THC Science

< May 11	May 13 >

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 Delete Zsinj^Talk 16:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Liu[edit]

Rex Liu}} – (View AfD) Non-notable bassoonist and composer. Could find no reliable sources on the web or in music databases (JSTOR, New Grove). Article has been deleted twice and each time recreated. Request block on recreation of article after AfD or Speedy Delete A7. Myke Cuthbert 19:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 20:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There is also a deletion request, for the same article, on French Wikipedia (fr:Rex Liu). See fr:Wikipédia:Pages à supprimer/Rex Liu. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 19:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~speedy~~ delete & salt ~~CSD G4~~. Note: claim to notability seems to be "He has spoken on music history at various universities, including a lecture given at the University of Alberta" which falls very short of WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd 20:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if "at" meant "at an invited lecture at" and "various" equaled, say, twenty, then we could start to talk about it as a claim of WP:PROF; but somehow, I think you're right that it's not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mscuthbert (talk • contribs) 20:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Delete - CSD G4: Recreation of deleted material --Ybbor ^Talk 22:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Thank you for the clarification Pan Dan. --Ybbor ^Talk 19:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, let's give it community consensus before salting. Another clear case of accomplishment not amounting to notability. --Dhartung | Talk 22:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there the equivalent of "salt until X date"? I would support a month or two cooling period more than a permanent block on recreation. The problem is that the article has been created three times in less than a month, and now the principal editor has learned to revert "speedy" tags, so I can easily see going through this process again. (I do wish that when someone creates an article which has already been AfD'd, that the system would show them why the previous article was deleted and ask editors to commit to writing an article which does not have these issues). --Myke Cuthbert 03:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the burden be on us? Let a future editor take it to DRV if there is new information. --Dhartung | Talk 04:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Dhartung. Pete.Hurd 05:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myke, on your parenthetical comment, we have {{repost-warn}} for wp:csd#g4's. Pan Dan 15:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like the nominator I could not verify any of this. (But not wp:csd#g4 which only applies to things that have already been AFD'd.) Pan Dan 15:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a quick search turns up little to spur me on. John Vandenberg 15:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Non admin close.--TREYWiki 00:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carrington Middle School[edit]

Non-Notable Schools. All Fail WP:NOTE, WP:SCHOOL, and WP:ATT. --TREYWiki 23:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are not-notable, in the same district, and created by the same users:

Okay, I'm fine with these deletions, if you give me time to add the information to Durham Public Schools. I might add that all articles in Category:Middle schools in North Carolina seem unimportant (with the exception of Ravenscroft). --Mr.crabby (Talk) 23:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator and creator agreed to deletion. --TREYWiki 00:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Give me ten minutes to move the content to my sandbox and then I'll be okay with it. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 00:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. --TREYWiki 00:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I moved the info to User:Mr.crabby/sandbox, I will add information appropriatly to Durham Public Schools --Mr.crabby (Talk) 00:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've redirected all these nominated pages to Durham Public Schools, hopefully that's alright with you. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 13:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the way to do it. --Butseriouslyfolks 20:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most Popular Articles Feature[edit]

Not of any encyclopedic merit, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Some content should be merged to the appropriate articles about websites, but I cannot imagine a use for this article. Eyrian 10:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say its completeley useless, if its merged with the appropriate article and cut down drastically; it does go into far too much detail. Otherwise, however, it probably has very little use as it is. Monkeymox 10:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per reason of nomination. Eaomatrix 14:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Plus, the title of the article is misleading, as someone may think that it is about the most popular articles on WP, and not just a generic feature on several Web sites. Caknuck 15:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is encyclopedic for its educational value on the state of the art in monitoring search activity although the lists may not be encyclopedic. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant original research and synthesis. There are probably web-designer publications that have written about this (I know some blogs have), but without such sources all of the conclusions are synthesis. --Dhartung | Talk 20:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteI see no value, no assertion of notability, no sources apart from the articles themselves. JodyB_talk 21:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seems a fairly trivial article with no merit --Fritzpoll 23:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- wikipedia articles are not instructional manuals. This belongs in Wikibooks if anywhere. --Adhall 00:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Infrangible 18:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no encyclopedic merit whatsoever. RFerreira 04:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Chon}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Gibson IX[edit]

Another unreferenced, speculation-filled article about a supposed upcoming album. I've been unable to find any mention of it online, either at Gibson's official site or using various search strings ("Deborah Gibson" "ninth album"/"9th album"/"9th studio album") in Google. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Kurt Shaped Box 14:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pending sources. Sandstein 14:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The preplan for a future album was first mentioned at Deborah-Gibson.com/News in January 2007, but the note has since been deleted on that server. If someone can verify that the album project has in fact been abandoned (and I have found no evidence either way to date), the preliminary article mentioned herein will be a GO for deletion. --- B.C.Schmerker 13:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - When (or more importantly, IF) verifiable sources exist about the project then an appropriate article may be created -- but even there it seems only like it'd be worth a brief mention on the main article for the singer until it is released. DreamGuy 00:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sourcing, crystal ball. Of course, if we can source and move beyond speculation, then it stays as the artist is notable per WP:MUSIC. JodyB_talk 00:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. ~ Magnus animum ^{BRAIN FREEZE!} 00:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. --Ozgod 01:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Buf7579 02:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The Neal Pogue reference popped back up at Deborah-Gibson.com/News/Index6.shtml; I still haven't information to confirm either a release date estimate or a more accurate track listing. Recommend proceed with Delete. - B.C.Schmerker 05:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OR, unable to find sources currently. Terence 06:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Terence. If there is content available for the IX album of the artist, then the information should be merged with the main article. --Zamkudi 09:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Infrangible 18:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrofect[edit]

Fails WP:BAND. Bumped from speedy due to asserting UK tours, but no reliable sources to confirm it; none are evident from Google or Google News Archives. Sandstein 14:25, 6 May 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 00:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources can be brought to bear on this article. I have offered to help bring NPOV if someone can bring the sources. JodyB_talk 00:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per failure of WP:BAND. --tennis man ^{sign here!} 01:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:N, WP:MUSIC. Assertions are not backed up by sources from the internet. --Zamkudi 09:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sources. One would also expect an indie band of note to make an impression on google, but these guys don't. Sourcing of the article to prove notability seems unlikely to occur at this stage, so delete-—arf! 15:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When the only available source is their myspace page deletion is the only way to go. Nice music though. :) Pax:Vobiscum 19:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Infrangible 18:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Perey[edit]

Previously nominated 2 years ago; however, I believe notability requirements for living persons have strengthened somewhat since then, and that this gentleman fails the "professor test". I may well be wrong in my belief, hence the nomination here. --kingboyk 16:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 20:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete principal rationale: no trace of either book in LOC or Harvard Library system. Both are self-published. Gwe, is a novel; Were They Equal? About Tortoise, Hippopotamus, Elephant is a children's book; neither then would establish notability as a researcher. I think in general, WP is too hard on non-traditional academics, hence the "weak" delete, but it's really hard to find information on the subject that is not written by him. Neutral: closer look at Aesthetic Realism puts a stronger claim on notability; however, reliable sources for that page are slim enough that I can't justify a true "Keep" --Myke Cuthbert 05:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based more on his role in Aesthetic Realism than on academic notability. JamesMLane t c 09:48, 10 May 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 00:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As above, because of the notable Aesthetic Realism work. There is nothing at Amazon and only trivial at Google. the getcite.org site is suspect to me. However, AR is notable and he's heavily invested in it. JodyB_talk 00:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It should have been userfied the first time, to any of the many identities he assumed while editing here; it's a thinly disguised user page even at present. It's self-written by Perey, who also seems to be the sole source. Fails notability. The existence of the Wikipedia article itself is used by Perey as evidence of his importance on his personal website, and vice versa. Zero reliable sources; references are only to websites controlled by Perey. - Outerlimits 03:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user is a nice fellow, but he did write this biography himself. His role in Aesthetic Realism does not appear important. We don't have articles on more important individuals in that movement, for example: Ellen Reiss. There don't appear to be any major reviews of his anthropological work. I can't see any solid justification for keeping this and so my opinion is that it should be deleted. -Will Beback ·:· 03:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google scholar shows 4 citations of his work [1]. That's very very low. Combined with the concerns about the autobiography and the apparent lack of reliable third-party sources on which to build the article, I see no reason to keep the article. Pascal.Tesson 04:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not even borderline notability. Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. --Zamkudi 09:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Notability is not established in the article. ~ Magnus animuM ^{BRAIN FREEZE!} 21:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Infrangible 18:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Obviously there is no notability as an academic. (I did verify hisPHD, however--it's the one thing I was able to verify about his career. Minor web presence on some lists. As for his role in the movement, I can't judge. DGG 05:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lunaport[edit]

No assertion as to notability out-of-universe. I'm a Trekkie and don't even remember an episode taking place here or even an allusion to it. In-universe friendly MA blurb is just a couple of sentences. EEMeltonIV 18:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Also adding the following for similar reasons: nothing more than places on a map.[reply]

--EEMeltonIV 18:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of real world context, unlikely to find sources. Jay32183 02:54, 7 May 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 00:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three. These would be better addressed at Memory Alpha. None pass WP:FICT. --Charlene 01:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three. None have enough information to ever go beyond the current treatment. Per WP:FICT should be merged up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mscuthbert (talk • contribs) 02:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete all. Possibly material for a List of Star Trek fictional locations or some such.--Dhartung | Talk 05:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Nothing more important than a couple of throwaway lines in a handful of assorted episodes. Send to Memory Alpha if they don;t already have something on these. -- saberwyn 11:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Memory Alpha already has an entry on Lunaport, but the location is so insignificant the official Star Trek site does not have a separate listing. MDonfield 12:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable fictional place, article with one or two lines and no context. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 16:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Infrangible 18:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superhero!}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund ng[edit]

