or something like that. - Crockspot 17:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete its a dictionary definition. what more is there to say. Dixonsej 19:06 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Delelte per as defenition --St.daniel ^talk 20:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "Keep" requires 2 less keystrokes than the other option, and I'm lazy-K@ngie^meep! 07:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Delete per nom" would have required even fewer keystrokes than your explanation for keep. ;) Rockstar (^T/_C) 07:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But delete per nom doesn't add anything new to the debate in the slightest :(-K@ngie^meep! 07:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure it does, especially when the debate is between delete and soft redirect! :P Rockstar (^T/_C) 07:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for now, as being a pure dictionary definition. Biruitorul 18:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What Friday said -- it lacks content but no reason to delete it when it can redirect to wiktionary. SakotGrimshine 19:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can't we just transwiki and be done with it? I'm not sure I'm in favor of a soft redirect anymore. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the difference between transwiki and soft redirect? SakotGrimshine 07:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe transwiki is just placing the text on this page onto, say, Wiktionary, and then deleting the corresponding Wikipedia page. A soft redirect does not redirect to Wiktionary immediately, but rather puts a link to it. If you want to see the template, see {{softredirect}}, or to see it in action, see: WP:DICK. Rockstar (^T/_C) 07:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guttersnipes[edit]

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 05:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep if references are forthcoming. This is a borderline case to me, but they have released a few records on an indie label that appears decent. The article's author, whose intentions appear good, claims in the article that they have done concerts with several notable bands, and claims on the article's talk page that they have been written about in several respectable publications and were mentioned in some book called Who's Who of Australian Rock. If these claims are verified, I think the article should stay. --Bongwarrior 07:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 09:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hopefully some references will surface, but as I recall the Guttersnipes were very influential and respected on the Melbourne music scene. Andrew Rice was suffering a serious illness and Spiderbait, The Meanies, Cosmic Psychos and Mach Pelican played a benefit gig [17]. I don't think the article is particularly spammy, and a nomination which says simply "vanispamcruftisement"... hmmm... --Canley 09:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if someone would be so kind as to ad the references which are likely out there per the thousands of Google hits for guttersnipes band. I added the word (band) to the article name, since otherwise a Wikipedia reader might go tho the aticle looking for information on street urchins in general. This should be an automatic addition for bands which are commonly named after people, places or things, unless they add "The" before the name or change the spelling as in the Beatles. Edison 14:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Band does meet WP:Music on basis of records released and references quoted above. A1octopus 15:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good article should place a unsourced tag but otherwise it is a very good article.--St.daniel ^talk 20:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They seem notable enough and All Music Guide has a rudimentary article on them see [18]. Capitalistroadster 01:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, given above comments and research. Lankiveil 03:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
keep please all music guide and googles are good indicators here yuckfoo 01:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 09:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Mezey[edit]

Contested prod, fails WP:BIO. Subject is a recently graduated sports agent, claims "many" clients, none are named though. No cites. Bongwarrior 05:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dppowell 06:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO, no WP:RS indicating notability. 99.9% chance this is a WP:COI issue as well, based on the talk page. Ultimately violates WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Absolutely no evidence of notability whatsoever. Arguments on the article's talk page asserting notability (namely, that he was once mentioned in the newsletter put out by his former employer, and promises that he will be mentioned in some tabloid that's distributed for free on Southern California college campuses) are downright laughable. Mwelch 06:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. No sources listed. I'm concerned about the last couple of sentences where clients are mentioned. If he represents professional athletes, then sources are definitely needed to confirm that. How do you represent an Olympic athlete, aren't they all ameteurs? (except basketball and maybe a couple others). They would not need representation. --Cyrus Andiron 12:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if they're competing as amateurs, they'd still need an agent for product endorsements, image rights etc - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I guess that makes sense. I had forgotten about that aspect of being a sports agent. Well, even with that cleared up, Mr. Mezey still isn't notable. --Cyrus Andiron 18:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing at all to indicate any more N than any other agent. With all due respect, a guy who only got his diploma in sports management less than a year ago is unlikely to be Jerry Maguire - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Absolutely no assertion of notability and very spamish sounding. Sarah 04:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Bobet 10:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heath Miller (wrestler)[edit]

Contested prod. Non notable wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent non-trivial sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actually there are several reliable references, most from notably the official website of the WWA4 wrestling school run by Curtis Hughes, of his developmental contact with World Wrestling Entertainment and his competing in Deep South Wrestling, recently a former a developmental territory of WWE. He has also appeared on WB's Blue Collar TV and have cited the specific episodes he appeared in (which are available on the 1st season dvd as well). He has also competed in NWA Wildside, a notable independent promotion prior to signing with Deep South Wrestling. MadMax 08:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I said, the references are not independent or non-trivial sources for that matter. Wrestling for minor league promotions does not make someone notable per WP:BIO, again please use the notability guidelines which you have failed to do in other AfDs about non-notable wrestlers. Please provide multiple independent non-trivial sources. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question how are these sources not "Independent"?? - After all the WP:BIO section defines independet as "Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. "Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable). For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person contributes toward establishing the notability of that person, but multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by different news outlets do not. A biography written about a person contributes toward establishing his or her notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not. The two verifiable apperances on Blue Collar TV and the statement on the WWA4 both fall within the "Independent" definition.

Comment I'd have thought it rather obvious that a tiny "press release" from the wrestling school (WWA4) where he trained is not independent of him. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does he own the school? Does he profit from the school? No he's trained there, I guess we can discount any official university website as a source for their alumni with that reasoning? You read the definition of "Independent" as stated in WP:BLP - whatever else you may chose to infer with the term is not supported by policy. MPJ-DK 20:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The apperances on Blue Collar TV is what sets him apart from a long string of indy guys, signing a developmental deal just adds to his notabily, granted it's not like he's Madonna but he qualifies for inclusion IMO. MPJ-DK 19:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We don't have articles for every actor who's appeared on two episodes of a TV show, as that does not confer notability. Also a developmental deal does not make someone notable. I'll again use the baseball analogy, should a player be signed to a Major League club but still be participating in the minor leagues he is generally not notable, but when he starts playing Major League he is. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article is judged on it's own, not what is or is not elsewhere on Wikipedia - an argument you have made yourself on so many occations that I have taken it to heart. So what is or is not included other places is not an argument for deleting this article. And like I said "It's not like he's Madonna" but there is enough there to set him apart from the average joe schmoe wrestler. MPJ-DK 20:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is to be judged per WP:BIO, which is not happening at the moment. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with MPJ-DK --St.daniel ^talk 21:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 02:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Neo Solar Temple[edit]

Delete - there appear to be no independent reliable sources that establish the notability of this subject. Otto4711 06:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete religioncruft. JuJube 09:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless somebody shows notability. As far as I can decipher things this is actually a tag-wrestling team. BTLizard 13:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant hoax - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chikara Pro Wrestling, non notable outside of the wrestling fed. Not a hoax but a wrestling stable. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 19:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Chikara Pro Wrestling. The stable is notable within Chikara Pro Wrestling (see King of Trios), however it is unformatted and written extremly kayfabe in tone. MadMax 17:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like some kind of strange wrestle craft to me! Govvy 12:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chikara Pro Wrestling. I think the "religioncruft" (is this an official AFD term I've missed?) and "speedy hoax" voters really shouldn't have been so quick there. This article is confusing and kayfabedbut about a legitimate subject (albeit one not meeting notability guidelines). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title Shot[edit]

Delete - this is nothing but an oversized dictionary definition. Otto4711 06:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced definition. Anything important that relates to this topic is proably covered in any number of wrestling articles already. It's not like the term is ambiguous or anything, it means what it says. This article is unnecessary. --Cyrus Andiron 12:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This could simply be merged to List of professional wrestling slang, assuming it's not already listed. MadMax 17:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Merge Ye, I would go with skimming it right down and putting it in List of professional wrestling slang for wrestling. I don't think this is good enough to have it's own article. Govvy 12:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Points in the article as it applies to wrestling are already in their respective subject's articles. The rest of it is really stating the obvious to the point of inanity. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 fishhead64 00:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shimdog[edit]

Delete - non-notable, no sources attesting to the subject's notability. Otto4711 06:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oy vey. Get rid of it. YechielMan 16:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems like blantant advertising. I'm wary of any article that encourages people to go elsewhere for more information. There are not any sources provided as well, thus the article does not assert notability. --Cyrus Andiron 17:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, cleanup, and possibly rename fishhead64 00:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juan, crazy screaming guy[edit]

This person exists, we can see that. He's been mentioned in a handful of news articles. But is he really notable? I serously doubt that a man who yells unintelligibly at traffic in Seattle is really someone an encyclopedia article is to exist for.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well I said the same thing about Zanta and got a mention in the Toronto Star over that deletion listing. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject passes WP:BIO according to the sources on that page. --Charlene 07:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, I don't think screaming at a street corner and getting a couple of news articles to mention you over the course of 20 years qualifies as notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I wouldn't be surprized if hundreds of people like this exist in big cities. If kept needs to be stripped down to what is actually sourced. I've identified several sources that need to be removed on the article's talk page, and it looked like there were several other sentences in the article that I don't recall being supported by the sources provided. VegaDark 08:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crazier and more interesting people ride my bus. JuJube 09:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic, and borderline attack page IMHO: the "crazy" in the title is severely inappropriate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't care how many refernces you plaster on that page, a guy screaming at people is not notable. If he lived in New York, he'd be normal. --Cyrus Andiron 12:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If multiple independent reliable sources have written about this person, then he passes WP:BIO and is notable. We do not get to choose what our external sources review. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-20 14:46Z
Delete per Starblind. Naconkantari 13:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seattle does have hundreds of homeless and buskers and insane screamers. They aren't notable. This guy is. Everyone in Seattle knows who this guy is because he's always in the same place and always saying the same things. He is a well-known local, which is why several independent credible sources wrote about him. Read through Category:Homeless people. This guy is about as notable as about half of them, and less than the other half, and some of those are really good articles. SchmuckyTheCat 14:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike most crazy people, he has been written up to a substantial extent several times in newspapers of the city. The parody Myspace sites prove nothing and should be deleted, since apparently anyone could create a similar site for anyone else. Some wit once suggested giving each person who raves in public an old nonfunctioning celphone, because we expect people to rant and rave when they are on one. Edison 15:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I don't care how many sources this cites, this article is a vicious attack page on someone who's in no position to defend himself. Just because a bunch of local newspapers think laughing at mentally ill people is somehow funny doesn't mean we should, and if this article is to be kept, get that "crazy screaming guy" out of the title. Would we have an article on George W. Bush headed "George, President with big ears"? This is like using a bunch of references from Der Stürmer to justify creating List of babies eaten by Jews. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not making fun of him. It's just noting who he is. Neither are the sources making fun of him. The Stranger goes out of their way to try and give him a voice and make sense of what he is saying, since nobody in the city understands it. The Weekly's article was a lead on a multi-part piece about how our public health care system is failing the mentally-ill and putting them on the street. That's not an attack on the man, it's an attack on our social system that put him where he is. SchmuckyTheCat 16:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The man is noteable. He's been mentioned several times in multiple reputable newspapers. Both the Stranger and Seattle Weekly are large circulation papers, and the inclusion of him in SeattleNotables tops off the cake. Furthermore, the claims of any sort of "personal attacks" on the page are unfounded- the article attempts at every opportunity to both source its documentation AND to attempt to portray the person in an NPOV light. Note that there are at least 8 verified links to almost every statement put on that page, which would directly fall into Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines. Let the man have his Wikipedia article- he certainly has a right to be noted. Ex-Nintendo Employee 15:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Multiple independent credible source. The article is not making fun of the man. --Dwaipayan (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Juan may not be as notable as say Frank Chu, but he is easily as well known as Zanta if not more so, plus the article provides enough sources such that it meets the A, B, Cs of Wikipedia to be featured. Burntsauce 17:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet Jesus I'm actually arguing Keep. The guy is a known local. The fact that he's known for screaming at traffic is...interesting but he is a notable person, being covered by news agencies and even spawing local lore and merchandise. Passes WP:BIO and WP:ATT and therefor does not meet the criteria for deletion. May the deletionist gods forgive me. NeoFreak 18:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable as a local of Seattle. And notable as a homeless person who is something of a very minor crazy local celebrity. Ridiclous article and ridiclous person but if we follow the guidlines that we set than we have to keep it.St.daniel ^talk 21:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If there is a problem with the references, like they aren't reliable or they are trivial (it doesn't appear that way to me) then, that's one thing. But given that he does seem to pass WP:N can we exclude just because we personally don't think he should have an article? I don't think so. Changing the title of the article may be in order, though I'm not sure what it would be changed to.Chunky Rice 21:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It seems to me that the only worthwhile citations are in the Seattle Weekly and The Stranger, both of which are register-shelf tabloids. Bl a st ^{[improve me]} 21.04.07 0427 (UTC)
Rewrite and rename or delete per WP:BLP. The tone is inappropriate and disparaging at points. Sometimes the negative statements are poorly attributed. All of this necessitates either a speedy rewrite or deletion. In any case, changing the name of the article to Juan (Seattle personality) or something is necessary ASAP. --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 06:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It does appear to be fairly well sourced, and although it's difficult to see why, he actually does seem to have achieved some local level of notability. I've moved the article to Juan (homeless man) because calling him a "Crazy screaming guy" in the title violates WP:NPOV and WP:BLP and is also unencyclopedic. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's a weird case: someone who is basically famous only for being visible. I'm sure more Seattlites (and certainly more visitors to Seattle) would recognize him than would recognize the mayor. (I'd always referred to him as "the Frye Apartments guy" because his written rant starts by complaining about his eviction from there.) I could go either way on whether he deserves an article, but he certainly meets our standards in terms of sufficient numbers of generally reliable and reputable sources that have written about him. Frankly, I'd rather see an article about this relatively harmless crazy than another article about a serial killer whose name I'd rather see blotted out entirely. - Jmabel | Talk 08:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please the person meets bio guideline and the page is verified too yuckfoo 01:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Unicorn Party[edit]