This article was speedy-tagged as CSD A7. It doesn't have sources, but it does assert that Mr. Ng is the head of a Singaporean political party. It is left to AfD to evaluate the veracity and the noteworthiness of that claim. Delete, pending sources. Xoloz 20:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No vote. This interview might be a helpful source. The article needs to have the photo removed (probably violates WP:FUC, as tagged), needs to have the external links removed and internal links added, and needs to resolve the apparent conflict of interest from the author. That being said, the subject may be notable. Placeholder account 23:37, 6 May 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 00:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It doesn't assert that he's the head of a political party. It asserts he's the acting organizing secretary (whatever that is) of a party which has never won a seat in the Singaporean elections, although one member seems to hold a non-contested seat. Added: He simply doesn't pass WP:BIO as is. "Edmund Ng" is a common enough name for Ghits to be unreliable. --Charlene 01:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no RS. In addition the use of commercial sites as 'refs' does not a happy undertow make! the_undertow ^talk 02:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 14:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Infrangible 18:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walter A. Perez[edit]

Apparently nn-bio created by subject (the article was created by User:Walper47), unsourced and probably a COI. Ali 22:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have marked the page for speedy deletion and later prodded it (and warned the author, under username Nevhood), ~~but the original author removed the tags arbitrarily without any explanation or edit summary.~~ --Ali 22:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: An anonymous IP removed the prod template, it is likely that the author neglected to sign on while editing. --Ali 03:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. IMDB lists him as a production assistant for hitch, which IMHO just scrapes by WP:BIO per "The person's work either (a) has been displayed in a significant exhibition". Guinness 23:05, 6 May 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 00:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. A production assistant is not a notable position; many PAs perform traffic control, others act as gophers, some do secretarial work. I don't see how he meets WP:BIO for being an extra pair of hands on a movie set or for being one of many involved in a documentary. --Charlene 00:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. -Lemonflash ^(t)/_(c) 01:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I think the spirit of WP:BIO would be violated if every entity involved the production of a movie were to be seen as notable. the_undertow ^talk 02:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, a PA is basically a glorified gofer. Casting director is a behind-the-scenes job and the movies aren't notable. His role in Choose or Lose is, without reliable sources, likely incidental. --Dhartung | Talk 05:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What's next, we start listing the caterers? So notable he gets 10 Google hits. MDonfield 12:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete sorry, but it's not notable --Isis4563 13:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of the IMDB credits were for 'Miscellaneous Crew'. His work on Hitch was assisting someone with their work. DarkAudit 14:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Non-notable and probably a COI. ~ Magnus animuM ^{BRAIN FREEZE!} 20:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - In my eyes, anyone who has their own page on IMDB should be notable enough to get a stub wiki page. Unfortunately, this man seems like a nn-PA so I vouch for a deletion since I cannot find a viable argument against. Sens08 23:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No vote --Infrangible 18:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - creator's request. - Mike Rosoft 10:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrathful Dispersion[edit]

Does not even try to establish notability, and has been tagged as such for a while with no improvement. Based upon highly neologistic nature of topic and complete obscurity I cannot image any possible argument that would make the article worthy of being in an encyclopedia. Looks like it was added out of vanity. DreamGuy 00:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added it because it was requested. Nevertheless, I support its deletion. --Ptcamn 00:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ptcamn is the article creator and the only actual editor. Others have added tags (including this AFD) but not actually changed any of the article text. Can't this be speedy deleted as G7, since "the page's only substantial content was added by its author" and he requested deletion above? *** Crotalus *** 00:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to suggest speedy, yeah. DreamGuy 00:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have been inspired by the Bible story of the Tower of Babel. Anthony Appleyard 06:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ayup. You voting, or you just here to state the obvious? DreamGuy 06:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Krimpet (talk) 04:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of time tracking software[edit]

linkfarm Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 01:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has no reliable sources. It is only useful to those looking for this software, and it is spam. Surely shopping can be left to commercial sites, and not an encyclopedia. the_undertow ^talk 02:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ Wikipedia is not a shopping guide. Someguy1221 06:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Hut 8.5 11:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per all above-—arf! 15:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a web directory. This article is a spam magnet. (Requestion 22:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I am striking out my delete opinion for three reasons; external links cleaned up, price column removed, and several editors appear committed to watch the article for spam. (Requestion 15:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - No worse than Photo gallery comparison and only marginally worse than List of content management systems. Salvageable if entries pointing to software not covered here is removed. Did just that and struck redlinked entries - MrZaius^talk 11:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note Category:Software comparisons. The linkfarm arguments were, but are no longer, valid. Just need a wary editor to keep an eye on the page. If the other argument is valid, that the Wikipedia is not a shopping guide, then half or more of that category will have to go. I'm not saying it is or isn't, but that it might be better to have a higher level discussion of the topic. Asked about it here, as well: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Shopping Guide? & at the Village Pump: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#WP:NOT a shopping guide MrZaius^talk 12:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MrZaius, thank you for cleaning up those external links. The article does look much better now. I feel a bit uncomfortable about that "Availability" column with prices. Something is just WP:NOT right about it. (: If that column was removed and if a couple editors could commit to keeping this article on their watchlist for spam then I would be inclined to change my opinion on this AfD. (Requestion 17:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I agree about the prices, and have removed them from those entries that had them. (I wouldn't be opposed to providing approximate prices if they varied by more than an order of magnitude, but the few that there were were fairly similar.) Someone still ought to go over that column and make sure it contains accurate information on the pricing structure of the products (free / free with paid support / paid license per installation / paid license per user / monthly fee per user / whatever). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prices should be removed. They change often and are too difficult to keep up to date. Plus there is different pricing depending on educational, government, business use, etc.. And sales, rebates, coupons, etc.. General pricing info such as free / free with paid support / paid license per installation / paid license per user / monthly fee per user / shareware / whatever, is OK. That is common in charts on wikipedia. --Timeshifter 01:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the linkfarm argument. I think it is a linkfarm if there is only a list of programs and links to those programs. But once features are described, then we have a real, in-depth, encyclopedic wikipedia article based on the notable topic of time tracking software. Links back to the home pages of the programs are then just citation/reference links for verification and keeping the features info up-to-date on the chart. Please also see my comments farther down on notability and about what programs to include on the list. --Timeshifter 02:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further clarification. See this diff. The edit summary for the diff was "rm linkcruft/nonnotable members of the list. See WP:NOT's discussion of linkfarms". I believe the deletion of most of the chart by Mrzaius after the AfD process began was done in good-faith. But I think all that was needed was to remove the prices and a few redlinks. Here is the revision before the deletion. The bulk of the chart and the citation/reference links for all the entries did not need to be removed. Not every item on a wikipedia list or chart has to have its own wikipedia page. Only the chart topic needs to be notable, not every entry for that topic. I think it is better form to put the citation/reference links after the item names, and not to make the item names clickable. But that is a matter of taste, and not a reason for deletion of a chart. --Timeshifter 09:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I think I understand your argument. Basically you are saying that WP:NOT#LINK does not apply to comparison tables because features are described. I know a lot of editors that would disagree with that interpretation. (Requestion 15:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Yes. Actually, I was referring to WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and what distinguished a directory from an encyclopedic wikipedia list or chart. But now I see that WP:NOT#LINK also applies, and I see the cause for much confusion. It needs to be clarified. As does Wikipedia:External links. It is a guideline that does not apply to citation/reference links. --Timeshifter 22:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no worse than most other Comparison of... articles; but needs rewrite to avoid becoming just a list with little or no relevant information. See Comparison of text editors for a good example of how it could look. Also a comment to Someguy1221. Although Wikipedia is not a shopping guide/link repository/linkfarm, a comparison page is perfectly valid as it does actually provide the reader with relevant and important information not always covered in other articles, and without having to read through the articles in a complete category to gather the same info. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 16:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meaningful, well-presented information. --Infrangible 18:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In light of recent changes to this page, I have changed my opinion. I felt this was merely a shopping guide due to statements such as "easy to use" and "user-friendly." With these highly subjective statements removed, as well as entries that had no sources (beyond the company website) or wikipedia articles of their own for easy verification, I have changed my vote to keep. Someguy1221 19:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep after the cleanup. I haven't looked at the past revisions, but as it is now the page seems like a fairly reasonable comparison list with no serious NPOV issues. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Items on a list or comparison chart do not have to be notable in themselves. The topic of the list or chart has to be notable. See WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. The topic of the list or chart has to be specific. See again WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. A link back to the home page of an item on the list or chart is allowed just as any citation/reference link is allowed. Where people get confused is when the list drifts over into subjective analysis and reviews. Then the list or comparison chart becomes advertising or negative advertising. Then it needs to be cleaned up to remove the advertising language, reviews, and hype. This chart, Comparison of wiki farms, went through 3 deletion attempts until all these issues were discussed and addressed. I urge people to read the last deletion discussion where it was finally decided to keep the chart. Jimbo Wales created Wikia.com, a wiki farm. I found it somewhat amusing that I had to explain to wikipedians that the topics of wiki software and wiki farms are notable. Not every wiki farm on the list is as notable as wikia.com, but lists and charts do not have to have all notable items on them. Otherwise, wikipedia lists and charts would become supporters of only the largest companies with the best advertising budgets. Freeware and open source software would be at a great disadvantage. See again WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. That guideline says "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List." I am sure that many people will not have heard of many of the people on the Nixon Enemies List. It is the list topic that is notable, not necessarily all those people listed. Concerning software lists and charts: They are not shopping charts or advertising, because the charts do not discuss the relative merits of one feature versus another, nor do they discuss how well any particular program implements any particular feature. It would be impossible for wikipedia to fairly do such subjective analysis anyway. The feature columns in many charts do show the state of the art, and are thus encyclopedic in nature. Wikipedia has the necessary large numbers of WP:NPOV editors necessary to keep such charts and lists up to date, and free from advertising hyperbole. For many of these lists and charts there is nowhere else on the web that one can find such an NPOV list or chart. Few companies would want to maintain lists on their websites where they favorably discuss their competition. Few magazines have enough time or editors for maintaining such lists or charts. --Timeshifter 00:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Metadiscussion related to this comment moved to the talk page. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 01:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VR Defender Y3K[edit]

Non-notable minor online game that fails WP:WEB. There are no sources so this is unverifiable. Much of it is original research. Prod was removed without addressing the issues raised. Gwernol 01:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's not that notable of a game. I think the page only serves as an ad for the game.Comatose51 02:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR and no RS. the_undertow ^talk 02:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per Gwernol (nom). ~ Magnus animuM ^{BRAIN FREEZE!} 20:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Infrangible 18:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Slavlin 21:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7. Sr 13 07:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rock FM 91.9[edit]

WP:V, WP:N, WP:OR, WP:RS - Clearly non-notable radio station, possible WP:COI from article history, station does not appear in Perth media ratings, appears to have been started by an 11-year-old boy who is now 16 (?). (For non Australian observers, Port Kennedy is a distant outer suburb of Perth.) Orderinchaos 02:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Orderinchaos 02:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Radio station that broadcasts to his street. The station appears to have had two programs one of which is no longer active. Capitalistroadster 02:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.—Gaff ^ταλκ 02:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This isn't small, this is microscopic. DarkAudit 02:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Its own website claims it is on frequency 104.1, incidentally. Orderinchaos 03:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 07:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HoverTech International[edit]

non-notable by Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) —Gaff ^ταλκ 02:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as CSD A7, no notability asserted. It merely describes the company and its products. So tagged. --Dhartung | Talk 05:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 au sel. DS 14:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carboarding[edit]

Has already been speedied twice and keeps getting recreated as a neologism with a splash of vanity, the only references are blog-like Steve _(Stephen)^talk 03:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No assertion of notability, no verifiable and reliable sources, neologism, and something made up in school one day. DarkAudit 03:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and salt Per above. Resolute 04:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per above. Let's give this the full AFD treatment as it's been administratively deleted twice already. --Dhartung | Talk 05:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Carboarding" gets 882 Ghits outside Wikipedia. It seems to be a real new activity. Anthony Appleyard 05:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Youtune is not normally a reliable source, but it does have multiple videos showing people doing this. There's also a car commercial. It may be an unwise sport, but it is better known and more widely practiced than the typical "something made up in school one day". --Eastmain 06:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until multiple reliable and verifiable sources can be presented, specifically discussing the activity, instead of just saying/showing it happens. These sources can then by used to write a completely WP:attributable article. -- saberwyn 11:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanicruft. --Infrangible 18:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, or just speedy delete it once more. RFerreira 04:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to Keep. Walton ^{Need some help?} 19:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Garron[edit]

Non-notable child actor with no significant roles, the most notable being a contestant on FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman. The only reliable source which seems to cite her existence in more than passing is TV.com, where her mention is still very brief. Fails WP:BIO without a doubt.-- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 03:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per no significant contribution to her field. the_undertow ^talk 06:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting this WP:BIO entertainer notability criterion: "With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions." Full season roles in two different nationally broadcast PBS Kids series (ZOOM and FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman) does qualify as "significant roles", contrary to nom assertion. Many American little kids are familiar with such TV child actors, even if many Wikipedia contributors are not. This bio page is referenced by both series' Wikipedia pages, and I believe the project is better served by keeping this one for the additional info & references it provides. --SaguarosRule 19:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - I am open to reason, so I am wondering, is your assertion that the longevity is what makes it a significant role? We need to establish that Zoom is notable, as well as her part. the_undertow ^talk 22:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Her part is not notable, though. She was a contestant for one season of FETCH, according to her TV.com bio, which does not even include her ZOOM role, suggesting that it was even less notable. We do not give articles to actors with a relatively minor role in two somewhat obscure series. If she assumes more notable roles in the future, she can be added, but right now, she definitely fails WP:BIO. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 04:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No vote --Infrangible 18:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Convinced by SaguarosRule.--Holdenhurst 11:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 01:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria Series of Poker[edit]

This article discusses a minor event. Poker tournaments worthy of inclusion in wikipedia have more players and/or larger buy-ins.Fbdave 03:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete noting that the WP magazine article, however reliable a source it may be, still describes something that's nothing more important than a glorified home game. 40 participants? With the current hold'em craze, there are "tournaments" of that size every day in every city of the US. Pascal.Tesson 04:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP article is certainly reliable so the event happened, but this is like a story about somebody's backyard party. Yes, there is an article, but it is beyond trivial. 2005 07:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is this a relist or did I see this WP article in a Bio article? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gosh! --Infrangible 18:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Preserve The World Series of Poker had 7 players in its first year in 1970. Every event, regardless of nature, needs time to grow. In addition, the upcoming Alexandria Series of Poker is going to require a $5 registration fee in addition to the $30 tournament entry fee that will be donated to a charitable cause within the DC/NOVA Community. This game is not about the money by any means and should not be perceived as "just another home game". It's simply a fun tournament that brings those of us who grew up together in Alexandria back closer together around Thanksgiving, a time when there is a lot of emphasis on family and friends, and brings in new faces and personalities every year. As far as the media coverage is concerned the WP and Alexandria Gazette CHOSE to cover the event.

Heyimdro 21:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)heyimdro[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Significant entries with their own articles have already been added to Nephilim (disambiguation), satisfying the merge arguments; the merge and delete arguments together outnumber the keep arguments. Per those concerned about the utility of this article as a "dumping ground," I suggest reading the essay at WP:BHTT. Krimpet (talk) 05:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references to Nephilim[edit]

Another article in the "X in popular culture" series. I imagine it was spun off the main Nephilim article to avoid dealing with a bloating non-encyclopedic section but as has been argued many times before, the correct move is to simply delete it. There is no interest in such haphazard collections of trivia. Pascal.Tesson 04:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if this were called "List of trivia related to the word Nephilim" there would be no question about deleting it. However, because these articles hide behind the vague pretension to being an article about cultural references to X - despite simply being lists - we are forced to undertake these arguments, over and over again. Look at it - a list by any other name would smell as sweet. An unsourced list of trivia by any other name would be deleted in the same fashion. When I encounter trivia like this in another article, I typically request sources, add it to my watchlist, then delete it after a suitable length of time has passed. This entire article is nothing but an unsourced list of trivia. --Haemo 04:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the caveat that somebody check this list for entries that belong on Nephilim (disambiguation). There's at least some that I would say do merit an entry on that page, since they have articles of their own. FrozenPurpleCube 05:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge with Nephilim (disambiguation). It is not "unsourced": e.g. to track source for the Xenosaga paragraph, click on the word "Xenosaga" in that paragraph, then scroll to the bottom of page Xenosaga, and there are the external source links. Anthony Appleyard 05:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This argument doesn't even apply for most of these - it barely even applies for that one. If we replied on this method of sourcing, this article would be a stub. --Haemo 06:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The people deleting these "in fiction" and "in popular culture" articles are doing far more harm to the project than keeping the pages. Certainly a lot of the cruft there could be removed, but that's not to say it doesn't have enough to be an article on its own, and that stuff sure as heck doesn't belong on the main article. These articles are spun off for a reason, deleting them just starts the whole process up again and wastes everyone's time. DreamGuy 06:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO, Haemo, and perhaps WP:OR. A problem with almost all these "...in popular culture" articles is that they're always unsourced dumping ground for any use of the topic's name in popular culture. Nephilim is a uncommon enough word where almost every use of it is most certainly a reference to the ancient christian/jewish texts. However, with out citing extraneous sources, labeling it a reference certainly borders on WP:OR. Why? Say I write a story with a character named David. This could be a reference to one of many known Davids, or it could just be a name that I used for some arbitrary reason. Without any sort of analysis (of the story or the writer), its not certain whether its a reference or not. Saying it is a reference, without secondary sources to back it up, is essentially saying "my interpretation of the David in this story is that it is a reference to this David" and that is original research. —Mitaphane _?|! 18:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are "in popular dumping culture" articles dumping grounds for trivia and and unsourced nonsense? Sure, but without those pages the main articles become that as well. In fact all of Wikipedia could be said to be a dumping ground. Just like you can clean up any other article you can clean up in popular culture articles. Claiming it should be deleted because it attracts cruft not only would be an argument to delete all of Wikipedia but it presumes that making the main article the dumping ground is better than making a quarantine article. No matter which way you slice it, removing these articles is a truly bad idea. DreamGuy 08:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup, possibly merge the salvageable parts back to Nephilim, which already has an "in fiction" section. Some of this definitely needs to go, but in general I don't find the "unsourced" argument convincing, since a great deal of this seems rather trivially easy to verify. Nor do the references seem uniformly trivial. -- Visviva 07:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have reversed an undiscussed merger into Nephilim (disambiguation), per WP:GAFD. -- Visviva 07:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep don't see the problem here, but in sore need of context. --Infrangible 18:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I don't see how this article is a problem, as practically everything in it can be verified at the linked articles and sites. It just needs some general cleanup and it will be fine. --Zenoseiya 14:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect, the former being done by Anthony. Daniel 06:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fingerprint clock[edit]