Contested prod, fantasy political party, only reference is the "official homepage", no google hits. D. Recorder 08:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. —Cel ithemis 10:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. A very dumb hoax. Not even funny, really. --Cyrus Andiron 12:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The party website is a broken geocities page. Ha ha. BTLizard 14:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lame hoax/joke. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Davewild 16:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not hoaxalicious, just dumb. JuJube 19:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the above. This comes very close to being a speedy delete per WP:WEB or WP:NONSENSE. -- The Anome 20:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Very Strong Delete Why was this article not deleted sooner it seems like it is a joke. --St.daniel ^talk 21:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete This is not a hoax and is a real political party. Please understand we are trying to fix the web page. User:AUParty AUP 23:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete it. Can you PROVE its a hoax. How would you feel if I said the (Insert political party here) was a hoax designed by a third grader during lunch hour. Maybe your party's views are a little odd like staying in Iraq, or leaving Iraq or universal health care, but the AUP's members don't try to get rid of your articles. By the way, have any of you tried to crossbreed animals to make a unicorn. If so, good work. If not LEAVE THESE GUYS ALONE!!!!!!. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Piergood (talk • contribs) 20:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- — Piergood (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. JuJube 04:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very, Very, VERY Strong Delete A geocities website is NOT a good resource. Plus it's just plain stupid, as noone will ever take this seriously.TheMasterEmerald 19:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus fishhead64 00:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of historic buildings and architects of the United Kingdom[edit]

Totally unreferenced, and highly subjective listing exercise (weighing in at a gargantuan 99 kilobytes long). Breach of WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a directory; Wikipedia is not a repository of links; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information), WP:NPOV and WP:CITE. A classic example of pure WP:Listcruft. Please note that there are around half a million listed buildings alone in the UK - how many Wikipedia kilobytes would be required to list just that lot of "historic buildings", even without the architects and archaelogical stuff? Mais oui! 08:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ultimately doing nothing more than categorising the articles (no additional information). That's what we have the category system for.Madmedea 13:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As much as I like excruciatingly long lists that contain no criteria for inclusion and are not verified by any independent sources while being completely devoid of any discernible non arbitrary organizational system, I'm going to have to vote delete on sheer principle --Cyrus Andiron 15:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepNone of the criticisms of the nominator are valid in this case. The buildings and sites almost all have their own Wikipedia articles. A list is a valid and useful way of organizing such information by period and style. As an example of the usefulness, the Norman structures are listed as a group in the list, and they are described as such on the individual articles, but the categorization system does not bring them together as such. Both approaches add to the functionality of Wikipedia. This is not just a long run-on list, and the division into periods and styles adds information not found via categories. The length of the list just reflects the importance and long history of the subject. It also allows notable structures to be added which do not yet have their own articles, as a spur to further worthwhile Wikipedia articles. Edison 15:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 1) If the current categories do not create this list then new categories could be created as sub-categories of Category:Buildings and structures in the United Kingdom. As has already started to happen with [[:Category:Anglo-Saxon architecture] and Category:Georgian architecture. 2) I can't imagine an architect who was so prolific that their list of works could not be included in their own article - and so go part of the way to encouraging new article creation. Madmedea 18:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Fascinating list that does no harm at all, and quite a lot of good if only to see, at a quick glance, what is a red link. No advantage or point in deleting this at all. Giano 20:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this list has a striking advantage over categories, in that it's chronological from top to bottom. I don't think there's any way of achieving that with cats, and it's surely, for "historic" items, a valuable dimension. Bishonen | talk 21:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Source If sourced than a excecptional article but otherwise that deletion is the only reasonable option.--St.daniel ^talk 21:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 08:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. The list does need some kind of framework and criteria for inclusion - suggest we give the author a month to establish such and edit accordingly. --Mcginnly | Natter 11:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic source notes/duplicate of the better organised and more frequently updated category system. Don't waste time on this, improve Architecture of the United Kingdom and the many related proper articles instead. Postlebury 20:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Use category instead as it is just simply a list, providing no extra information. --Cyktsui 02:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fishhead64 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 10:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Vacancy[edit]

Tagged for db-band, but there are some assertions of notability, so moving to AFD instead. Punkmorten 08:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whoop-dee-doo, they have two album that "sold poorly." YechielMan 16:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep According to WP:Music this article falls as notable as being on a notable label and having released two records off the label. --St.daniel ^talk 21:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just not famous enough to be entitled to their own article. I agree with YechieMan. Jmlk17 09:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons given above. I don't think the record releases are enough in this case on their own. However article claims a current US tour and that the records were critically well received. If references to this so-claimed favourable critcism or tour reviews from non trivial sources can be provided by the end of this AfD, then I change my vote to Weak Keep. A1octopus 13:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smegma (band)[edit]

Well, I'll take it off speedy deletion and let the AFD run. Punkmorten 08:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (from page creator): They are an important band, founders of the Los Angeles Free Music Society and have recently regained notability through collaborations with Wolf Eyes, who are very well known for a noise band, making it onto many "best of" lists last year. They were already referenced from various pages (Los Angeles Free Music Society, Nurse with Wound list and Wolf Eyes) before I created the page, and I was surprised that the band didn't have a page already. A fairly recent Pitchfork review also helps explain a bit why they're important, the influence they've had, etc. Feelthenoise 12:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep while this band never broke into the mainstream (probably due to that media-unusable name), they were very influential on the 70s & 80s punk & early techno scene. Hobby horse time again - this is yet another article that was AfD'd one minute after creation. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment They may have been mainstream, but without any sources, that remains unverified. I'll abstain for now, but I want to see sources before I vote to keep. I'm too young to know if this band was legitimate or not. --Cyrus Andiron 17:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable enough to have a listing at All Music Guide: [19] Katr67 04:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above arguments --Closedmouth 08:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability and verifiability established in The Wire and Pitchfork, at the very least. heqs 11:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE ALL.Herostratus 22:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Parisian locations[edit]

These are sprawling lists of store locations, admittedly of some of the largest chains in the United States, but these are just a copy out of the corporate directory with no value added. However, these lists appear to fail WP:ORG and is definitely what WP:NOT#DIRECTORY was meant to cover, there is nothing of encyclopaedic interest. Although each of these articles may stand or fall on its own merits, I am prepared to take the risk with this group, which appears to me to be sufficiently homogeneous to nominate in one go. I beg to move for deletion of this whole lot. Ohconfucius 09:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bloomingdales locations listed here for convenience.

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 20#Category:Store locations listed here for convenience.

Comment to nominator I don't see how they fail either WP:NOT#DIRECTORY or WP:ORG. In my opinion, they clearly pass WP:ORG, which says the following: "... a 'List of Wal-Marts in China' would be informative." I do admit they're not scannable; thus I have discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject Retailing/Listings of former locations for those who care about the cosmetics of these pages. Tuxide of WikiProject Retailing 01:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment to nominator: I don't see how they fail WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, either; nowhere do I see anything that even suggests that listing stores is not Wikipedia-worthy. And I don't think that the lists have "no value added"; adding that store X used to be store Y seems to add at least a little value in my opinion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 20:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I'm inclined to agree with the nominator that this list has no encyclopedic value. Wikipedia is not a directory and that appears to be the focus of these articles. Why not have List of McDonald's locations? --Cyrus Andiron 13:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ORG says the following:
  In a few rare cases, an individual location will also have architectural peculiarities that makes it unique and notable, such as the Winston-Salem Shell gas station or the Vinita, Oklahoma McDonald's; however, a "List of Wal-Marts in China" would be informative.
  — WP:ORG
  Thus, I see nothing wrong with having a List of McDonald's locations. Tuxide 20:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you failed to grasp the last part of that sentence: "In China". It doesn't say "In the United States". The reason the "In China" article would be acceptable is that are only 45 Wal Mart stores in China. By comparison, there are 2,285 Wal Mart Supercenters in the United States (as well as over 1,000 discount stores). The "In China" article could be acceptable because Wal-Mart is considered an international company there, and thus notable as a successful American company trying to make the cross over. An article that listed United States locations would be a directory (and deleted as such) because this is the English Wikipedia. Comparatively, an article on List of McDonald's locations would be deleted as a directory because Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Someone in the United States reading a list of "Wal Marts in China" probably does not have the capacity to visit one or look in the phone book for information. Conversely, someone in the United States looking for a McDonald's could look in a phone book. And there lies the difference. If you can find it in your phone book, it's directory matieral and thus falls into WP:NOT. A list of Wal Marts in China, is not phone book material (for the most part) for someone using the English Wikipedia. As it relates to this article, all the information contained in this list could be found in a phone book. It is also directory material and should be deleted as such. --Cyrus Andiron 13:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says "in China" because I changed it myself. It used to say "List of Wal-Marts in Germany" up until mid-2006, but then Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. moved out of that country. I don't know who wrote the original version of the sentence, but during the time we chose to change it to either China or Canada. Canada and United States didn't sound as foreign as the original example. I am still not seeing how a list of McDonald's locations is a directory when it has the attributes that we're using such as city, state, year opened, year remodeled, year closed, etc. (and lacks the attributes that we're not using, such as street and phone number). My point is that business cannot be conducted with such a list. Tuxide 20:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - no added value, Wiki is not the yellow pages!Madmedea 13:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but do yellow pages list former locations? Most of the time, no. (Granted, my local yellow pages still list a 7-Eleven that closed 15 years ago, but I digress.) TenPoundHammer 20:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete all and then move on to Category:Store locations. This is the sort of thing that absolutely does not need to be on here ... unencylopedic and borderline spammy. 15:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC) This was my vote, incompletely signed, and I have modified it and explained why below. Daniel Case 12:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all as well. WP:NOT#DIR, and if these aren't directory style entries I don't know what is. I doubt there is any need for further elaboration ... Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all This is a textbook case of the "not directory" clause. YechielMan 16:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, clearly the kind of thing WP:NOT#DIR was designed to discourage. And we definitely should discourage it: Wikipedia should not become a free substitute for listing a business in the Yellow Pages, especially not one where (apparently) only chain stores are allowed. Mangojuice^talk 17:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ORG has a guideline explicitly for chain stores that states such lists would be informative. Tuxide 07:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep all This information is extremely valuable and often not found anywhere else. I myself frequently refer to these pages when needing information on historical reports for college classes and other research. Isn't an encyclopedia designed for research? I can understand if you feel the locations list should not have a seperate page, however, the suggestion then should be to merge the information back onto the main page of the store itself. Many, many, many retail companies (not just department stores) have a list of their locations on their respective wiki pages. I'd also like to add that much of the information on these opages is historical. It isn't simply a list of what's there today, but what used to be there, and when...a historical refrence. PanzaM22 18:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Mike[reply]
- I agree fully with you. These data are of historical importance. TenPoundHammer 20:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have contributed to some of these pages, and feel that they have a right to stay for anyone wishing to look up the information Yankeyfan315 15:01, 20 April 2007
- See WP:USEFUL. Encyclopedias are designed for reference, not research. As for the articles that have location lists, I have deleted those when I have found them, and expect to do more of that in the future. It is more information than is needed for an encyclopedia article and needlessly duplicates what the company has on its own webpage. Daniel Case 18:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Trends in expansion of retailers may be encyclopedic. Tuxide of WikiProject Retailing 01:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - And there are better ways to document them than maintaining a directory. General discussions in the text, with the appropriate footnotes, are encyclopedic and sufficient. Daniel Case 03:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If that is your counterargument, then AFD and deleting lists like you have been is not appropriate for this. Instead, if you strongly believe it is more appropriate in paragraph prose, then I suggest they be marked as {{list to prose (section)}} instead as nominated as AFD. Tuxide 03:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're missing the point. I (and it's not just me) have been deleting and nominating these because the information itself is unencyclopedic', not because of how it's formatted. Hidden, prosified, makes no difference. An encyclopedia does not need a list of every single present or former location of a retail chain.
      To clarify what I said above, it is better to simply say "McBlow's is moving aggressively into Kansas and Missouri" with footnotes to press releases or news articles, than to list all the planned locations like "Podunk, Missouri; Whistlestop, Kansas (opening January 2008)". Daniel Case 03:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can understand how listings of future locations are not encyclopedic since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; however, what bothers me is that you guys are using AFD to illustrate your point. WP:ORG says that 'a "List of Wal-Marts in China" would be informative' which to me clearly contradicts with most of what you said. This should've been brought up on that talk page or the WikiProject that maintains it instead of here. Tuxide 04:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Rather, {{cleanup-laundry}} is the one I'm looking for. Tuxide 04:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Wikipedia is not a street directory. -- The Anome 20:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How the hell are these street directories? They do not list addresses or phone numbers. They provide a semantic relationship between articles about retail chains and articles about the shopping malls that they anchor, and in a way that a category cannot. Tuxide 20:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep all or Merge. I created the Former Mervyn's list because I was going to add current Mervyn's to the list too. However, the data for current locations are not readily available (Mervyn's store locator only lists the three nearest stores to any given point, and doesn't a full directory), so I haven't added the Mervyn's listings yet. As for the others, I feel that the listings could be merged into their respective store articles... but made into hidden lists, like found on Woolco and Dillard's. So many people have contributed to some of these lists; it would likely be upsetting for the listings to be deleted. To hell with what WP:USEFUL says -- I honestly think that such data are useful, especially in cases like Mervyn's, which has seen a slew of closings lately. (I just knew this vote would be edit conflicted, too...) TenPoundHammer 20:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of us, myself included, contributed over time to the deleted "Chuck Cunningham syndrome" article (now a redirect). We got very emotional about keeping it. We lost anyway for the simple reason that we couldn't find any good policy reasons to keep it, and the delete votes had more policy on their side. It's the same situation here. Daniel Case 03:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong keep~~ Merge per my comment above. Tuxide of WikiProject Retailing 01:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I change my vote to Keep meaning I could be swayed since many of these fail WP:V. I am not convinced that deleting all of them is the right answer, since cleanup templates such as {{unreferenced}}, {{list to prose (section)}}, {{cleanup-laundry}}, etc. could also resolve this. Tuxide 04:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was going to say the same thing about the unreferenced lists (e. g. my Mervyn's locations). I really do not want to see these lists disappear since so much work has been put into all of the lists. TenPoundHammer 00:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm changing my vote again to merge, since I think simply marking them up with cleanup tags like I mentioned above so the information can be neutralized would be better. Tuxide 15:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep or merge per TenPoundHammer --Caldorwards4 01:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to keep voters. I commend this vote and this discussion to your attention. The Airports project has been reaching a consensus that lists of former airlines and destinations simply aren't encyclopedic. I see no difference here. Yes, there were keep votes and dissenting opinions; however the consensus is clear. Daniel Case 03:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How does these fail WP:NOT#DIR? I am not seeing it. In the context of an AFD nom, a directory is a list of pointers, like a web directory. These articles are merely lists of units (or former units) by state, and for each one lists the city it was in, the mall it anchored (many shopping centers have their own articles), and historical information such as the year it opened and closed. They do not list either the street address or the phone numbers for each unit, thus the Yellow Pages argument is invalid, especially when the chain is defunct. Thus I ask, are these lists even a directory to begin with, and if so then how? If they are, then WP:NOT#DIR would conflict directly with what WP:ORG says concerning lists of units in a chain. Tuxide 07:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed fully with the above. I don't see how the lists fail WP:NOT#DIR at all. They don't give telephone directory-style listings, just city, state, name of mall, square footage, date of opening and closing. ~~Oh well, this one seems to be headed for~~ I'm hoping for a non-consensus default keep... I've got my fingers crossed. TenPoundHammer 00:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - They don't give telephone directory-style listings Which, even worse, merely makes them useless directories instead of useful ones. --Calton | Talk 01:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - To you, maybe. I'm sure that there are many people out there wondering such things as "Didn't this Dillard's used to be McAlpin's?" or "When did this Bloomingdale's open?" or "I know there used to be a Mervyn's at Northtown Mall; when did it close?", etc. To me, facts such as square footage, date of opening, and what a store replaced are valid, encyclopedic data -- worthy not only of keeping, but also of keeping in a convenient, easy-to-read list format. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 02:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 08:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. As said above, Wikipedia is NOT a street directory. --98E 22:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How are these even a street directory? Nobody has bothered to counter my argument yet. Tuxide 22:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's what I'd like to know too. I don't see at all how these are just street directories. They don't just copy the corporate directory; I'm sure the corporate directory doesn't list former locations, or whether a store replaced another store... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 17:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. About as textbook a case of WP:NOT#DIR as I've ever seen. And lists of former locations? Not even close to useful. --Calton | Talk 01:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Former locations can be useful, mainly in showing marketing trends. Also, there are many people, like me, who like to know where certain stores used to be. I'm surely not the only one who might be wondering things like, "didn't there used to be a store in such-and-such town?". As far as I know, no other site has such a listing readily available. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 02:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin This needs to be closed alongside Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bloomingdales locations (which is older), given that this is part of a WP:ALLORNOTHING motive. Tuxide 04:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. WP:NOT a directory, as noted by many others. Quale 02:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With the recent comments, this is becoming uncivil. I am bringing this up on WP:WQA. Tuxide 02:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All per TenPoundHammer ManoloChoo 03:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. >Radiant< 07:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you people that are saying "not a directory" even reading our arguments to the contrary?! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 18:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You mean the argument that since it lacks phone numbers, it's not a directory? Or the argument that you like reading about past stores in a location? I find neither very compelling. >Radiant< 08:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was thinking more about the fact that these lists include square footage, date of opening/closing, and if a store replaced another, which seems to make them more informative than regular directories. I have never seen square footage/date of opening/etc. in phone books or store locators or whatever; have you? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 20:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wikipedia is also not an indiscriminate collection of information. Or, to put it differently, do you have any reliable external sources for that? >Radiant< 08:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't see what you mean in your first sentence. They are indeed discriminate; they are lists of units where the discriminator is that they belong to a specific chain. My personal problem with them is that they are lists with scannability problems and they mess up the table of contents. The content would be more appropriate in the history sections of their respective articles after they've been neutralized and cited. Tuxide 18:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I am ambivalent about these directories; they're dry, difficult to attribute and maintain, and they can easily fall vicitim to vandalism if editors aren't vigilant. However, after getting involved with some of these lists through vandal fighting- I did find that they provide an interesting portrait of the ebb and flow of the development of certain retail giants that is not available elsewhere. I can easily see how someone doing research on a store's history would find one of the better referenced lists extremely useful. I don't see the airport discussion mentioned above as exactly parallel because opening/closing a store involves more capital than the gate fees etc involved with flying/not flying to a destination. So I say keep them and reformat. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 05:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and prosify. To repeat what I said over at the deletion discussion for the Bloomingdale's list, I have discussed this with Tuxide and we have both come to a conclusion that the information presented in these articles is encyclopedic (see above comment for a better explanation of why); however it could and should be presented as a prose history rather than a list. I would therefore ask that any closing admin at least allow the WP:RETAIL editors to copy the contents of these lists into sandboxes in their user spaces in order to more efficiently facilitate their transformation into acceptable articles or portions thereof. Daniel Case 12:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need only ask an admin to WP:USERFY the information. -- Jreferee 21:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Per WP:Lists, lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources. No membership criteria is listed, and to the extent it is in the name of the article, it is not based on definitions made by reputable sources. Good information and it might be true, but the list does not meet WP:NOT policy. Wikipedia is not a collections of public domain or other source material, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Jreferee 21:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#A7. Tizio 10:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hegeman[edit]