It was speedy-delete tagged db-nonsense, but "Fingerprint clock" gets 678 Ghits outside Wikipedia. Anthony Appleyard 05:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to time clock. the_undertow ^talk 06:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to time clock - as above, it seems the only way forward that would keep the information and provide decent context. Duke of Whitstable 15:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge --Infrangible 18:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to time clock G1ggy^{Talk - Chalk} 02:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - Time clock already contains a section about this, so it has effectively been merged already. G1ggy^{Talk - Chalk} 02:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - At 10:54 on 12 May 2007 I copied the contents of Fingerprint clock into Time clock. Anthony Appleyard 05:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Spacesuits in fiction#Force fields instead of spacesuits. Xoloz 14:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flickinger field[edit]

Neologism for a non-notable fictional device. Yannick 05:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are similar devices in at least two other sci-fi stories, e.g. a Star Trek cartoon, and the bubble around the boys' spacecraft in Explorers (film). I have put in a link from Spacesuits in fiction#Force fields instead of spacesuits. Anthony Appleyard 06:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ changed to Redirect per notability issues. This is a specific device, and the fact that there are similar devices doesn't help with this particular article. However, instead of its own entry, a merge to the space suit link seems appropriate. the_undertow ^talk 06:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That link was a good find, by the way. Research is always appreciated! the_undertow ^talk 21:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, OK, Redirect to Spacesuits in fiction#Force fields instead of spacesuits. Anthony Appleyard 06:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect — To the section specified by anthony appleyard. ~ Magnus animuM ^{BRAIN FREEZE!} 21:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No vote --Infrangible 18:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

40 Greatest Metal Songs[edit]

These types of lists are unencyclopedic. And not all of them are that great anyway. bobanny 05:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The VH1 list seems arbitrary. the_undertow ^talk 06:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to lack of references, for people who did not see the programme or do not know the information already it could just be being use as a Soapbox. Reagrds - The Sunshine Man 16:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per reasons listed above. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 19:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Infrangible 18:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 19:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, yet another subjective and non-encyclopedic list. Burntsauce 18:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you have an article of 40 greatest, then would there be 50, 60, etc? Tonytypoon 22:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eda Pepi[edit]

Impressive college record, but notability not established yet. Reads like a résumé/CV for jobhunting. Clicketyclack 06:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. Clearly does not pass WP:PROF and is only "an aspirating actress". No objections against speedy deletion per A7, because the article does not assert any real encyclopedic notability.--Ioannes Pragensis 09:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Asserts local notability, but that does not satisfy the guidelines of WP:BIO. No significant professional credits. DarkAudit 13:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO as notability not sufficiently established at this time Duke of Whitstable 15:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 15:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It reads somewhat like a CV because private information are omitted, date and place of birth for example. It should be noted that I do not intend this to be a CV/resume as she doesn't need one. I created this entry so people have an easier time searching her info as some host site for her pass work/achievement have already closed down or removed the page. WannabeAmatureHistorian
- That sounds like a textbook case of WP:USEFUL, which is not a valid reason for inclusion. If she needs this info posted for potential employers to find, take it elsewhere. Wikipedia is not Google. DarkAudit 17:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as contend verification, just about everything I wrote can be verified, no exaggeration was employed. Her work on women in Nepal is not in the public domain and I can't locate it, it is either hold by herself or Harvard.
- Then there are no verifiable and reliable sources for that information. An inaccessible source is no source at all. DarkAudit 17:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked out Wikibios and no offense, but most of the entries there read like joke, a Wiki MySpace. Assuming there is no gap between Wikipedia and Wikibios, people whose achievement is above most Wikibios’ people should be in Wikipedia. WannabeAmatureHistorian

There is a monumental gap between Wikibios and Wikipedia. There is no connection between the two whatsoever except the use of the term 'Wiki'. It doesn't appear that the people at Wikibios are even using wiki software. WP:BIO is the guideline we use. She does not meet those guidelines. DarkAudit 17:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, but accomplishment does not equal notability. --Dhartung | Talk 20:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, delete the entry if it suits you. I don't know whether it is Wiki's lack of server space or some questionable policy, but Wikipedian seem to spend too much time policing new entries instead of maintaining existing entries. I have come across a number of historical entries that severely lack objective reference. This also raise the issue of double (or multiple) standards as old entries are not subject to the same scrutiny as new entries, a result of the longevity sensitive selection policy. The longer an article exists, the more it is assumed to be correct.WannabeAmatureHistorian

Yes, we know all too well that this isn't the only article out there that doesn't meet our criteria. There is no double standard; any article brought up on AFD or examined by an administrator for speedy deletion has the same standards on which it's judged. There are more articles being created all the time, and it takes less time to create an article than it does to objectively reach consensus on one. Certainly, I've recently voted on articles that were created in 2004. If you want more information, please read the guide to deletion. Thanks! --Dhartung | Talk 22:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:BIO. If kept, please change "aspirating" to "aspiring" - "aspirating" means "sucking". --Charlene 04:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no please don't! that's my favorite part! Pete.Hurd 05:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly I am a bad speller. I should double check next time when Word corrects the spelling for me. :)

Delete the article and see what we can do about making the original person go away as well. In an edit comment trying to justify the article, uploader (presumably the same person) says "There are some less important people with entry on Wiki, old movie star from the early 20th centur..." which is a sentence that cannot end with anything other than sheer rage against the ego and ignorance of the writer. Facts are any old movie star from any time is far more significant than this airhead with no professional credits to her name. DreamGuy 09:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do you know why I didn't repost that comment and instead post the one above? Because it is not nice or polite to talk that way about people even if they are dead. And why don’t you finish that sentence because as I recall, it ends on the note that their movies are difficult to locate and rarely showed. And you don’t you get it, I am not Pepi, if I am, do you think I would have made that spelling mistake or unable to locate her work? I have to say you are a bit snobbish going around advocating the removal of new account just because they disagree with you. WannabeAmatureHistorian

Comment When this one goes, kill off Image:Eda-Hair-temperately-black-for-a-theater-production.jpg (and a duplicate Image:Eda Hair Temperately Black For A Theater Production.jpg) as well... it's falsely tagged public domain under the argument that it never had a copyright (huh?) and the license says use for whatever you want but the upload note say not for anything commercial... Mistagged and useless once the article is gone. DreamGuy 09:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, please remove the two duplicated pictures once the article is deleted. The second images is a further compressed version of the first one at 1/3 its size. I have meant to replace the first one but can’t find the choice to delete it. It is in public domain because I released it but I don’t want it to be use for other purpose other than this article. If you are going to explain things nicely, please do so, but go around picking on people even if you are an accomplished Wikipedian. WannabeAmatureHistorian
Delete Sorry kiddo, come back in a few years. --Infrangible 19:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PTLens[edit]

Software promotion page. Should be an external link on a panorama utilities page. John Spikowski 06:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm pretty sure there is no way to find "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources" about this plugin. Pax:Vobiscum 19:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would give it the benefit of the doubt, but this editor's dozen or so edits all revolve around the products of this one company. This is advertising. --Infrangible 19:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not adequately referenced and, to be honest, not adequately important either. A1octopus 14:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xoloz 14:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Prince[edit]

Contested prod. Non notable independent wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent non trivial reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per One Night In Hackney 303, the subject fails WP:BIO as it does not meet our low standards for inclusion. Burntsauce 16:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr 13 07:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, my opinion of most of CZW notwithstanding the fact he is a three time former heavyweight champion and two time Tournament of Death winner is strong grounds for notability among death match wrestling. He is at the very least a notable deathmatch wrestler and furthermore a notable indy wrestler. –– Lid^(Talk) 11:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps you can provide multiple independent non trivial reliable sources then please? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Independent sources to show he held those titles? That seems like an odd request considering we use primary sources for title reigns. –– Lid^(Talk) 11:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, independent non trivial reliable sources for him. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No vote fake sport --Infrangible 19:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I dislike CZW and personally consider Wifebeater a no-talent hack but as Lid has pointed out he has achieved something as an indie wrestler, has something of a cult following and achieved a degree of infamy for his antics with an industrial strimmer. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you provide reliable sources demonstrating his notability then please? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep As per the others who have suggested keeping this article, I too am not fond of the guy or even that super extreme style of wrestling, but he is notable in that genre of wrestling, has a following, and has made major accomplishments in that style of "wrestling" as well. Oh, and One Night in Hackney, don't be an egg and ask me the same question you've asked everyone else. If you'd spend some of the time you spend working on Afd's on helping this project out by fixing articles like this one wikipedia would be a much better place. Remember that WP:IAR is also a policy, you should follow it as well. Theophilus75 22:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So your application of WP:IAR is something like I say this personal is notable but I'm not prepared to provide reliable sources to prove it, so the article should just be kept? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hey Hack, you recommend SO MANY wrestling articles for Afd that it would take 3-5 people working full time just to properly source the wrestling articles you Afd that I know could pass WP:BIO and WP:V without question. That doesn't count the ones that I'm not sure about or think might pass if one worked on them and just forgetting about the ones that do need deleted. What I'm saying is go work on your IRA stuff and let prowrestling project work on it...oh, and while I'm thinking about it...I was wondering if you could explain what you meant when you said you would have to take "more drastic measures" against the prowrestling Project? Theophilus75 22:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see WP:OWN, I'll edit what articles I see fit. If the pro wrestling project do not wish to nominate the hundreds of articles which do not meet Wikipedia guidelines, I'll be happy to do so. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for pointing that article out! Now that I've read it (and I assume you did before referring it to me), I now understand that I need to be looking for your comments and discussion on the talk pages of articles when you have an issue with them and that you WILL BE discussing things with the wrestling project before recommending them for deletion. I really appreciate your willingness to work with us. I'll be looking forward to your discussion, participation and help on those talk pages!!!! Theophilus75 21:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 it stands, this article is essentially a list with an introduction. The introduction recapitulates information available at Satanic ritual abuse. The list links to individual articles whose "Satanic" elements vary widely: it strains the imagination to put Crowley and Pokemon on the same list. While the list has references, individual items are not justified on the basis of those. Finally, as virtually everyone agrees, the article's name is unwieldly, making its scope difficult to discern. Since all meaningful content exists elsewhere, merging is unneeded; no single redirect target seems obvious. Xoloz 14:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Satanism in popular culture[edit]