this article is unverified and speculative eg "Hegeman ... destine to become one of the best underground rappers in the hip hop industry" Drinkbeerinpubs 02:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KHAN[edit]

Complete and utter false article on a false film. There has been discussion for a film being made which this article is based on but there has been no offcial annoucement, no confirmation of the cast members or anything else, let alone the release date which the person who created this article seems to have decided on. Nothing has been announced on any Bollywood related news websites such as http://www.indiafm.com that this film is being made. Indiafm is one of the first websites that reports news of a film being announced daily but there has been no news of a film titled KHAN. Definately another delete Shakirfan 15:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I see no evidence for this. gren グレン 11:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it correct that a film hoax article is not qualified for speedy delete. If is isn't it should be as articles on fake films might as well be considered vandalism Shakirfan 20:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also agree with Shakirfan, comment above, this should be a speedy delete for being a hoax. xC | ☎ 06:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence or reliable references to back up. -- Pa7 13:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence to back up claims. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. After deletion suggest redirect to Khan.

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

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

The result was speedy delete as copyvio. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-20 14:54Z

Raymond Zussman[edit]

This is not an encyclopaedia article, it's a copy of a medal citation. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Copy vio of this site[20]. Speedy under CSD G12. --Cyrus Andiron 14:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silicon Commander Games[edit]

Is this a joke? A "somewhat esoteric" game developer with a community of roughly 30 players? Guy (Help!) 11:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-noteable, and deleteSolar Vengeance as non-noteable and FAQ of non-noteable game. Dr bab 11:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete 30 people participate. That hardly qualifies as notable. --Cyrus Andiron 12:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, utterly nonnotable. NawlinWiki 16:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 30 members? Sorry. --St.daniel ^talk 22:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD G11. Naconkantari 02:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BlueTie[edit]

Entry Modified While the entry was not intended to be an advertisment by any means, it was merely making a product comparison as the original header stated. In hopes to comply, we have removed the product comparison section completely. The information that is left pertains to the company history and current developments. With regards to BlueTie not being a noteable business, there are 2 article links to major magazines with write-ups and critiques on BlueTie and its product. This article is no different than the wikipedias entries of their competitors such as Zimbra, etc.Jolynn0906 01:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC) 01:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonnotable buisness. Users who edit it seem to be part of the company thus not following WP:COI. Article is written like a advertisement DBZROCKS 12:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under CSD G11. This is blatant advertising, they even list the advantages to upgrading the product. Also, there aren't any sources listed and no assertion of notability is made. --Cyrus Andiron 12:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete As blatant advertising. --St.daniel ^talk 22:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertisement and conflict of interest. --Czj 01:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Anthony.bradbury. Arkyan  ^(talk) 17:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global Warming Wikia[edit]

My original PROD read "Non-notable, fails WP:ATT, Special:Statistics page unimpressive as well". It was removed by an anon stating that the third thing is not a criteria for deletion, which is true. However, this still fails to address the first two issues (failing WP:ATT and lacking notability per WP:WEB). Anyways, this gets 3 Google hits as well and has only a small user base. Delete as lacking notability and attributability. Wickethewok 13:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable unless some sources can be provided. The wikia has only 28 articles written on it. Also, many of the articles are simply mirror articles of what appears on Wikipedia. Take this one for example about Global Warming [21], and compare it to the Wikipedia article on Global Warming. Ask yourself this: Do we need an article about an article that restates what we already have here? I think not. --Cyrus Andiron 13:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's another one [22]. Compare that to Global_Atmosphere_Watch. I'm assuming they are all this way. --Cyrus Andiron 13:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete no assertion of notability, other than it exists. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-20 14:56Z
Speedy delete This article is a joke, Global Warming isn't even real anyway. WalterWalrus3 16:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Note to Walrus: it doesn't matter whether global warming is real. Like most reasonable people, I believe that space aliens are not real. Does that mean we should delete articles about them? It's verifiability that matters, not factuality. Now to the point: these folks aren't halfway notable. YechielMan 17:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per notability. Just a copy-paste of Wikipedia. ~ UBeR 17:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - No assertion of notability and no references. Adambro 18:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, no sources. -Will Beback · † · 20:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - doesn't assert notability. MER-C 12:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Muraqaba, wikipedia isn't an instruction manual, a better article on the same subject already exists. - Bobet 10:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muraqabah[edit]

WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Also, I believe that there is a high probability ~~that this is a copyvio~~ that the author does not understand the implications of releasing under the GFDL. IPSOS (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - now I notice that there is a proper article on the topic at Muraqaba. So this article should be deleted and redirected. IPSOS (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Delete and redirect --SLi 19:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe the original editor has added a comment, but in the wrong place. To be sure it is considered, please see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Muraqabah. Notinasnaid 08:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i dont think it is polite for people of other faiths to come accross an article and recommend deletion instead of how to fix the article . This opens my concerns to hate crime or bigotry. some of the editors list their religion convictions and seem to be recommending harsh approach to deleting our article . please reconsider and stop this process and help to construct and proper article if that is required. nurmir@att.net author of Sufi Healing and www.nurmuhammad.com --68.42.85.43 22:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think Sufism is great. This is about the article. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your book or website. IPSOS (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is a 1000 year old subject, this not an advertising or promotion ?. When we wrote the article your editors all wrote that we need to state references , hence the reference to the book. Like i said if constructive critism on how to fix the article and take away the notion of deletion. we have every right to teach sufi meditation according to the NAQSHBANDI school of thought . i made reference to 100's article in the meditation section which are literally all explaintions and how to's.

When we write about a subject we state who we are , where we got the info and what is our credibility.

Please see WP:COI and WP:AUTO. You are not supposed to be writing about yourself or your own work, it is not allowed by Wikipedia culture. IPSOS (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the other article is not according to our teachings.

Please see Wikipedia:Content forking. You are not allowed to fork an article simply because there is difference of belief or practice. Muraqaba and muraqabah are clearly the same word in Arabic. Everything belongs in one article. If there are differences of belief, they get documented in the same article. You do not get to create a second article to differentiate your sect or school from another sect or school, and then change all the links in other articles so that they go to your article, which is what you did. IPSOS (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i will delete the reference to our book 'healing power of sufi meditation' if that is what you mean by advertising our book. no thanks to wiki we are still not on the ny best sellers list :}

please help and not to delete--nur mir 07:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

regarding User:IPSOS comments , your site Sri Chakra is how to hinduism ? with promotion of a website by using the term Outside links isnt that promotion of websites.--nur mir 07:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It's an article, not a site. I cited a published book (not my own) and found links to pertinant websites, again, none of them my site. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to promote your book or teachings. IPSOS (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Crims[edit]

Delete - No assertion of notability, 98% game guide material, no sources outside of official and fan sites. DarkSaber2k 14:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. DarkSaber2k 14:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete exactly as the nominator said. I'm surprised to see the article has lasted this long. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Appears to be more fan-based material than anything of real substance. Sephiroth BCR 02:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Game guide material clearly against WP:NOT; no content if the material is removed. --Scottie_theNerd 03:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 appropriate information to Data theft, then redirect to Thumb sucking. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbsucking[edit]

WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Nardman1 14:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Data theft since the 2 references cited did not use the term "Thumbsucking," and do not in fact say very much about anything. Wikipedia is not a forum for introducing neologisms one has thought up. Also, even if this was a term of art for a method of data theft, there should be a disambiguating term added to avoid someone coming to this article to look for information about Thumb sucking, the more common use of the term. The article could be moved to Thumbsucking (data theft) if it is not actually merged to that article. The data theft technique has been shown on such TV dramas as Veronica Mars and CSI multiple times. Edison 15:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that the actual problem is original research. I saw the article title and expected that this discussion was going to be a discussion of a badly written stub about an aspect of children's behaviour, which we have an article on at thumb sucking. But the article isn't about the subject by this name that can be found copiously documented. It's about something that isn't documented anywhere by this name, or in a way that is specific to thumbdrives, as far as I can see. (Here's some irony: I did various searches, to try to narrow down the focus to stuff about thumbdrives. I still kept hitting articles talking about children sucking their thumbs.) Neither of the articles linked to by this article support any such concept of thumbsucking, and discussions of the security implications of USB flash drives in general belongs in USB flash drive#Security, where those implications are in fact already addressed. Uncle G 16:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a recent article in Dark Reading (http://www.darkreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=122252&WT.svl=news2_1) mentions the term (which made me look it up on wiki). Additionally, the similar terms (which are linked to from the article) pod slurping, bluesnarfing, bluejacking, and sneakernet are all documented on Wikipedia, so why not this term, even if it is new? I agree, that due to the similarity of the term to the human behavior "thumb sucking," the name should be changed to "Thumbsucking (data theft) to avoid confusion. Sifujc 00:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As pointed out above: We don't include new things that have not been already documented outside of Wikipedia and that have not yet been accepted into the general corpus of human knowledge, per our Wikipedia:No original research policy. The source that you cite isn't an article about "thumbsucking". It is an article about the security of USB storage devices. It provides no evidence that this subject is even called "thumbsucking" by more than just the people who coined that name, let alone support for a full article on the subject. There's no evidence that this new name for the subject has caught on, and even if it it had that wouldn't justify a separate article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of "terms". It is an encyclopaedia. We don't have separate duplicate articles for the same subject under different names. All of the discussion about the security of USB storage devices that the source supports belongs in the obvious place: USB flash drive#Security. Uncle G 11:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism and redirect to thumb sucking Changed - see below. – Tivedshambo (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on grounds of original research. The issue with a redirect is that it would give the air of legitimacy for what appears to be neologism. --Aarktica 12:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect: Redirect Thumbsucking to Thumb sucking, and place disambiguation link at Thumb sucking: "This article refers to infant thumb sucking. For the method of downloading or stealing data from a computer or network, see Data theft", and then Merge current information at Thumbsucking to Data theft, mentioning it as a slang term there (with a source link reference), where there is already a discussion of using a USB thumb drive for such activities. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 13:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent suggestion, T-dot. Some new references have appeared in the article, particularly this one. I'm not convinced that the term thumb-sucking is widespread enough to have its own article, even with a disambig, but it can be citeably mentioned in Data theft. Therefore Merge (to Data theft) and redirect (to Thumb sucking) – Tivedshambo (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Data theft. Also, check out Survey results expose the threat of thumbsucking. Although there seems to be enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic so that the topic meets Wikipedia notability guidelines and the article can meet Wikipedia article policies, it is a short article that requires the background material or context from a broader article for readers to understand it. Per context merge, the page should be merged. -- Jreferee 21:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 02:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Unicorn Party[edit]

Despite being registered with the Electoral Commission this party has fought no elections, has a genuinely incoherent raft of policies and has no evidence of a membership in excess of three persons. It does not appear to be in any way notable in a UK context. BTLizard 14:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be two men in a shed. No evidence that this party has either members or policies, and the sole "genuine" mention of them I can find anywhere comes from a Lords speech about ridiculous political parties. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence this 'party' has ever done anything more than register itself. Non notable. Davewild 16:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would argue that the simple fact of registering with the Electoral Commission is an assertion of notability, in the same way that being elected to a national legislature is. I found some additional information by doing a Google search for "Paul O'Callaghan" Orpington, suggesting that Paul O'Callaghan is someone who feels that he has been unfairly treated by the health care system and the local newspaper. --Eastmain 18:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Strongly disagree with the above - in the UK any crackpot with an axe to grind or company to promote can register with the Electoral Commission and call themselves a "political party" providing they pay the £150 fee. The current register contains such political forces as the "The Idle Toad", "telepathicpartnership.com" and "Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers". - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've no doubt that Mr O'Callaghan feels he's been unfairly treated, but so do a lot of people. The question is whether his BUP is of sufficient standing to merit an article here. I would say not. It would appear to have a minimal membership - only three members can be identified and the website does not indicate how others might join. Franlkly I think Mr O'Callaghan and his party would struggle to establish notability on Orpington High Street, never mind on Wikipedia. BTLizard 08:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. Most of the links from a Google search point to Wikipedia or it's derivatives. → Aktar ^{(talk • contribs)} — 10:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Iridescenti accurately points out, all you need to do to register with the Electoral Commission is to hand over £150 and name your party officers, which could be all the same person. Registering cannot be a claim of notability, and this party does not have any other claims to inclusion. (I must disagree with him about Idle Toad, which is an amusing name for a well-established local party in Lancashire). Sam Blacketer 10:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Honestly, it seems like a terribly thought out joke to me, also nonsense. TheMasterEmerald 18:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Bobet 10:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OURMedia/NUESTROSMedios[edit]

Tagged as a speedy and contested. I nearly speedied this as posted, but instead of closing it I'm listing it here because it appears that there was at least some discussion on the talkpage. For starters, I only found one external source for this that meets WP:ATT... then I realized that is for Ourmedia, which apparently is a completely different concept altogether. Some further research turned up no other reliable external sources. the external links are either links to the organizations own website, photo albums, or external companies that make no mention of the organization. Basically this is just a series of conferences and an extremely detailed log of the attendees, topics, etc. WP:NOT a webhost applies here, as does WP:N & WP:CORP. My opinion is Delete. Isotope23 14:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not simply "per nom", as Isotope23 has really done his homework. YechielMan 17:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Isotope. Jkelly 18:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RetainHere is a report from Computerworld. And links to the 900+ other mentions of it online. At its recent conference in Sydney, particpation in the event came in from 40 countries. Are we debating the notability of the event, or how well sourced the entry is (in the latter case, it could do with more sourcing... and already has included some, since the coment was made). If you want to find out notability, http://scholar.google.com might be a better place to check. See this page. Or the relevant links from here. Needless to say, this is a part-Spanish focussed network, and its emphasis is on the alternative media (print, radio, etc). Its influence and character may not be entirely reflected in an online world. Some of its organisers are academics linked to prominent institutions though. Including Juan Francisco Salazar (University of Western Sydney, Australia), Ellie Rennie (Swinbourne University of Technology, Australia) and Tanya Notley (Queensland University of Technology, Australia), among others. --fredericknoronha 02:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spectacularly unencyclopædic. Notability in this case is not the issue (although I'm not convinced of that either), but simply that this is out-and-out promotional material that belongs on this organisation's website, not on Wikipedia. Lankiveil 03:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as attack redirect. Obvious, no need to RfD. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-20 14:58Z

Zombie Jesus day[edit]

Page was found blank, its previous use is generally restricted to web-culture Boochan 14:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to neologism. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neonism[edit]

Unsourced, I can't find anything relevant on Google. From the article it seems like something that was made up in school Darksun 15:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Plenty of assertion and zero evidence. BTLizard 15:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Neologism for which this word's a synonym, and the only usage of the word anyone's likely to search on - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect, as notability cannot be established. Also, somebody (probably the creator) just deleted the AfD template on the page. Please fix that. --queso man 23:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I readded the template, it was deleted by 84.13.83.48, who also left this delightful comment on my talk page. --Darksun 01:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It also seems that Neonism is the name of an album by Norwegian metal band Solefald. --Darksun 02:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nothing remotely resembling a reason for deletion given. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Conrad (4th nomination)[edit]

Friends of the subject of the article do not want a Wikipedia entry on her, even though she's notable. Look, if Daniel Brandt can try and get it deleted, so can I. Besides, I've worked on The Hills, so I know what I'm talking about. No conflict of interest here. Moorcoism 15:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This woman is notable enough to qualify for an article. You can't help yourself to a vanity piece if you don't qualify; by the same token you can't opt out if you do. The request is still further undermined by the fact that it does not come from the subject herself. BTLizard 15:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "Friends" ?????? sorry, you will really need a better rationale before this article gets deleted. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know people who know and work with the subject: I worked on The Hills with the production crew, and yes, we've been to Wikipedia aaaages ago, heh, look at what Daniel Brandt can do, he tries and tries to get his article deleted - but - WHAM! - he fails - WE WON'T!! Cant you just courtesy blank it as you usally do?? --Moorcoism 15:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can claim to be jezus for all we care, that won't convince us you actually are jezus. Lauren or her legal representative can contact Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Legal_concerns if she wishes to be actually removed, because then identities can be verified and statements will be legally binding. The article is notable, proper and of reasonable encyclopedic value, so as far as this department is concerned it satifies all required policies. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Sharrer[edit]

Contested prod. Non notable wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent non-trivial sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wrestlecruft. YechielMan 17:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Who? signing a WWE development contract is not enough on it's own, especially when he's been released again without any fanfare MPJ-DK 12:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think "wrestlecruft" is unfair but the subject is not an exception to WP:BIO. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed convictions in the United States[edit]

"Disputed" convictions is undeniably POV. The creator of this article is apparently attempted an endrun around the comments made during the AfD discussion here. ALL convictions are "disputed" by someone, such a list would be impossible to maintain and impossible to define. Tufflaw 15:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think there is scope for an article with this title or something similar. This isn't it, however - it's just an uninformative list. BTLizard 15:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This in a attempt to fork content from Overturned convictions in the United States. An awful lot of people who are convicted dispute their convictions- pretty much all people who pleaded "not guilty" in the first place. Some are right to do so and some have no merit whatsoever. This article runs a huge risk of being highly POV in terms of who is (and isn't) included. This article title is unhelpful, unmanagable and highly problematic in terms of keeping neutral. WjBscribe 15:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty much duplicates Overturned convictions in the United States. Someone trying to make a POINT? In the U.S legal system, every conviction is "disputed" unless the accused pleads guilty. Edison 16:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the cases all have something in common, but that something is too hard to quantify properly. YechielMan 17:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Edison and WjBscribe: all convictions without a guilty plea are de facto disputed, and it's difficult to see how an NPOV criterion could be created for inclusion vs. non-inclusion in such a list. -- The Anome 20:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; there is also a Category:Disputed convictions, if this article is deleted then the possibly the category should be renamed. Masaruemoto 20:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea - the category should probably be deleted as well. Additionally, there is a Category:Overturned convictions, Category:Wrongful convictions, and Category:Wrongfully convicted people that should probably be merged. Tufflaw 22:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment The list in its current form is a disaster, but I could see that with strict referencing (by major news outlets, ect.) this list could turn into a good article about convictions where there is a large movement to overturn a conviction (IE Mumia Abu-Jamal)or a serious dispute (not just the inmate's protestations of innocence. . Wintermut3 07:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per above--Sefringle 21:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - hopeless POV. Carlossuarez46 20:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this category which is excessively broad beyond the point of uselessness. Almost every conviction is disputed by someone. Any criteria for pruning the list would violate style guidelines regarding arbitrary inclusion critera. Doczilla 00:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Doc^g 00:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Webb[edit]

sad case, but it does (EDIT:)NOT warrant an article. It happens all the time. Not enough notability established SYSS Mouse 15:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree, not very notable. Cogswobble talk 15:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yep, unfortunate for the kid but strictly local news. BTLizard 15:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How is this notable to the world?. Wikipedia could have an article on every teenage delinquent. I am surprised it made a DYK. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 16:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every teenage non-delinquent, you mean. Doops | talk 16:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.--Carabinieri 16:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is currently on the main page. I am trying to find an admin with a knowledge of DYK? procedure (I have none...) to remove it. J Milburn 16:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the moment, or merge into Year 2007 problem. It seems strange to me that the previous users could not find any notability in the article. Even the fact that Wikipedia users are deleting an article that is appearing on the front page has some notability, right? Let's give it a chance to improve and for the events to develop. There are two news articles on it, and this, in my opinion, quite bizarre event deserves some attention, whether to be created as a stand-alone event or as an example in other articles like the Y2K7 one. Aran|heru|nar 16:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Year 2007 problem is notable, but this event certainly isn't. I don't see how the potential developments, as described in the sources, are going to be notable, either. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 16:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — although the Year 2007 problem is the 'hook' making this story fun, it really doesn't seem that central to the story. Even without the hour difference, the police appear (based on the sources) never to have had any case whatsoever gainst Webb. The real issue here seems to have been assumptions of guilty-until-proven-innocent. Doops | talk 16:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Year 2007 problem. I think those of us on DYK (such as myself) get focused too much on article length and proper sourcing and don't stop to consider the actual noteworthiness of the individual. It certainly didn't occur to me until this nomination, but now that it's been nominated it seems kind of obvious. howcheng {chat} 16:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not speedily delete — the overwhelming preponderance of delete votes raises fears in my mind that somebody will close this vote speedily. I'm not prepared to vote either way right now, but I hope this vote stays open the usual length of time. Thanks, Doops | talk 17:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the creator of the article, I'm rather surprised at this AFD, as far as I can tell it passes WP:N (subject of multiple third party articles in reliable sources), and WP:V (the article is sourced. SirFozzie 17:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Think big picture here. In three years or even ten years down the road, this case will not be remembered. Right now it is garnering attention because it is still a relatively new case. If he actually blew up the school, then it would be diferent. However, bomb threats occur frequently and making one to a school, or being wrongly accused does not make one person instantly notable. Also, from what I gathered the only sources in the article are local news media. I do not believe that this article has multiple independent non-trivial sources as needed per WP:BIO, thus it fails that test. --Cyrus Andiron 18:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