Where do I start? Original research? Not refererenced. Satan-cruft. What is this? -Doc^g 23:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete but definitely Rename - this seems impossible to source correctly, or even to discern what this article is about. It claims to be about "Allegations of Satanism in popular culture" - so I would presume it to be about that topic. But it's not - instead, it looks like it's a list of things in popular culture, which have been accused of being Satanic. Putting aside the poorly named article, there doesn't appear to be any discernible criteria for what makes an "allegation" encyclopedic. Apparently, according to this article, any random email chain letter can be a credible "allegation". How about any random preacher? Does that make an allegation? This article needs a total overhaul - it needs to decide what its about, and then it needs to get some serious sourcing, since this stuff is borderline libelous. --Haemo 07:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Moral panic Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 11:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above. Roger Danger Field 13:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep or merge - it is one of my goals in life to be able to create a good article on this topic. There are literally thousands of "Allegations of Satanism" that have been made against someone or other, just over the past 50 years, and I would love to collect that all into one huge article under this banner. (You'll have to wait though - I'm not going to take on a job like that until I retire!) For the time being, though, this isn't much of an article. I also would like to suggest, though, that "allegations of Satanism" is well-differentiable from "moral panics" in general, as there is a religious and authoritarian element to Satan-fear-mongering that you won't find in other moral panics like Penis-melting Zionist robot combs. However, this particular article seems quite anorexic now, so if somebody would rather just copy and paste the content into an "Allegations of Satanism" subheading in Moral panic, I could see the merit in doing that instead. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gnan garra 10:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I discounted the merge to Moral panic as the subjects dont appear to be sufficiently related Gnan garra 09:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Delete - indiscriminate unsourced list. Otto4711 20:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an uncited and utterly unmaintainable list. I also allege that this AfD listing is, itself, satanic. There. Another item to add to the article. Hmm, I seemed to have spawned a recursive.......[Write error: Wikipedia full.] -- MarcoTolo 22:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't laugh. Church of Satan people around here have AfDed articles dealing with Satanism before. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename in any case. It sounds like it's saying that there are allegations that popular culture itself is Satanic in general (and this belief does exist modernly, and may very well be notable). And it's horribly biased towards modern American allegations of Satanism, when the fear that certain things might be associated with Satan or a Satanic cult has existed for almost 2,000 years and in dozens if not hundreds of countries. "Popular culture" also does not mean "20th-21st century American culture". The phrase means "the culture of the common people", not "what's popular or known in the US these days". --Charlene 04:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what's next Allegation of Christianity in popular culture? Carlossuarez46 19:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment There normally isn't a moral panic around Christians - unless, maybe, in ancient Rome. Perhaps this is properly mergeable into moral panic, but specific in that Satanism was the global conspiracy/mental degeneracy that people were accused of taking part in. Anyway, it's not much of an article right now. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question moral panic is defined as a reaction by a group of people based on the false or exaggerated perception... yet this article doesnt address any group reaction, all it does is list some popular cultural entertainment, without any context. What I'm seeing is a WP:SYNTH and its inclusion into moral panic would create a section of original research. Can you explain here how and why these two articles are sufficiently related to warrant merging, how will this improve the moral panic article? Gnan garra 01:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to the extent that it repeats allegations made by demagogues, it's not worthy of merging. However, there have been some "allegations of satanism" that became moral panics - like the 1980's Satanic panic (see Michelle Remembers and Bob Larson and the various "Satanic Nursery School" articles). I dunno, I'm on the fence about this, but this particular article if not sourced and not substantial probably can just go in the bin. However, Wikipedia should make sure that it doesn't retain a prejudice against the article so that it may be re-created in the future, when someone starts doing a proper article on the topic. My main point is, a proper article can be done. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 12:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Del...erg...Keep...no, Delete!... Silence mortal! I am Zorlog, high demon of the fifth dimension, possessing this weak coporeal being and I say Keep this information that glorifies our dark lord... what the? I feel... so... cold... --Infrangible 19:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful list for a non-minor element of popular culture. Mikael GRizzly 13:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Allegations??? It almost sounds like a way around WP:BIO to me. Knock this one out as any other page about allegations should be. Slavlin 21:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional brands[edit]

I really don't see how this is useful, at ALL. WP:LIST ~ G1ggy! _{Reply | Powderfinger!} 09:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:LIST doesn't give any rationale on whether or not this list should be deleted. However, this type of list could never be completed, especially when you realize that notable fictional material is being created on a constant basis where script authors can create a new brand on the fly. It's also appears to be missing content from an entire media of fiction (e.g. video and computer games, such as from Deus Ex.) --Sigma 7 10:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I think WP:LC would be a better link. What I referred to was that WP:LIST explains what should be done re: lists, and this certainly doesn't fall under any of that, IMO. ~ G1ggy! _{Reply | Powderfinger!} 10:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC. --Sigma 7 10:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft and I can't see how it could be useful to anyone. Hut 8.5 11:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR. Too incomplete unless you get every mad magazine ever printed for starters. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 19:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I took a look at the article, and thought that it had definite use as a guide to popular culture, satire, and even sociology. Needs expansion and elaboration, though. Rhinoracer 20:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate list and a directory of loosely-assoicated topics, in violation of WP:NOT. Tries to gather every reference to any fictional brand with no regard to whether there is any actual importance to its existence or not. See similar AFDs for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional foods and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional beverages for two similar indiscriminate, unmaintainable lists that were deleted. Otto4711 06:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No vote --Infrangible 19:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is un-maintainable and I cannot see how it would ever be useful as an encylopedia article. Slavlin 21:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close. I tagged the image with {{No source}} and {{No rationale}}. MER-C 01:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Zorkmidgold.gif[edit]

I really hate this image! Either get rid of it, or bring back the image of the bill! Jc iindyysgvxc 09:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Could someone with the know-how fix this? -- saberwyn 11:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close. This is the wrong venue for this. I'd move it over to WP:IFD but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a policy to delete on. —Mitaphane _?|! 18:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 09:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J.R. Williams[edit]

Actor that won a regional award (the Golden Apple) for Best Supporting Actor in a Musical. All the article is unsourced. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source link for the theatre indicates that this supporting actor "award" is nothing more than a local, amateur, community theatre group honoring it's own performers every year. It is not an accomplishment in professional theatre, as the article purports. And the other "awards" are for high school competition. Nothing here meets Wikipedia standards of notability.--208.127.115.247 11:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as failing WP:MYSPACE, WP:BIO, WP:VERIFY and WP:NOT. I also suggest that it falls under WP:COI, or WP:OR if you assume good faith - the sources in the article only mention his Golden Apple and his debating awards, yet there is a lot of biographical info in this article that seems to be coming from the author. Note, I personally cut away a lot of the content before this AfD began (stuff that I thought egregiously violated WP:NPOV and WP:LIVING), and I asked the original author to provide references, providing him a list of Wikipedia policies that the he should try to meet, letting him know that the article was in danger of AfD as it stood back then. He has been editing the article over the past day, and thinks he's fixed it (as he took down all my warning boxes), but I guess he simply can't find enough sources to back the article up to the level Wikipedia requires. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 12:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - if you look in the history you'll note I originally {{prod}}ded the article. Eastmain found a couple sources for it and let me know, and then I removed the {{prod}} because the original writer had come back and started working on the article. I wanted to give him a chance to clean it up. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 12:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, I commend you for your patience with the author. You're clearly dealing in good faith and making every effort to allow the author to meet Wikipedia standards. But I think it's equally clear that you two are working at cross purposes. While your goal is to have the article conform to standards, the author's rather obvious goal is to post an (auto)biography. Headings like "Early Life" and "Family" prove as much. And at the end of the day, I suspect, the result will be the same. Simply because nothing in the article rises to the level of notability. So no amount of editing/rewriting can address what simply isn't there. I've discussed this in detail on your talk page, so there's no sense in beating the dead horse more here. But ultimately I'll leave it as your call. Although I must say that I can't even name another editor who would be this generous. And as you know, it's probably only a matter of time before someone else does end it. But again, kudos to you.--208.127.115.247 01:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I was just giving background info above. As you see up there, I also voted delete, as I do think the article fails notability as it stands. I just didn't want to be the person to actually instigate the AfD on this article. But I agree with everything you've said. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 12:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No vote --Infrangible 19:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --208.127.115.247 03:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for utter failure to establish notability wrt wiki standards. Eddie.willers 01:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hush (Tool song), Jambi (song), Lateralus (song), Forty-Six & 2
merge Disgustipated and Die Eier Von Satan following work done on article to Undertow (Tool album) and Ænima respectively
redirect all others to respective albums.

(Note that this solution keeps the edit histories of all affected articles intact.) Orderinchaos 08:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hush (Tool song)[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC, Wikipedia notability guidelines (no independent coverage - they are literally just songs on an album), cannot be verified beyond their actual existence, and cannot be improved with reliable sources. Several of the articles in this category contain significant original research that does not have a place in an encyclopaedia. Many of them have been tagged for cleanup for at least 5 months. I must add I feel very sad nominating articles related to my favourite band, but it pays them no favours to have these articles here, they belong at toolshed.down.net or a fan site. Note I have not nominated several others which either won an award or charted or related to a single release and hence met WP:MUSIC.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they fall into the same category:

Orderinchaos 10:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Hush, Lateralus, Jambi[edit]

These three closed as keep per clear consensus Orderinchaos 17:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User daveh4h:

Keep hush. Notable for being Tool's first video and the only one in which the band appeared.
Keep Jambi. Currently a single off the latest Tool album 10,000 Days.
Keep or Merge Lateralus. It's notable as the title track on the album Lateralus, but info here might do well to be merged to the album article (which needs cleaned up).

User Wikidan829:

Strong Keep Hush. It was Tool's first single and music video, and the only one that the band was actually in. This is enough to prove notability.
Keep Jambi. Currently a single on the new album from last year. If what Johnnyw said above is true, we wouldn't want to have to make it again, better leave it alone.
Strong Keep Lateralus. Title track, has references, definitely went through the ringer not a month ago and came out the other side.

User Johnnyw (Keep for all of the above, as below)

Somewhat agree. I agree that most of the articles are in a miserable state, but that shouldn't be a criteria for deletion, rather a reason to revamp them. Some of those songs are actually important to the band history and notable in general.

In particular:

I would definitely keep Lateralus (song). It's a prime example of the musical traits of the band, with it's odd meter and "fibonacci style" lyrics, which has all been verified and referenced in the parent article Tool (band).

I'd also definitely keep Hush: it's the band's first single, and the only song with a music video which features appearances by the members (to protest censorship) and has been covered in several articles about the band. References and addition content can be added (e.g. put the song in context with other songs protesting the PMRC sticker, add screenshot of music video, add to category of protest songs): [2] [3]

I am not sure about the other songs yet, would have to look into it at more detail.. Some of the songs mentioned are radio singles, supposedly, there is a music video under production for "Jambi", so could be a bad choice removing it only to recreate it in a couple of months.. Greetings! Johnnyw talk 11:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Hush & Jambi, as they were singles.
Merge Lateralus to the album.

User Sens08:

Delete Jambi (song). nn.
Keep Lateralus (song). For the use of the Fibonacci number sequence. This likely fits OR.

User Pomte:

Keep Jambi for charting high on two Billboard charts, on par with the status of the last 2 "singles", The Pot and Vicarious.
Keep Hush if only for the fact that the article had been responsible for spreading false info about who director its music video, so the article now appropriately dispels this myth (see User talk:Pomte/Archive 1#Talk:Ken Andrews and Tool (Band) for some details). While this may not be Wikipedia's goal, I have added 6 sources with some more claim to notability. Since Tool doesn't exactly release singles, the songs with music videos are seen to be the landmark songs. –Pomte 00:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom. --Infrangible 19:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All others[edit]

General comment: for some of the songs, where OR or unverifiability is suggested, try a google search (add the parameter "site:toolshed.down.net" at first).

Proposal: Merge all articles that do not stand out but are verifiable and interesting in regards to describing the bands characters. Which would mean:

Strong merge with Ænema, Undertow:

Forty-Six & 2: as per Daveh4h

Third Eye (song): references Bill Hicks, to whom the entire album was dedicated.. noteworthy! [4]

Disgustipated: The thing actually stems from a "historic" acoustic live set with Alice in Chains, RATM, or at least the idea.. that night they smashed a lot of instruments.... In the studio, sledgehammers were used to reenact. [5] The last part, the speech about the carrots is by Bill Hicks, the voice is instantly recognizable imho, but the only source I have until now confirms only that it's recited by "Bill". [6]

Weak delete: Hooker with a Penis: although there is a source saying the song is about selling out ([7]) I don't really know if that is really interesting enough..

delete Die Eier Von Satan.. sources documenting this song are aplenty, but weak notability..

delete The Grudge as per Daveh4h

Delete H.... as per Daveh4h

I would be willing to do some of the proposed changes myself, but am currently working on the Tool article itself, to complete the drive towards GA. But, with a little help, it could work I guess =) Johnnyw talk 18:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to sources documenting this song are aplenty, but weak notability..: This is the definition of notability. –Pomte 01:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to say that the sources that exist only mention the song, but don't go into detail or deliver any substance to the article. Sources I have gathered now state the obvious: [8], [9] this tool newsletter states that the song has been used without consent in a movie trailer for a Jenna Jameson porn.. but that's it.Johnnyw talk 09:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

here we go:

Delete Die Eier Von Satan. As noted, it's not even a song. Not notable.
Delete Disgustipated. More of a song than the previous, but not notable. Removing the lyrics would leave the article bare, and I think the lyrics in the article is a copyvio. Besides the lyrics, it is original research.
Keep Forty-Six & 2. Single received a lot of airplay and this article actually has references.
Delete H. - Not notable, original research.
Delete Hooker with a Penis. Only interesting part of it is the meaning part, and that appears to be original research.
Delete The Grudge. Not notable enough for its own article, original research.
Merge anything verifiable/usable in Third Eye (song) to Ænima. I think that some of the info in this may be verifiable, but am concerned with it as a standalone article.

Much of the info in the articles nominated is redundant from the album articles. We would be better off focusing on anything verifiable from these articles to potentially expand and refine their respective album articles. I'm open to any arguments to the contrary. daveh4h 11:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well my statements will probably be redundant, but:

Delete or Merge Die Eier Von Satan. Not even a song, but I don't think this should disappear altogether, maybe put in the parent article. It's a classic example of Tool's disinformation, which I think is an important aspect of the band.
Delete Disgustipated. Just not important enough
Weak keep Forty-Six & 2. Shows the evolutionary themes to the band, got a ton of airplay. It's neat info, but if it has to go, oh well.
Delete H.. Not notable.
Delete Hooker with a Penis. Probably fails OR.
Delete The Grudge. Not notable.
Delete or Merge Third Eye (song). Not enough information in there. Maybe someone can source it, but this could be an OR cesspool.

Wikidan829 13:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Forty-Six & 2, Delete the others. EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Die Eier Von Satan. It is simply nn.
Strong Delete Disgustipated. A quote straight from the article: "It is 15:47 long, most of it being only a drumbeat, or a low beeping sound towards the end."
Weak Keep Forty-Six & 2. Its played at every show (and is backed up by a source).
Delete H.. The title is unreal, but the song is another nn track.
Delete Hooker with a Penis for failing OR.
Weak Delete The Grudge (song). Interesting time signature, perhaps one of the most, but Tool as a band is notorious for this, making this song seem ordinary.
Delete Third Eye (song). The dedication is interesting, but that's it.

Tool is an interesting band, and is very mainstream. For these tracks to be considered notable, they must contain something of value. Through looking at these, Forty-Six & 2 and Lateralus (song) are the only ones I can see with any sort of value.Sens08 23:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claims about non-notability may be personal judgments; there are actually independent reliable sources out there about seemingly obscure Tool songs, though I'm not sure about the exact number of them since "tool" isn't the most friendly keyword to search for. I think the WP:MUSIC proposal for songs can be overridden by the presence of RS. All of these songs have some sort of quirk that distinguishes from the others, so at least some of them are bound to be the subject of sources. Some good, reliable ones:

Journal article by a Senior Lecturer at the University of Adelaide
Academic interview with Keenan by an instructor at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology
The Canadian radio show The Ongoing History of New Music has published 10 pages worth of Tool facts

Other student papers are not as reliable, but they can be used for non-controversial facts. The Tool FAQ provides the background info for hunting independent sources, as well as the hundreds of news articles transcribed.

I've been meaning to go through the articles extensively at some point, but so far I've only rewritten Hooker with a Penis and added citations here and there to the various song articles, including the singles not listed here. I'm probably not going to perfect these within 5 days, so for any that get consensus to be deleted, can they be userfied to be worked on over time ~~(with the exception of Disgustipated for copyvio/lack of content reasons)~~? –Pomte 02:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That Disgustipated is lacking content is a misconception, although I am really not that sure about that Bill Hicks part anymore.. still, please see my post above. Johnnyw talk 09:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petition: Please reconsider Disgustipated, I have rewritten the entire article. I think it deserves a second chance.. Johnnyw talk 11:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You did a nice job. I thought this particular entry was un-savable. However, I am still concerned with it as a standalone article. Right now I am thinking Merge to Undertow, but I still want to look at the album articles as they stand now and if we can improve them with these (potentially deleted) articles. daveh4h 21:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks, I knew there was some info on that song, just never came around to work on any song articles.. Well, after looking at the album articles, I'd suggest to keep the best, merge the rest, aka the articles that would get deleted otherwise, with the albums and go on a drive to get the Tool album articles up to par with the band article. The album articles really are in a quite miserable state.. but before that, we should finish with the band article to get it to GA =) --Johnnyw talk 17:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Forty-Six & 2, Merge others, particularly Disgustipated, with their respective albums. Song notable beyond being on the album. (The formatting of this deletion debate confused me, so I listed it in the regular way.) User:Krator (t c) 18:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Arbuthnot[edit]