You mean not making one to a school. Doops | talk 18:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's made The Register, Wired, Slashdot, Fox News (Through the Associated Press) and other tech related sites. Links [23] [24], [25], [26] SirFozzie 18:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if it does scrape through WP:N (although certainly failing WP:BIO), common sense dictates that it be deleted. No-one except this child and his family is ever going to care about this story in even a couple of months time, let alone any further down the line. Yes, he was arrested - but thousands of people are arrested and later released every day. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Year 2007 problem, and link from mistaken identity. He was a victim of mistaken identity, and WP practice is that people are not notable just because they are victims. But with the increasing reliance on technology, there may one day be enough material for an article on false allegations resulting from technological errors. JonH 18:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe this should be kept because there's a strong 751,000 google results; 2 references on the page and article is written well (although it could be written a bit better).
Speedy delete per BLP concerns and particularly the "do no harm" clause. The first Google hit about an otherwise non-notable teenager should not be a Wikipedia article about an accusation against him, particularly when it turned to be a false and possibly malicious one. See generally Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad. Newyorkbrad 00:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable as showing the fallibility of technology, and the excessive willingness of officials to arrest soemone based on very dubious evidence (even had there been no DST issue, that fact that one person called at 3:12 in now way proves he was the same person who called at 3:17). Possibly change the lead so that the exoneratiuon is the fist thing seen to deal with any possible BLP issues (although BLP does say that even very negative statemetns are allowed if factual and wellsourvced, and this one seems to be so.) DES ^(talk) 13:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you've got some reliable sources actually discussing all of that, it's just a bunch of original research that you're applying to the topic. --Calton | Talk 14:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying that should go into the article, i'm saying those are conclusion that readers could reasoanbly draw, and the facts of the article would support someone doing so. DES ^(talk) 15:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're justifying the keeping of an article on grounds that can't be put in the article itself? You're saying it should say, in effect, "This topic is important, but we can't tell you why"? Original research is original research, whether explicit or implied. --Calton | Talk 22:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor news story, of no obviously lasting value. If it turns out to have any, re-create it then. --Calton | Talk 14:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus; kept be default.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yury Chernavsky[edit]

This is a pure Conflict of Interest as it is autobiographical (the user has a redirect to this as his user page.) I don't think it qualifies for speedy deletion though, I may be wrong. The subject is non-notable (hope this turned out OK as it is my first TW AFD)GDonato (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To judge by the editing history Mr Chernavsky is the only one around who thinks he's notable. Another one for MySpace. BTLizard 16:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - no references or citations to back any claim to notability. It should be noted that Mr. Chernavsky has redirected his user page (User:Chernavsky George Yury) and the associated talk page to this article and it's associated talk page. Thus, what we are dealing with is essentially a user page that has been placed in the main space. Leaving asside the obvious COI, if it is determined that Mr. Chernavski is indeed notable enough for an article, we need to undo this redirect, move the current page back to user space and recreate a referenced article in the main space. Blueboar 16:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For now, I've removed the redirects from his user and user talk pages, otherwise there's no way to leave him a message. --Minderbinder 16:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: going through the article history, I see that the user seems to have another user page at User:Yury Chernavsky...(confusing, ain't it)... I pasted a copy of the notice of the AFD there, so hopefully he will see it. Blueboar 17:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO, and reads like a resume. Could be recreated based on independent, reliable secondary sources, but I doubt enough exist to establish notability. MastCell ^Talk 18:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sit on fence - if this article is true, I'm sure he does warrant an article - anyone whose career includes "Lead saxophone in the State Orchestra of Azerbaijan", "Composer of the Ice Ballet for the 1980s Olympics", "CGI designer for the Backstreet Boys" and "Promoter of international martial art fighters" deserves an article for sheer oddness, as well as sailing through WP:MUSIC for the composing & songwriting - but this (a) needs a complete rewrite, (b) is probably only sourcable from printed Russian sources, and (c) seems too good to be true. BTW GDonato, there is nothing in Wikipedia policies to forbid writing articles about yourself - all WP:COI (which is a guideline & not a rule) says is "It is not recommended". - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I also thought that the article lacked notability esp. since it is unsourced and ~~most~~ just about all autobiographies on WP are non-notable. GDonato (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I visited the corresponding article in the Russian WP, it seems well sourced and the Russian editors do not protest against its inclusion on its discussion page. The person seems to be notable enough to have an article here. --Ioannes Pragensis 19:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep provisionally. WP:AUTO, WP:BIO, and WP:COI discourage autobiographical material (for obvious reasons), but do not prohibit it, so citing them as sole criteria for deletion is bogus. • The article does currently read a little too much like a resume/brochure, but that means it needs editing, not deletion. • The article does assert quite a few achievements, which would imply a certain notability. • The article does lack information on sources, which is my biggest concern. However, I think we should give contributors, including User:Chernavsky George Yury, more than just seven days to improve the article. If it was total trash, I'd be less lenient. But this article shows promise and is far from unsalvageable, and it appears the contributor is working in good faith. Gentle guidance towards improvement seems a better approach than deletion. • If, after suitable time, no one can contribute any information from a reliable source, or the user refuses to respond to our concerns, than we can re-visit this. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sirs, I have been working in LA for the past 13 years, and I have been completely out of participation in Russian show business. I've put this page on Eng. and Rus, by the request of the young professionals and reporters from Russia. Everything in this article is completely true, and I am in the process of providing facts. I need more then a week, for sure. However, if at this time Wiki feels that they need to remove my information, please feel free to do so following by informing me of your decision.

Best Regards, Yury Chernavsky (See some links in the Russian version) --GC 11:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion... Move the article back to Mr. Chernavsky's user space (he can tell us which one is his current account) until properly referenced, then return it to main space. Blueboar 15:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I put this to the user earlier (no response so far)- see here GDonato (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For GDonato. Sir I've sent you message few hours ago. Sorry --69.234.108.108 20:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Let me explain the situation. Together with Yuri, I am working on his both Russian and English articles and can confirm that he is really recognizable as one of the most prominent composers and performers in the whole territory of the former USSR for his contribution made to the modern mainstream and pop music, especially during the period of the 1980s. He is included in the Soviet Rock Encyclopedia by Artemiy Troitsky, who also wrote a remarkable article about Yuri in The Moscow Times, and his brilliant 'The Banana Islands' (1983) album is listed in the '100 Top Soviet Rock Tape Albums' under position No. 26. He is a novice in Wikipedia and does not have a good experience and appropriate skills. This is why he mistakenly opened two user's pages, one of which I moved and renamed as if it's a normal article page, though I now understand that this was a violation of the Wikipedia rules. Sorry for that. Please be patient. We'll do our best to improve the article and configure it in the Wikipedian style. But this may take a little while. --Michael Romanov 02:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems notable enough to me. Carcharoth 04:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn. NawlinWiki 01:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Jain[edit]

~~Indian businessman; doesn't seem notable; no sources. Contested speedy. NawlinWiki 16:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)~~ Nomination withdrawn per cleanup efforts, below. NawlinWiki 01:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically a resume entry fraught with pointy-haired boss-type language such as "acts at the appropriate opportunity to drive home the maximum value for the company and its stakeholders". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. YechielMan 17:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. This is a puff-piece, and is the work of a single-purpose account. BTLizard 17:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nicely cleaned up, although "committed to the development of "Better Presidents Through Education and Idea Exchange" by providing a challenging environment" is still prime managementspeak. BTLizard 08:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I took out the puff-piece audience and added some references from the business sections of two newspapers in India. I think that the article is acceptable now. --Eastmain 20:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - covered in mainstream papers.Baka man 23:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not going to vote. But. :) Just being covered in mainstream newspapers doesn't necessarily automatically make someone notable. Depends on the scope. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the article has been cleaned up already. Anand Jain is/has been on the Board of Directors of a host of Reliance Industries and related companies including IPCL, Reliance Infocomm Ltd, Reliance Ventures Limited, Urban Infrastructure Venture Capital, NM SEZ Development Company Private Limited, Reliance Haryana SEZ Private Limited, Jai Corp etc. Economic Times says that he is a key figure in the running of the day-to-day operations of the Reliance group. utcursch | talk 08:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - dude is head of a big company.--D-Boy 16:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Anthony.bradbury. MER-C 04:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devour (2008)[edit]

Contested PROD. Non-notable unreleased film, WP:NOT a crystal ball, does not seem to meet proposed WP:NF, most information is suspected WP:COPYVIO (but of where: no WP:RS provided). Ultimately appears to violate WP:V. Delete. Kinu ^t/_c 16:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- non-notable film not even in production; partial copyvio from IMDB: [27]; likely violates WP:COI.--Leflyman^Talk 16:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -- The creating user has blanked the page. Ryanjunk 16:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Usual reasons concerning crystal balls etc. And on personal note, may I say than I hope this dreadful-sounding piece of trash never gets made? BTLizard 17:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom and creator blanking of page. Adambro 17:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tagged the page with {{db-blanked}}. Pablothegreat85 22:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Another Comment The page was speedy deleted. Pablothegreat85 22:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antibiotic Resistance in Cancer Patients[edit]

Reads like an essay. Agree that infectious disease in a major issue in cancer patients, and that some have resistant organisms, but this is largely opinion and conjencture. JFW | T@lk 17:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything relevant and sourced into antibiotic resistance, and delete. Antibiotic resistance in cancer patients is just not that different from resistance in any heavily treated patient population, and certainly not distinct enough to warrant more than a mention/section in the main antibiotic resistance article. MastCell ^Talk 18:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (merging anything relevant as per MastCell) - most of article concentrates on bacterial tranmission in clinical environment and mechanism of bacteria developing esistance - all duplication of information elsewhere. David Ruben ^Talk 18:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given above. Seems like it was written by one author for a different purpose, then cut-and-pasted into wikipedia. It's so clearly a single author's opinion that it is almost appropriate that he took credit by name at the bottom. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 21:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would be hesitant even merging what you could from the text of the articles. I have a feeling that the principle author doesn't understand the wikipedia process. Better to take just the references from his text and use if needed in the antibiotic resistance article.Ksheka 22:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete redundant somewhat to existing issue re. antibiotics & resistanceDroliver 14:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some references are cited for dubious arguments--Countincr ^{( T@lk )} 12:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it should be rewritten totally. It's full of medical pieces of advice, POV statements, etc. NCurse _work 14:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan roberts[edit]

Apparently contested speedy. No assertion of notability; no sources to be found about this individual. Does not meet even the most basic criteria of in-development WP:PROF guideline. Further, article appears to be a Conflict of Interest, written by the subject "Nathan M. Roberts" -- Leflyman^Talk 16:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the author - or someone - can provide evidence that he wrote a major textbook on otters, or something similar - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 21:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Graduate student at Cornell. Not notable yet. —David Eppstein 01:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! --The very model of a minor general 17:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Leftyman and David Eppstein. Maxa megalon 2000 05:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Eppstein. Let's wait until we hear something about his work. --The very model of a minor general 17:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danny McHugh[edit]

Blatant hoax.
This is the third time User:Billymacy has created this article, each time with different nonsense text in it. Simple Google searches show that there was apparetnly no crime boss named "Daniel Joseph McHugh", that the "Ramirez Crime Family" doesn't exist. Probably could have been speedied, but I couldn't figure exactly the right category for it. I could be wrong here, but I don't think so. ArglebargleIV 17:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely lacks sources. Unless this information is sourced it cannot be verified. --Cyrus Andiron 17:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to me to be a hoax, pending any evidence to the contrary. JavaTenor 17:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - I had my doubnts, hence tagging it {{unref}} - looks to be made up - Tiswas^(t/c) 17:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious, and given that the creator was blocked temporarily for replacing valid articles with crap and went right back to doing it again, he should be blocked longer or maybe even indef. He certainly doesn't seem to be here to write an encyclopedia. JuJube 19:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (nomination withdrawn). Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eurescom[edit]

Advertising, user created other pages which were either deleted or nominated for speedy deletion, on affiliate companies. These articles contained exactly the same text as is present on the website he linked to, and are written in an uninformative biased way.--Jackaranga 17:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Eurescom is a genuinely important organisation in an important field and their members include some of the biggest companies in the world. The page doesn't have a great deal of content but is certainly not spam, and although unsourced it contains multiple genuine external links and could certainly be sourced easily. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I know I nominated it for deletion but, I added the afd template mainly because, I thought wikipedia was not meant for advertising your own company, but I may have misunderstood the WP pages, they are fairly complex because so fragmented. Even the page explaining how to put the afd template on the page is wrong! Sorry about this. I don't understand though now why another one of his articles I tagged as speedy delete, was removed, as it was very similar to the Eurescom page! Maybe someone should put it back, if they can, again sorry for any disturbance I caused, I only tagged these pages because I misunderstood and thought you weren't allowed to promote your company on wikipedia.--Jackaranga 11:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am the editor of the Eurescom entry and apologise for my inexperience with Wikipedia and the lack of certain formal elements for a Wikipedia entry. I have amended the entry to reflect the wikipedia requirements. This is definitely not advertising, but factual information on an organisation which is relevant for research and development in European telecommunications. Further improvements of the article by others are, of course, welcome. Migup 11:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes sorry I was wrong to put it up for deletion.--Jackaranga 11:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, CSD A7. Picaroon 01:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doir E. Bravo[edit]

Fails WP:BIO's requirements for notability. I have attempted to nominate it under WP:CSD#A7 and WP:PROD. The article's creator responded by removing the tags. Adrian M. H. 17:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No assertion of notability. Adambro 17:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete vanity page. Have none of these people heard of MySpace? - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Vanity page of non-notable individual. Mwelch 23:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The New Guild[edit]

Nominated for speedy deletion as a hoax. But hoaxes, quite specifically, per our Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, are not speedy deletable (except where they are blatantly vandalism). This is because two pairs of eyes are not enough to reliably make this decision. As the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion explains, AFD is used in order to place multiple layers of swiss cheese into the process. AFD is where multiple editors individually double-check that an article is unverifiable. Somatomy (talk · contribs) wrote in xyr speedy deletion nomination that "the books referenced are fake". In fact, at least three of the five books cited in the article are quite real. However, they do not, as far as I can tell, make any mention anywhere of any of the people or things described in this article. Nor do any other books. This article is unverifiable. Uncle G 17:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 19:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Herostratus 02:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Anderson[edit]

The article fails WP:V and WP:BIO. Definitely non-notable. Delete GreenJoe 18:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, despite the 2 external links. "He is a man"...?! YechielMan 19:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to indicate passes WP:MUSIC (more appropriate than WP:BIO in this case), And be fair, not just "He is a man" but "he attended a neo-hippie church of misfits and lawyers" - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Merle[edit]

The joint founder of a not-so-notable company, the article reads rather like a resumé and was probably penned by the subject, who has also written about the company, as well as a sub company which has been speedy deleted several times. See the user's contributions. Google throws up nothing which confers notability. Delete, unless sources can be found. J Milburn 18:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Sounds like a personal resume or advertisment. It qualifies for speedy deletion under CSD G11. --Cyrus Andiron 18:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was del `'mikka 21:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polygamist chia hands[edit]

This seems like an obvious hoax; no Google hits for "Polygamist Chia Hands", "Pradt Åkergren" or "Timster Records". Prod was contested by anon, and this probably doesn't meet CSD G3 or A7. Prolog 18:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as complete nonsense. Fabricated bands whose members work at Denny's are not notable. I would like to hear a song called "Fjords of Fury" though. --Bongwarrior 19:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete patent nonsense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, Strong Delete, as per nom, and is obviously either a prank, or something made up in school one day
Speedy delete 1) No claim of notability. 2) Names impossible in any language. 3) {{prod}} deleted by creator under IP. -- Petri Krohn 01:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
del joke. Mukadderat 21:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 02:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contaminated cannabis[edit]

Unnecessary page, completely full of personal experience and ideals Jmlk17 19:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Cannabis. A link to the official health warning should be sufficient about this topic. ArchStanton 21:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary content fork that would be better as a section in Cannabis. I also think this is a copyvio from a Talk To Frank leaflet but not certain so will give benefit of the doubt. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with ArchStanton. Whig 17:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

So where is all the useful info that was deleted from Contaminated cannabis? I thought there was going to be something about this on the Cannabis page??? What a shame that this page was deleted, contaminated cannabis is currently a huge problem in the UK.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, notability well established. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jaye Griffiths[edit]

This article is about a subject which may not be notable enough to be included on Wikipedia Oo7565 19:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and at least to me just a minor person no major roles found for this personOo7565 19:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep Jaye Griffiths is one of the most high-profile black TV actresses in the UK. What's with the "no major roles found for this person"? Did you even look? The IMDb link in the article lists her many major roles. She has starred in the big-budget TV series Bugs for a start. This nominator has also prodded the clearly notable Joe Turkel - something is not right here. Masaruemoto 20:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment yes i did check the imdb just list roles not how big they are okOo7565 21:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; No need to even check IMDb, you could have just looked at the article for Bugs, a Saturday evening drama series that ran for 4 years on BBC One, and Jaye Griffiths is listed at the top of the cast list. That's very obviously a major role, and you could have checked that article in less time than it took to set up this AFD. Masaruemoto 00:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment look i have never head of her i am not from the uk so i have no idel who she was the article was poorly writen in my openionOo7565 05:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability has nothing to do with whether you've heard of a person or not. As other editors have noted here and on your talk page, you seem to be recklessly prodding and nominating articles based on a whim. I suggest you take a break from trying to delete articles until you understand what notability actually means. Masaruemoto 20:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain 20:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Famous and notable in the UK. Jmlk17 21:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ultra strong keep - she was a major or lead character in at least half a dozen major series, including the DI in The Bill, the MP in The Deputy and the lead character in Bugs, and was also the first black British actress to play leading characters in mainstream drama outside of the "minority programming" UK TV ghetto. I can understand why this was nominated as the article doesn't make that clear - from the tone, she comes across as a bit-part character actress - but there are no possible grounds for deleting this - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep -- notable British actress, particularly for her TV roles. -- The Anome 21:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment i have a question someone added this to the article She is a member the world renowned theatre company - Cheek By Jowl. i check the check by jowl website but could not find her is she a part of that thanksOo7565 22:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She was certainly Emilia in their 2004 Othello but I can't find anything to say whether she is (or isn't) still a member - iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a ridiculous non notability. Lead roles in Bugs, The Bill and Doctors would seem to suggest she is well known even for somebody not from the UK. (Quentin X 19:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment the nominator's edit history appears to consist of nothing but prods & XfDs, apparently chosen at random and all with the tagline "No assertion of notability" even when this clearly doesn't apply (eg [28], [29], [30] and most ludicrously [31] on the 2001 winner of the Booker Prize). Can I strongly suggest that the closing admin take an extremely close look at this user? - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Good point, I can't work out any rationale for this user's nominations. Comments on his talk page from other editors confirm that this user is reckless in prodding articles. Masaruemoto 20:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and salt.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blurpinkle[edit]

ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Strong Delete This has been speedied at least once today already, taking my google research on the talk page with it. Short version 2,910 G-hits, nearly all ebay and myspace links created by someone with a username of blurpinkle selling the related products. No hits on G-news archive for term. Keeps reposting article with claims of "added/adding notability" but only further links to websites by creator of term. Improbcat 19:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt if necessary. Blatant self-promotion. -- RHaworth 19:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, as above. Should also include Blackout (entertainer) and Michael Biggins. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This aticle was created as an expantion to the already established aticle on american entertainer Blackout of whom I an many others am a fan of and who's notability has already been well established in book, film, magazine, newspaper, as well as internet sources for over 10 years. Blackout.com and blurpinkle are free sites and while there is merchandise sold under the ebay username blurpinkle by Blackout (Michael Biggins) this does not negate notability. Does one delete Walt Disney because of the ridiculous amount of merchandising it does? My goal in this was to make it its own section to expand on the meditation, color explanation, and meaning behind blurpinkle, not to get people to buy anything, so I am removing any commercial looking links and expanding sniglet, spiritual, story and meditation meanings which are related to ascended master and violet flame meditation techniques which has a strong global human interest. Google is not the end all be all of research and unfortunately google usually puts commercial links FIRST in including EBAY because they are PAID to do so. ManofToth 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment What you say about Google may be true, but if one runs the Google search again leaving out all the eBay results, there isn't much left. --Finngall ^talk 19:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am showing over 2000 Blurpinkle hits on google searching for blurpinkle -ebay links. The word is used by many people in various terms on all sorts of sights including social networking sites to refer to not only the color combo, but meditation, and acronym meanings. Example, the google search -ebay brings up various users using such as: "wishing you good blurpinkle vibes", you have a "blurpinkle aura", "send me some blurpinkle energy!". While this may be considered 'new agey' or silly to some, that is a matter of opinion and does not reduce notability. The word would definitely be referred to at this point as a sniglet with growing use. I have bookmarked somewhere a very long article from a national source on blurpinkle that has nothing to do with merchandising at all. Please give me more time to fill this out I do admit I saved it too fast without it being complete but I will rectify that. Thank you. ManofThoth 20:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)ManofThoth[reply]

Delete and SALT, I was the one who deleted it once today, and my rationale stands - neither does it mention any claim of notability (a claim that has merits according to WP:N and WP:RS) nor does independent verification yields any evidence of widespread usage. --soum (0_o) 20:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - non-notable, no sources, self-promotion. --Haemo 20:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Complete, obvious, and blatant self-promotion. Jmlk17 21:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources, apparent promotional article. It might also be worth mentioning that this is one of a cluster of similar articles created by User:ManofThoth, all of whose contributions to date appear to relate to this performer: see Blackout (entertainer), Michael Biggins, Gladys Ridgeford, all of which link to the same website, sometimes multiple times. Similar promotional material has been added to Prank call, and a link to the same website has also been added to the Blackout disambig page. -- The Anome 21:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the other pages should be added to this AfD? --Finngall ^talk 22:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the links at the end of Blackout (entertainer), I can see only one link that seems to be from a mainstream reliable source that is primarily about its subject, namely the magazine article at http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2003-07-24/news/blackout-com/ As far as I can tell, all of the other links on that page appear to me to be either supporting citations for other things in the article, self-cites, or (in the other case of a published source) a very brief mention in a listing. I'm not sure whether this is enough to meet the WP:BIO criteria, which asks for the subject to be the subject of multiple independent published works from reliable, verifiable sources. I'd certainly like to see more proof that this individual meets WP:BIO. -- The Anome 22:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say nominate Gladys Ridgeford for deletion, and merge the other two, namely, Blackout (entertainer) and Michael Biggins into the latter, if not delete them outright. But I cannot see how it meets the notability criterion of WP:BLP. --soum (0_o) 04:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This has all been gone through before. I am not the person who has written everything on Blackout and or Michael Biggins, but I did contribute quite a bit when I saw the page getting vandalized every other day. User:CharnoMe did the majority of the original writeups and already fought this battle. Look at the history of the Blackout (Entertainer) page and the prank call page and you will see the original notability arguments that were all satisfied and sited by numerous contributers and defenders. Of course there are vandals who delete and change fact. Here is fact: NUMEROUS notability sources have been sited beyond the New Times article including Harley Hahns internet directory (2 million + copies in print) PRINT - at a bookstore, not a google search, of which I have a hard copy and will gladly scan for you, as well as television and film links on major networks which are online with full credits. Newspaper articles from the Miami Herald including reviews for his off broadway shows, and internick proof and real audio proof that this person was one of the internet streaming media pioneers as well as THE first to stream a prank call. Show me a streaming prank call and entertainment site before 1995 when 14.4 modems were around? I came on to defend an artist that I and many others have gotten much enjoyment from from his creativity. He is not a huge marketer, his sites are free. He now has a major movie coming out in theatres. What more notability do you want? Multiple newspaper articles and reviews as well as top honors in the biggest selling internet yellow pages hardcopy of all time. Must someone be a God to not be deleted in this place? All the sources are sited and he even came on one time himself in the discussion section on prank calls stating he was not a 'wikipedian' but he wanted to know if he was allowed to correct errors and vandalism/slander. Since he was not answered fans have taken on the task. I think the spirit of wikipedia should be to expand ideas and information on notable creatives. My favorites tends towards interactive artists and comedians, this is not a 15 year old kid trying to get hits to his website, he is an artist. His site is somewhere in the 300,000 alexa.com index, but that should not matter. I have written on his bulletin boards and mailing list for other wikipedians to make a statement here. In the prank calls section there is constant vandalism by people just trying to get there little shoutcast station at the top. This is not what this is about.