This person though of interest to his family is not at all notable. May be he did have great achievements but they are certainly not mentioned here and I can not find them listed elsewhere. The only reference seems to have been written by a family member almost 90 years ago, they too were obviously unaware of anything making their kinsman notable. I think this particular Arbuthnot has to be deleted. Giano 09:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP not Genealogy is one of our older principles, and the only thing the article gives us is that this is a soldier. Well, there are quite a few of them, and many even have descendants who play with Wikipedia. Family does not bronze a life. Geogre 09:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable here. Dr Gangrene 09:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability and Wikipedia is not a genealogical site. Hut 8.5 11:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- If more information is provided on why he has a stained glass window dedicated to him (designed by a notable designer), then this could give editors more indication of notability. Thunderwing 12:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply his relations had the money to pay for it. At that time (and I suspect now) anyone can pay for a memorial window in a church so long as the design and designer are approved by the board of Church Architects - who have a list of approved (usually proven and notable)designers and craftemen. Giano 12:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that answer- I just wanted a double check incase there was something not apparent from the article. Given the lack of evidence I would say Delete as it fails WP:BIO Thunderwing 19:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - being an Arbuthnot is not a free pass to notability, and this one appears not to pass Wikipedia:Notability. No assertion of encyclopedic relevance. Per Giano. Moreschi ^Talk 12:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Or we would open a door to entries for any soldier who reached the rank of Major or above in the British Army. I suppose a list of Soldiers who took part in the Battle of Omdurman could work, but do we really want any more lists? Duke of Whitstable 15:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO.Montco 15:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything verifiable to Sir John Arbuthnot, 1st Baronet who was his son and certainly worth HIS article. A line can be included in that article regarding the father, who is not worth an article.--Doc^g 16:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A privately printed family genealogy fails WP:A. Lacks evidence of encyclopedic 'arbuthnotabiliity'. Edison 19:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not confuse verifiability with notability. Actually, most of the information is verified by the commonwealth war graves citation given in the article. So WP:A is met. I say again, why not merge the verifiable information? --Doc^g 19:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because Doc, that would require effort and work on some one's part. This has been suggested to the primary author on countless occasions, he does not agree. Giano 19:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unremarkable KIA. --Dhartung | Talk 20:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oh, for heavens sake. It is interesting that he was at the Battle of Omdurman, but he was apparently a captain at the time - one of many, no doubt, in a force of 8,000 British regulars. Just being an army officer, or being the father of someone who was created a baronet, is not notable. And he died a major at Ypres. Again, one of many. Did he actually do anything of note? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No vote If this were a vote I mean, because it's not, even though it kind of is... --Infrangible 19:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the article on his son Sir John Arbuthnot, 1st Baronet, per User:Doc glasgow. Not notable enough on his own. EdJohnston 02:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Slavlin 21:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Walton ^{Need some help?} 19:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Arbuthnot of Meethill[edit]

Not notable and what limited information is there is doubtful Giano 10:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- no evidence that this person meets WP:BIO Thunderwing 11:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - notable, maybe not that notable but notable all the same. --Counter-revolutionary 11:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn individual. Montco 15:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let's see, he was a merchant, a mayor, and he owned a ship. We don't typically include people with no more claim to notability than that, even leaving aside any dubiousness in the reliability of the sources. DES ^(talk) 16:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...the ship is notable though, if that's relevant. --Counter-revolutionary 16:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is relevant, unless it is documented that he had a god deal to do with its notability. DES ^(talk) 17:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the claim is Kittybrewster's website (the wrong page; this one mentions Thomas, but not the ship). He may well be right; but this is not reliable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List of Provosts of Peterhead and have the two verifiable sentences about him there. No need to remove the information, but no need for an article either.--Doc^g 16:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC) Actually, there's nothing verifiable to merge that's not there. Delete.--Doc^g 20:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per Doc. Edison 19:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userify to Kittybrewster's userspace; there would be nothing wrong with an article on the family. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, shockingly unnotable. Provosts of a town that has a modern population of 18,000 simply don't pass WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 23:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No vote Although if it was spelled meathill that would be kind of funny because it would make you think of a hill of meat, and who would pile a bunch of meat in a hill. That's silly! --Infrangible 20:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
note: See related nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Arbuthnot of Invernettie. DES ^(talk) 22:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He is already in the List of Provosts of Peterhead, so there is nothing to merge, and there is no source to show he is connected to the famous ship. Mrs Arbuthnot's "Memories" says nothing about the ship, and even the kittybrewster.com genealogy doesn't connect him to a specific ship. EdJohnston 04:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There have been thousands like him and there will be thousands more. — MichaelLinnear 04:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to Keep. Walton ^{Need some help?} 19:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Wright (basketball player)[edit]

Notable? Or not notable? From speedy, which it certainly is not. However, we don't have a lot of articles on high school basketball players. But they are sometimes notable - I recall Pete Maravich was a celebrity when in high school. I don't know anything about h.s. b-ball so I don't know if a 30 point average is special or not or what a McDonalds All-American is, but the claim (if true) "...has been a Washington Post All-Met for the last 3 years, an honor only Adrian Dantley has accomplished in the last 30 years" sounds somewhat notable, granted that we are only talking about an all-city. Utterly unsourced. Herostratus 19:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral as nominator. I do not know enough about the subject to comment. I would say, though: what's the hurry to make this article? If he does anything notable in college we can add him then, if he flames out in college do we really want to keep an article on him? Herostratus 19:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless this guy has declared for the NBA Draft and I don't know about it, he's non-notable. Blueboy 96 19:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Under the new rules, he cannot even enter the NBA draft. Thats why Greg Oden and Kevin Durant spent an obligatory year in college. At this point, has he even committed to a school? At this point, he is just a really good high school player.Montco 15:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~STTTTTRRRROOOONNNGGGG KKKKKEEEEEEEEEPPPPPP~~ Horribly premature AfD. (less than 1 minute after article was created). May have confused and discouraged the editor. This guy is one of the most important athletes of his generation in the United States and I am glad to see WP has a bio for him. Do not delete this article. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Still a keeper after reconsidering. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 05:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No verifiable or reliable sources. No sources whatsoever. No proof that this person even exists. DarkAudit 18:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral much improved. Good job. DarkAudit 19:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I may have overstated his case as he was not player of the year for his city, but he is notable and now sourced. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - despite the sourcing he is still a high school player and fails WP:BIO since there is a professional level - amateur players in professional sports are not notable. BlueValour 20:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Does the fact that he has won significant honors make a difference? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - no; he has won the honours at school level. If we were to accept that for notability then we would have to accept amateur plaers in a wide range of sports. BlueValour 16:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment The honors were of a national nature, though. College sports in the US is covered on a level exceeding some pro sports elsewhere in the world. High school sports may not reach that level of coverage, but some players will as they approach time to commit to a school. This player may be in high school, but he has received national recognition. DarkAudit 16:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment clearly pro/amateur is not the border line on notability. Look at the page creation date for the first round draft picks in this years NFL draft. Blue chippers have articles long before they are pro. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep News coverage satisfies notability. --Infrangible 20:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to news coverage. Ab e g92contribs 17:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and cleanup I guess being a McDonald's All-American and Jordan Classic invitee is notable (although winning a 3-point contest at the McD's doesn't belong in the first paragraph). But a lot of high school All-Americans are never/rarely heard from again, and I wonder if the article would be better off if we waited until his college career started. Ytny (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fully-winged Dodo[edit]

Strong Delete - This page is totally unesscesary and is basically fan-cruft. I see no reason why it should exist. .:Alex:. 10:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we have no need for an article on every aspect of every game. No strong objection to a merge though. Hut 8.5 11:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable fictional aircraft. Jacek Kendysz 13:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced non-existent not-notable fictional aircraft. DarkAudit 13:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per WP:FICT. ~ Magnus animuM ^{BRAIN FREEZE!} 21:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and what little info there is here is compromised by original research. QuagmireDog 03:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; refers to a fictional aircraft with very little relevance even in the game itself. A merge would be pointless, as the topic is mentioned briefly in the article Grand Theft Auto III. Monkeymox 09:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, only weasely suggestions of its existence. I'm going to say hoax. --Infrangible 20:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 there is no assertion of notability. --Wafulz 15:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln scheiding[edit]

How does this article satisfy WP:NOTABILITY? AulaTPN 11:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete It doesn't. It's speediable per A7, and has now been tagged as such. DarkAudit 13:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to Keep. Walton Need some help? 19:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC).