ManofThoth 23:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)ManofThoth[reply]

Comment Let's see. The "major movie" appears to be Film Contest?, which doesn't look all that major to me, but I'll let bigger film buffs than myself make that call. Also note that this is Biggins' only credit in IMDb. That doesn't preclude notability in other realms of entertainment, of course, but I thought it deserved a mention.
"[O]ver 2000 Blurpinkle hits on google searching for blurpinkle -ebay links": Okay, I checked this further, and if you filter out all the entries on blackout.com (most of which result from bulletin board entries), that leaves only 55 hits, and most of those are on flapdaddy.com and Myspace. Make of that what you will.
This isn't a vote. I look forward to seeing opinions of editors who support the retention of this article if that will help the creation of a consensus, but canvassing the bulletin board for support isn't quite kosher, and accounts and IP addresses with few or no edits beyond the subject of these article will be noted as such. --Finngall ^talk 00:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete; violates WP:SPAM --Mhking 00:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep or at least merge. Blurpinkle is in a feature film coming out and I have seen the movie. It is comedy sci fi new age philosophy film making nuttiness but it is notable and the director has won multiple awards. "FILM CONTEST"—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.189.115.241 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC).— 72.189.115.241 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete and Salt - Neologism without a source for its origin aside from links to the comedian's web page. Editor also appears to confuse Site (website?) with Citations(WP:CITE or WP:CITET).Also suggest deleting the articles mentioned by Anome. Aside from the small newspaper article none of appear to them reference anything aside from the comedian and his website directly.Optigan13 03:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT in response to Optigan13. Did you not read and check my above statements and also all the OUTSIDE of Blackout's website SITE refernces? The cite and site were typos on my part, I apologize. In both articles the references listed were two major national and international magazines - NEW TIMES and .NET. New Times has multiple references to Blackout/Michael Biggins in three seperate articles both online and in print. Harley Hahn's Internet Yellow Pages is also an independent outside source and one of the largest selling internet computer books of all time - over 2 million copies in PRINT as well as an ONLINE site and has Blackout listed 2nd under the BEST OF INTERNET HUMOR section for 3 years in a row in the print version and still in the online version. There is a full one page color article in the internation UK .NET magazine dating back from 1998 (before this zolar and pcu shoutcast stuff that you promote ever existed, and of which I see NO outside independent refernces for other than that Zolar has been on the Howard Stern show. Blackout and Michael Biggins also have IMDB references, Miami Herald references, AS WELL as Howard Stern references - since you seem to think that Howard Sterm mentioning you (according to your Zolar and PCU contributions) makes one instantly notable for wikipedia. All of the refernces I have just listed above (not all contributed by me, by the way - check the history of the entries, many contribs by CharNoMe, HighFidelity, and many others and NO they are not me 'sockpuppeting') are NOT self references that refer FROM the Blackout.com site itself to itself. They are all major, credible, INDEPENDENT OUTSIDE sources that have been listed, referenced, and linked to in the PROPER wikipedia format and not only MEET but far EXCEED wikipedias notability guidelines. I should not have to repeat every link to them in this discussion because YOU failed to look. You talk about Neologism when that is in fact what you are doing. Your only contributions to the PRANK CALL section were promotional listings and links to shoutcast radio websites for PCU and Zolar - both of which have COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING, while contributions about Blackout and Biggins include useful information on the time line and technology and growth of prank calling from trading tapes to the modern mp3 and video streaming of today. Blackout's sites and live shows (at least on the internet) are FREE other than accepted donations. I think the term for this is 'the pot calling the kettle black'. He should not be deleted because he happens to sell some things on ebay or because one has to actually pay to buy a movie ticket to a film he is in. Speaking of which, in repsonse to Fingal's comment on "Film Contest?" in which you said, "doesn't look all that major to me," That is your opinion, which you are of course entitled to, but it has nothing to do with the notability or credibility of the film. How can you make statements like that when you have not even seen the film? I have not seen the film yet either, but it is a feature length film, made by an albeit somewhat new but award winning (at major film festivals) director, and the movie is playing at a world wide respected film festival (PALM BEACH INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL), of which tickets are available on ticketmaster AND which is listed in IMDB. That sounds pretty credible and noteworthy to me. This is not a film playing in someone's basement or some unheard of made up internet film festival. Lesser entries from 14 year old kids with no notability whatsoever have been sprayed all over and not been deleted from the prank calls section, the independent films section, as well as many other entries. I think I and others have provided more than enough outside documentation and I think blurpinkle should stay but I am willing to clean it up and or merge it into one of the other categories if NON BIASED wikipedians truly check the sources I have referenced and believe it should be done. Optigan13 and Anome are biased towards PCU and Zolar (which I have nothing against by the way - I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of their comments for 'deletion because of blatent self promotion and Neologism and non notability' when the contribs they did to the prank call section were blatent promotion with no useful information other than site links. I also do not think that Blackout & Michael Biggins should be merged. Even though one person, they are two distinctly billed personas with most notabiliy going to Biggins performing as Blackout, yet IMDB lists him as both Michael Biggins and Blackout, and various outsite sources review him as actor Michael Biggins and performer or singer or radio/tv show host Blackout. Example: the Miami Herald review of the Off-Broadway play "Grandma Sylvia's Funeral" bills him as actor Michael Biggins while NEW TIMES refers to him as 'Blackout'. Also, I think listing every character he does on one page under Blackout would ridiculously clog up the page. He has a huge amount of characters and notability in various artistic endeavors, not just prank calls. These characters are known and have thousands of links to them from every media combing site from ebaums to xyz video & prank site. In any case, I am out to improve and expand upon within wikipedia biography and topic and category guidelines, not destroy or delete or spam.

ManofThoth 16:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)ManofThoth[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

Would somebody explain to this editor how to read a WP:DIFF. I tried but he is still confused about my edits to the Prank call page, and the edits after mine. Also, that page might need an RFC on its content since that content appears to be part of this dispute. Optigan13 17:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please keep your comments short. Long ones make it very harder to read. At least, break it up into small paragraphs. Now coming back to what I want to say, even if a person is notable, every word that he cooks up does not automatically become notable. Even if the references assert Michael Higgins' notability, they do assert notability of the term Blurpinkle unless they mention it with respect to it being used by a sizable population. Do the references state that? --soum (0_o) 17:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I only made my reply as lengthy as it was to fully explain the references and proper siting which apparently everyone said was not there when it clearly is. Optigan: I am aware of the difference view of articles and I am aware of your edits and Anome's edits. Another edit has been done that edited down things while still including the Zolar and PCU information under another section. This I am fine with, I was not fine with people deleting long standing and confirmed sections of an article that have already gone through a wikepedia check and approval process (which is has some time ago) As for Soumyasch's comments: I am aware that not every word of a notable person needs to be included but I found the term blurpinkle odd fitting in the Blackout or Biggins page and since it does have a sizeable amount of usage and it is unique of itself that I see, I felt it warranted a seperate section such as an actor might have an entry, yet so does a film, they don't try to cram everything into one page. That is what this debate is about. 'sizable population' is a vague term. Search engine results show many hits and various usages (not only ebay sales). It is used as a color description, spiritual term, in magic and magick circles (which many find idiotic but many find interesting) just as there is the principa discordia and such oddities that have a unqique following, that is what Blurpinkle is. I am cutting through the chaff and coming up with more references to solidify this. Thank You for your time and consideration.

ManofThoth 23:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)ManofThoth[reply]

ManofThoth, if you're going to use a sockpuppet IP to introduce allegedly "independent" comments as you did above, you could at least do a better job of keeping the accounts straight: diff1 diff2 --Finngall ^talk 23:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You still appear to be confused. I didn't blank the section. The section was blanked by the user after me. See the diff here. The user on the left (me), made the previous edit, the IP user on the right made the edits you keep referring to. So when you incorrectly blame me for the edit including putting an invalid warning on my page[32], blaming me by name on the prank call talk page[33] both in the section title and in the edit summary, and continue to attack me in an attempt to discredit valid criticism of the articles being discussed, I am going to be more than a little bit annoyed. Optigan13 23:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am blurpinkle and I am real magickal gayness! Please, please don't delete me or the world will die without my fairy dust and blue and purple and pink aliester cowgay peter pan wanna be scientology sounding biting crap that I lackout and my lackies must spread to the universe before 2012 and everything blows up! Blurpinkle 00:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Blurpinkle — Blurpinkle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If the above user account is not a sock, then it is very likely there is a COI here. --soum (0_o) 07:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - That is not a sockpuppet that is this computers IP address and I did not log in and then I logged in and fixed things as I do many times. I many times have edited without being logged in. I changed the wording appears to be an edit to there is an edit. I do CONSTRUCTIVE edits not destructive edits. It does appear I was wrong on Optigan13 being the blanker - it was that the blanker posted exactly what Optigan13 added (pcu and Zolar info) while deleting the entire prank calls and the internet section. Sorry about that Opt (and I hope you are not that ip address and if you are not then I sincerely apologize). I have just further edited all of the sections mentioned to make them as non biased as possible and simply fact based while icluding all relative information from only searchable independant sources on all front. For a long time the prank call section AND the Blackout section were continuously vandalized by PCU fans and users (this was during a time when it was run by tedweb not Zolar). When I and several others stepped in to try and stop the vandalism and make and organized and truthful effort of verified facts, it would get blanked or changed or such as what has happened above with a user now pretending to be Blurpinkle in order to mock it. ManofThoth 00:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)ManofThoth[reply]
    - I didn't add anything to that article. I did a link repair, and a removal of external links from the see also section. My edit. Optigan13 07:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete and Salt: Neologism. --Ragib 07:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Duper Ultra Strong (like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rocky sorta Strong) Keep, and Pepper (since a lot of people here are putting too much salt) and Lemon and Blurpinkle this article. HattedOne 16:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)HattedOne [reply]

Comment: Well HI there folks! This is Blackout - or Michel Biggins, the person in question of whom all this debate is going on. I was summoned here by some little elves on my bulletin board and ManofChickenBroth. I don't know how I would PROVE that this is the real me. Is there some sort of way of doing that? Like a signature thing like there is on Amazon? Or perhaps I could mention that I wrote this in one of my films and say hi wikipedia nuts - you wacky guys!!. — HattedOne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hmmm. Ok, lets see, this is only the second time I have come here logged on and with an account and everything to actually say something. The first was about a year ago when I found out a group of people had done a big bio on me and I was all flattered and honored (I didn't really know what wikipedia was at the time I thought it was a big webzine) but it contained a bunch of errors and I asked if I could fix them (when I finally figured out that wikipedia was really an encyclipedia for wiccans or witches - kidding. kidding, that's a joke, get it?) but apparantly you're not supposed to edit your own article (which I can kind of understand... everybody would by writing about how great they are, but then again that might be fun) but then, and I guess this sort of thing was bound to happen to me being that I was a prank caller for many years - a bunch of mean people (or actually just dumb competitive prank calling kids having fun) would constantly go in and change my bio and the section on me in the prank calling category to say things like "Blackout begain his anal raping career and useless life as a monkey ass licker and lame prank caler and wanna be actor caller ect ect...". In all actuallty it was kind of funny and I laughed and even saved some of them. Being an actor/comedian, you have to learn to roll with this sort of thing.

Of course, then it would be corrected or un-vandalized and then re-re-vandalized, and re-re-un-re-vandalized and ect ect ect. I wondered how any article could be truthful when it seemed anyone could destroy any article or change it at any time. Then, a bunch of what I will call passionate fans persisted in restoring the vandalism and then some sort of 'wikipedia god' stepped in and fixed everything and locked it down or something to that effect. I still don't quite get Wikipedia because it seems that only crazy 'I wikipedia all day' sort of people are the ones who can lock down and protect articles but then many of these types of people are very biased in their opinions so still, every once in a while I get an e-mail or a message board post to the effect of "Blackout, someone totally F***ed your wikipedia entry, you better look and fix it cause every other site pulls from wikipedia," and various things like that. Usually I don't bother with it but every once in a while I come to see what's written, such as now. It's kind of a weird experience to read a bio having to do with yourself or on your work when you are yourself and you really know the truth and you can see what's right, what's wrong, what's kind of close, what's absolutely false, and what's...how shall I put it...WTF!?!!? but you can't do anything about it. In any case. Manofthoth (just kiding with the whole broth thing-no offense) and any others who have taken the time to write or try and keep articles about me accurate - I do thank you for your efforts, but these 'wikiwars' are silly and if they want to delete the entry on blurpinkle that's perfectly fine with me. I may shed a small tear but I think I'll be allright. As to the biography pages on me, I do have a little more concern, because people DO take wikipedia to be some sort of ultimate source of godly knowledge. I am not interested in self promotion or getting more links to me in this place, but I would like things written to at least be accurate. Can someone point me to some sort of guideline of what to do when you are the actual subject of a wikipedia article and you know certain facts are off or wrong? I would greatly appreciate it. As to this article, do what you will. Yes, Blurpinkle is a complex subject that a sizeable but specific group of people use and know about. Yes, I also do sell Blurpinkle Books on ancient texts such as the Great White Brotherhood (no, not the KKK before anyone says something) and esoteric topics like the master key system and the science of getting rich and many philosophical items as blurpinkle toys on ebay. Am I interested in using wikipedia to further my sales or some self agrandizing agenda? No. Would I like the aticles that are written about me to be at least accurate? Yes. That is my statement, and it goes the same for my bio. I won't be offended or take it personally if you delete this blurpinkle topic but if it stays I would hope that the information is correct and I will gladly point you to sources. I don't even know what the hell neogalism is but I'll be sure to check that out. Thank you all, you crazy wikipedianderthals, and I say that with love. Goodnight. HattedOne 16:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)HattedOne[reply]

- PS: I did register as Blackout one time but I don't think I even put an e-mail in. Is there some way of resetting this or proving it is actually me? Also.. I am obviously not the user Blurpinkle, someone has taken that name. Is there a way to get that back? Can some wikipedian authority mail me at blackout@blackout.com? Please if anyone can help me with this or the other questions I stated in my above paragraph, e-mail me or answer on my talk page. It would be much appreciated. Thanks again. Blackout, Michael Biggins HattedOne 16:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)HattedOne[reply]

Delete, for reasons stated by nominator; at a minimum, merge into Blackout (entertainer) and delete the ungrounded speculation/OR. --Orange Mike 16:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- and Merge Blackout (entertainer) into Michael Biggins, of course; it's like having separate articles for Samuel Clemens and Mark Twain. --Orange Mike 17:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Bobet 10:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt White (opinion journalist)[edit]

Patently an autobiography. Does he pass notability tests? -- RHaworth 19:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Perhaps the notability criteria should be expanded to cover journalists (including columnists and broadcast journalists) with a significant audience, even if they have not been the subject of multiple articles. --Eastmain 19:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete patent vanispam; despite being written by the subject, still the only source he can find is his own blog - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Ed (Edgar181) 19:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Eves[edit]

This looks rather like something made up in school one day. Eddie.willers 19:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete db-bio. JuJube 19:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Someobdy took a handful of "Chuck Norris" jokes and added their own name instead. Ho ho ho. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No third-party references, which is not surprising as the claims are all impossible. --Eastmain 19:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus for deletion, so keep. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous Coward[edit]

This neologism does not have any reliable sources. While the first AfD for this article was in regards to its notability, I am concerned about verifiability issues. From Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms#Reliable_sources_for_neologisms, "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to slashdot as a plausible search term unless sources could be found. I ran a few news searches and didn't find anything promising. --W.marsh 19:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The best I could find is a paragraph here [34] that confrims some of the basics of the term... but it's just a paragraph. --W.marsh 19:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete current content isn't verifiable, perhaps a redirect to Internet_anonymity#Anonymity_and_the_Internet would be proper? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure whether to keep or mege, but [35] this book about Virtual communities at least explores the concept. So I'm not going to say delete. FrozenPurpleCube 00:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If kept that source would support a rather small stub, which is a good start. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's a Japanese dictionary site which an entry for AC. The wording is completely separate from the ja:匿名の臆病者 article linked via the language links, so, I think it has been independently (from Wikipedia) documented. Neier 02:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But what does it say? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrasing, On blogs, etc, it is common for the people who write without signing their names, or using a temporary identity... It goes on to mention troubles associated with the nameless postings, such as "Splog" and "comment spam", and how the expression Anonymous Coward originated on slashdot as a term of disgust towards an anonymous posting. Finally, it mentions that on 2channel, the term is named 名無しさん (Mr. Nameless). Neier 13:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, as a stub. Sure, this might be difficult to source, but not impossible. W.marsh found a source and FrozenPurpleCube found another. And the claims seem plausible from where I'm standing, I think it is likely that sources eventually will be found. Crypticfirefly 03:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the comment directly above. I shall also comment that a redirect to Internet_anonymity#Anonymity_and_the_Internet might be confusing, without describing why this term is related to Slashdot. Also, this [36] site has a mention of AC. Would it be a 'reliable source'?--Cogburnd02 00:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. This has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial references about the term. I am unpersuaded by the references offered which do little more than mention that the term has been used. Nothing to confirm that its use is extensive or significant. Simply not enough to justify keeping an article about this neologism. WjBscribe 16:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Independent dictionaries generally don't include every neologism they can dig up. Foreign dictionaries especially. So, this is a wide-spread term. Just realized I hadn't !voted above, so, registering my "Keep" here. Neier 22:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are real books that discuss the use of this term in Slashdot and other online communities. [37], [38]. --Itub 09:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well I am glad that this AfD dug up some sources, I only wish I got the same result when I posted on the talk page so long ago. But it seems that AfD can be a good encourager for source finding. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be, but please don't do it. AfD nominations just to get people to add sources or improve the article in some other way are a perversion of the AfD process. --Itub 13:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an "AfD nominations just to get people to add sources", it is an AfD to discuss the deletion of an article that had no sources, and showed no sign of getting any. If nobody at the article is willing to find sources, AfD is the natural course. It just happens that the people at AfD will put a little more effort into saving an article than the existing editors sometimes. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I only wish I got the same result when I posted on the talk page so long ago"-- You posted a call for references on the talk page on April 19th 2007 and nominated the article for deletion the next day on April 20th. (Not even waiting "a couple days.") I typically would wait at least a few weeks after requesting references before giving up and and proposing the article for deletion. At least in the case of an article such as this, where there do seem to be people interested in editing it. Crypticfirefly 02:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "so long ago", I must have been thinking of another article. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is not much more to say about "Anonymous Coward" other than slashdot.org lets you publish criticisms of the latest technologies under the generic nickname "Anonymous Coward" as an epithet Slashdot assigns to contributors unwilling to reveal their names. After a detailed search, I have found it impossible to source more information on the topic, even for such a widespread term, as there is not much more to say about the topic. You also run into the problem of WP:RS using 'anonymous coward' as a generic phrase much more often than using Anonymous Coward as an online identification. There is not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Thus, the topic does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and the article cannot meet Wikipedia article policies. -- Jreferee 20:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per CSD G11/A7. Xoloz 20:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Stewart[edit]

Procedural nomination, page was nominated under MFD, I'm relisting it here. Reason was - "The subject is not notable. Page seemingly used for self promotion. Links to the company he is associated with were spammed in another page." CitiCat 19:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Leggett[edit]

This page appears to be a hoax. The creator of the page has no WP edit history. After initially creating the article, he later added two "facts", both of which are prima facie false, apparently as a claim to notability:

That L.L. was a Welsh prince. The last claimant to being a Welsh prince was in 1409 -- see Prince of Wales.
That his daughter was the first woman MP from Wales. But the first woman MP from anywhere was in 1918 -- see Countess de Markievicz.

There is also no trace of Lloyd Leggett in Google, Google Books, or Google Scholar. Macrakis 19:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantic comment De Markievicz never swore the oath so never got the title MP - the first woman MP was Nancy Astor in 1919 - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. No sources, not verifiable, and someone such as a member of british parliament would have more websites mentioning him. Definite, strong, delete. --KaufmanIsAwesome 20:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom -- Dominus 20:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a completely false article. Jmlk17 21:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Fake, no sources and clearly not a member of the British (or Scottish) Paraliament. Totally False.
Delete definite hoax. All the (now deleted) other claims are untrue as well - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax, dumb, bye. JuJube 01:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to GUN. WjBscribe 02:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Gun (video game)[edit]

Duplicate article, longer, better, and more grammatically correct article available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUN KaufmanIsAwesome 20:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to GUN as per nom. Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The better article should easily convey the need to delete this article. Jmlk17 21:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to GUN then Protect. Jay MacDonald 21:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: From looking through the history of this article, it was originally an article about an episode of Family Matters with the titular name. Someone added a prod, then someone else deleted the prod and added the game citation. Over time, the article's focus eventually switched to the game itself. So I'm not sure whether or not the episode was notable in the first place, if not, then Redirect to GUN. TheLetterM 23:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul King (footballer)[edit]

possible vanity page, non-notable per Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 21:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Contested prod. Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) states that a notable player

has played in a fully professional league
has competed at the highest level.
is first team squad member who has not made a first team appearance (but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles)

I cannot see that this is the case with Paul King. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 21:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good luck to him, but he doesn't deserve an article on WP. Regan123 23:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 21:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WATP 21:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly non-notable Daemonic Kangaroo 05:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nomination sums it up perfectly. Qwghlm 08:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The sentences scan, but it's basically gibberish. Herostratus 02:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Bombing Division[edit]

This a ~~complete nonsense~~ hoax article. The db-nonsense template was removed by an admin who I believe didn't read the article. The prod template was removed by an IP user, so now we move on to the AFD. Read the article carefully and you'll see ~~nonsense~~ falsehoods such as "scrounging for spare bombers in France in 1942" and the division being replaced by bi-planes. Also, Google turns up nothing on the name. Hatch68 21:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom, creator being a vandalism-only account, and WP:SNOW. Pan Dan 21:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while I would not call it nonsense either, it appears to be a hoax, therefore non-verifiable (WP:PN specifically states that a hoax is not nonsense simply because it is a hoax). Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a minor semantical difference to me, but I'll go along with the consensus. Hatch68 21:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've read it and the word 'nonsense' seems to sum it up admirably. Nick mallory 02:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm the admin who removed the tag, though I did actually read the article. It's simply not patent nonsense. Distinctions like one kind of plane replacing another don't qualify as "nonsense" to me. And linking a name to a disambig page is a common error in new aritcles. Given the research by the nom, it does appear to be a possible hoax (which is not a speedy deletion reason). If it is unverifiable, I'm fine with deletion. I've seen the nonsense tag applied with what appears to be great haste lately, and have removed them when the article does not fit the criteria. My doing so isn't a reflection on the quality of the article, or the tagger. Dina 17:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please also note that the creator is a vandal account. Pan Dan 23:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the more reason to tag articles with the appropriate tags, and warn users that you have tagged the article (which did not happen in this case). If I see an article tagged as patent nonsense that is not, I will remove the tag. If I see a user that has been warned the appropriate about of times for vandalism & bad-article creation, I will block them. A lot of stuff ends up in the WP:CSD that is simply not speediable. That doesn't mean it's not deletable. This article will end up being deleted. But, in my view, "patent nonsense" should not require a google search to identify. Dina 00:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying Dina, but it instantly jumped out as "nonsense" to me. A British officer scrounging bombers in France in 1941? France fell in 1940 to the Germans. Replacing bombers with bi-planes in WW2? I honestly wasn't aware that "nonsense" for speedy deletions was defined so narrowly on Wikipedia. The verbage used on the templates is a little different from what's on WP:PN. Hatch68 00:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A different admin might have made a different call here -- I'm not trying to dig in my heels and be difficult, honestly. It's all somewhat subjective, and what should be the subject of this debate is the value of the article, not of my action, or yours, in regards to it (since we both acted in good faith obviously, what would be the point?) It didn't read as nonsense to me, and that is the tag I find most frequently badly applied. When I run through the WP:CSD I sometimes delete, sometimes let articles lie, and sometimes remove tags I find to not match the articles in question. Let the debate run and I'll close it, barring any new evidence that it's not a hoax. Cheers. Dina 00:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a proerp speedy, and I have undelted it and removed the speedy delete tag. DES ^(talk) 16:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may not have been a proper speedy, but I think WP:SNOW is an appropriate policy to use in judging this case. Hatch68 01:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Doris J. Day. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bruxelles, Manitoba[edit]

No evidence of notablity. Seemingly, unimportant location. Captain panda 21:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not enough information or references for an article. Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - villages and hamlets no matter how small, are noable by definition. -- Whpq 22:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And an additional note, the community overview shows Bruxelles as the location of the taxi service serving the regional municipality, so it defintely exists. -- Whpq 22:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Whpq, all verifiable communities of this nature are allowed Wikipedia articles. 23skidoo 01:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Community where people live. It might be small, but it's there. [39] Inherently notable. --Oakshade 04:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please communities where people live are notable really yuckfoo 01:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 02:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dougie Flood[edit]

No references after a month marked as unsourced. Entire article seems to be based off a couple of posts on this forum thread. --Onorem Dil 21:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as we can't have unsourced articles alleging someone is a major gangster. Without sources we also cannot know true notability. --Dhartung | Talk 06:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you google him, the first hit after Wikipedia is this forum thread, which would seem to be the primary source for all of the information in this article. All of the other hits appear to be Wikipedia mirrors or other forums. This is unfortunate as I suspect this'd make a fine article.Chris Croy 12:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 02:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mythical chickens[edit]

This is the single most reluctant XfD I have ever nominated as it's the best title for a disambig page ever. I would absolutely love to have a pretext for keeping this page up, and if anyone can find a good keep argument I beg you to give it. Unfortunately, I can't find one - and not a single one of these entries is actually about a chicken. But if anyone's planning to form a band, I have the perfect name for you. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I only created this article to get this nonsense out of the Chicken article, which was a hopeless and over-long mish-mash anyway and is now, at best, a mish-mash of shorter length and with some potential. Delete, don't delete -- not bothered either way. Just so long as it doesn't get dumped back into Chicken, I don't really care. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 22:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but you made a huge mistake - this article should be entitled Chicken Myths, not Mythical chickens. Your title only encompasses actual chickens, not the chicken-related. For shame. CitiCat 23:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Aren't you breaching policy by treating the half-house-half-chicken as a "myth"? I think to preserve NPOV, there needs to be a mention of people who believe it really happened. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an assortment of trivia -- Whpq 22:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but if I create a band named The Mythical Chickens will the fact it is named after a deleted Wikipediea page make it notable? Is a deleted page a source? Alas, probably not.--killing sparrows 00:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you do and someone AfD's the page, rest assured I'll be voting keep - iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solution. I moved the contents to the page Mythological things at least in part based on chickens which I think better describes its contents. Expand and enjoy. Oh, and we can probably delete the Mythical chickens page now, if that's OK. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 11:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as noone chickens out of doing it - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, its now a redirect to Mythological things at least in part based on chickens pending then discovery of a funk-thrash metal crossover band from Ulan Baator or some-such *actually* known as the Mythical chickens. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 17:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that happened, we'd have egg on our faces - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of them are actually chickens and there's no real connection between the things on the list. It is a great idea for a page, it's just a pity there's no true encyclopaedic content can be put on it. Sam Blacketer 17:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broceanography[edit]

violatesWP:NEO and is a definition. the_undertow ^talk 22:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - self-nominating neologism -- Whpq 22:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk of mind blowing proportions. JuJube 01:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Penman and Paperboy[edit]

was prodded before. New and (so far) entirely unnotable comic strip. No references except for the author's own claims. WP:COI. Aleph-4 23:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - does not assert any notability, whatsoever. Almost certainly because this isn't notable, having been around for all of 3 months. --Haemo 23:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per not having any encyclopedic information that cannot be mentioned in main article. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split-Screen Level[edit]

Topic does not seem like a good topic for an encyclopedia. Notablity also questionable. Captain panda 23:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - wasn't the last level of Pac Man the 9th Key (level 21) - iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All useful information is already iin the pac-man article. Tarret 23:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A no-brainer since this is already more fully covered in Pac-Man. No objection to a redirect, but it doesn't seem particularly useful. —Cel ithemis 05:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nutripathy[edit]

Non-notable; fails WP:FRINGE, which states "...In order to be notable, a non-mainstream theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual." Cannot find such references. MastCell ^Talk 23:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until this appears in Nature, or gets heavy coverage. The article also displays a primitive understanding of biochemistry. Someguy1221 02:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article holds that the human body should have the same 'balance' of ph as 'planet earth'. I can't see this making the British Medical Journal any time soon. Nick mallory 02:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. When this becomes famous woo, an article on the topic can be re-created. Anville 16:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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