Stacy Meyer[edit]

This article is about a non-notable person who died. Everyone dies, and many who die in tragic accidents are mentioned in newspapers and on the news. We cannot and should not have an article for every one of them. - hmwith talk 17:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is sourced to reputable secondary sourced citations, and is attributed as such. Notable event for the strange circumstances surrounding the death, and subsequent investigation by a Federal Agency of the United States government. If the article remains, it will be expanded upon further by additional citations from reputable secondary sources. Smee 17:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

subsequent investigation by a Federal Agency of the United States government. We will forgive you for not realizing that it was Cal/OSHA, not Federal OSHA (though that is clear if you but read the documents). My question, Smee, is what makes you think that the investigation was somehow special and notable? --Justanother 18:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per stated above, the unusual nature of the events surrounding the death, as well as the coincidental nature of the fact that a previous unnatural death was being protested at the exact same time of this death, which will also be expanded upon in the article. I would rather not take up the rest of this AFD with a back-and-forth long thread, however. Smee 18:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

All accidental deaths are unusual. If things were usual there would be no-one dead there. And, just for the record, Cal/OSHA is required by law (California Labor Code 6313(a)) to investigate just about every single worker fatality. [10] Nothing to see here, folks, just keep moving. --Justanother 18:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Per Smee. The biography is also noteworthy due to closely related protests, controversies, etc. Ombudsman 17:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. There are reputable secondary sources for thousands of other deaths by accidental electrocution and even more for accidental deaths by other means, but having sources still doesn't make all those people notable. The article provides no meaningful assertion of notability. There's an increasing mindset among certain editors that simply being connected to Scientology in some way instantly confers notability. It doesn't. wikipediatrix 18:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. While it is true that everyone dies, not everyone dies in what are clearly suspicious circumstances, and not everyone who dies is the subject of an OSHA file. Nor is everyone who dies the daughter of a controversial attorney for a cult well known for its harassment of former members of said cult and its critics through litigation. This background makes the subject notable. There remains many unanswered questions relating to the tragic death of the subject, and the investigation of events surrounding her death. The circumstances of the subject's death also forms a key part of the Keith Henson defense, and at this time, the Henson matter is a current event. As this article has been only newly created (on May 9), I feel it is premature at this time to list this article for AfD when there are clearly a number of reliable sources in the article already. Orsini 18:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Clearly suspicious circumstances" doesn't equal notability, or else everyone on "Cold Case Files" or "Unsolved Mysteries" would be here. "Daughter of a controversial attorney" doesn't equal notability, because proximity to notable people does not in itself bestow notability. wikipediatrix 18:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - She is notable for the circumstances surrounding her death, as there remains much controversy about it. She is notable on her own merits, therefore her notability is not inherited from her father; rather, her family ties supplement her notability and do not create it. Please show statistics of the numbers of people appearing on "Cold Case Files" or "Unsolved Mysteries" who have died while in the charge of any allegedly religious organization which has had its senior members prosecuted and imprisoned for interference in the processes of the administration of justice, and also pursues its former members and critics with manufactured charges and frivolous civil litigation. Orsini 19:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No indication any authority has pronounced it "suspicious." CAL/OSHA said "a non-criminal accidental death." The suspicion seems to come from anti-scientology websites which misreport the facts. Edison 21:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The OSHA report states the subject entered the transformer room of depth 8 feet with a wooden step ladder of length 6 feet. That is one suspicious fact fact which has not been misreported. Orsini 08:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable enough to have been in the papers, also notable in her connection to Keith Henson (who was convicted partly because he protested about it), Kendrick Moxon (Moxon & Kobrin) and New Era Publications. This isn't an isolated slip and fall case. --Tilman 20:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are deaths mentioned in the newspapers daily. My father died, also a freak accident that has yet to be fully explained (7 years later) and there were several subsequent articles in the paper about his death (not in the obituaries, but main articles) and what he had done for Toledo, Ohio during his life. This doesn't mean that a subject is notable enough for an encyclopedia. Newspapers have articles about deaths in cities nearly everyday. - hmwith talk 22:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - hmwith, my condolences on the tragic death of your father. However, I think the difference between your personal situation and the subject of this article is: (1) primarily, that a direct member of the subject's family is employed by the same organization whose care she was in; (2) both that same family member and that same organization have together been involved in covering up human rights and legal abuses of that organization, in the course of that employment; and (3) the witnesses on record who have made statements about the subject's death have been publicly accused of perjury and giving false testimony in criminal trials, with matters peripherally involved to the subject's death. I believe these factors combine to make the subject particularly notable. I intend no denigration about your father here, but I believe Stacy Meyer's death is more notable (from the standpoint of a Wikipedia article) than his, by reason of her death in the hands of an organization with an extensively documented and well-earned reputation for interfering with official (i.e. governmental and external to itself) investigations. It is also worth mentioning that Kenneth Hoden, the scientology spokesperson quoted in the article about the subject's concern for the welfare of squirrels in the transformer room, has been publicly accused of giving false testimony under oath at the trial of Keith Henson in relation to events surrounding the shooting of a scientologist, and other matters at that trial. As Mr. Henson's extradition is a current event and the circumstances of the subject's death are a key matter relating to this current event, I reiterate my opinion that listing the article for AfD at this time is premature, especially when the article is well sourced as it currently stands. Orsini 04:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think she was murdered, Orsini? Steve Dufour 14:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Tilman, if the OSHA report doesn't say suspicious circumstances then the death isn't suspicious and claiming much suspicion exists, is WP:OR. Saying it isn't an isolated slip-and-fall case is also WP:OR. And, if it isnt isolated, then the conspiracy you ellude to isnt Stacy Meyer, so this event would only be 1 piece of data in your bigger picture. Still not justification for an entire article. And... Wiki is WP:NOT - #6 news reports. Lsi john 16:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While her death at such a young age is sad, that plus her membership in an organization do not add up to notability. I would guess that the rate of accidental death for Scientologists is somewhat lower than that of the general population, for one thing they mostly don't drink. Steve Dufour 21:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The purpose of such an article would be to crossreference it with Scientology-articles and therefore make Scientology connected to her death, or responsible? Or somehow involved? It is using the death of a young woman to smear Scientology. This is ugly and ashaming but not notable. COFS 04:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC) — COFS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Thank you for providing your opinion, User:COFS. That's one vote for you, per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS. Thanks. Smee 04:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - You are bordering PA here, Smee. I am not going to tell the other guys not to vote or wave their right to have their own opinion, if you like this or not. COFS 04:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am bordering on nothing. This is as per statements made by multiple Admins. Smee 04:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - Undeclared conflict of interest by User:COFS - Note that User:COFS has an undeclared conflict of interest per WP:COI policy in requesting the deletion of this article. This editor is one of several meatpuppet accounts involved in editing scientology related articles, which are organized from the same scientology headquarters. Thus this editor cannot be considered to be "acting independently" or with NPOV. This matter has been reported on the COI Noticeboard. Orsini 07:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No violation There is no "undeclared" about it. COFS' username would clearly indicate a connection and the user self-identifies as a Scientologist on his user page. Combined with the use of the Church proxy we can assume that he is a Church staff member (I do not remember if he said that already). As far as voting here; COFS is the first user of the Church proxy to vote here so no COI violation. There is no evidence that the Church proxy users are acting in concert and so the "meatpuppet" charge is unwarranted (the proxy is used by Church members worldwide). I will say that any other editors that are Scientology staff members should not now vote here and should only comment to the extent of adding material not yet presented, not to reinforce material already presented. I mention, of course, that AfD is "not a vote" and if another Church proxy user has something new to contribute then they are welcomed. And finally, Orsini, based on your edit-history, I could as much claim that you are a meatpuppet; one of a number of off-wiki critics of Scientology that work together to present a false "consensus". --Justanother 12:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reflection, I do not think it is inappropriate for users of the Church proxy to vote on this AfD. There was no evidence that they were acting as "meatpuppets" and, IMO, COI would only apply to their editing the actual specific articles of the Church of Scientology and other Church-owned entities. In other words, the COI would apply if they edit the articles about their employer. Since our critics would create an article about every single person, issue, or firm that has any connection to Scientology, no matter how distant, I think that COFS, CSI LA, and the rest of the Church proxy users have plenty to work on without editing the actual articles about their employer. --Justanother 23:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is no reason that the opinion of User:COFS in an AfD should somehow be portrayed as counting less than anyone else's. If he's allowed to edit articles, he's allowed to participate in their AfDs. This is a new low in Wiki-bullying and speaks of apparent desperation on the part of anti-Scientology editors, who are demonstrably far more organized and militant in their POV-pushing than the Scientologists themselves. wikipediatrix 18:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - wikipediatrix, do you think the scientology organization itself should be allowed to violate Wikipedia policy to whitewash its image, by removing well-sourced but unflattering information about itself? WP:COI is clear on this point: "(Conflicts of interest can) include, but are not limited to, those posed by edits made by: public relations departments of corporations; or of other public or private for-profit or not-for-profit organizations; or by professional editors paid to edit a Wikipedia article with the sole intent of improving that organization's image." I guess Steve Dufour and wikipediatrix would also assume no conflict of interest would exist if a Ford PR agent edited the Ford Pinto article and removed the section about safety problems by reason of the lame excuse: "it's being used to smear the Ford Motor Company", or listed the article for AfD on that basis. This is a new low in Wiki-bullying and speaks of apparent desperation on the part of the scientology organization, who are demonstrably far more organized and militant in their POV-pushing than the "critics". Orsini 03:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen many an AfD where the subject of the article, or someone directly connected to the subject, put in a 'delete' or 'keep' comment. What usually happens is that someone adds a note saying "let it be known that this user has admitted being an employee of said company, or a relative of said person", or whatever, and that was that. I don't see what all the fuss is about here, because his one vote won't alter the outcome of an AfD, which is actually not a vote. wikipediatrix 02:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has it been established that he works in the PR department of CoS?
Has it been established that he is being paid to write wiki articles?
Do we have to prove sole intent of improving or can we just imply it?

Your commentary seems to lack an assumption of WP:AGF. Nobody suggested he wasn't biased. That doesn't imply COI. There are editors with anti-CoS websites, does that mean they are COI editors? Lsi john 03:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - From WP:AGF: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. Lsi john, you appear unable to understand what constitues a conflict of interest on Wikipedia. Please consult the Help_desk. Orsini 04:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orsini, I was trying to address the points you raised here. I did not see that you had claimed that he was guilty of repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. I apologize. Lsi john 04:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here is the statement of purpose of Project Scientology:

"This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics."

How are you going to do that if you exclude Scientologists from the discussion? Steve Dufour 13:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Nothing "special" here - a tragic worker fatality. Happens all the time, unfortunately, and safety professionals do what they can to stem the tide. May as well vote now. I was kinda waiting to see who chimed in on the Keep side; something I always find interesting. --Justanother 13:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nothing special here? Happens all the time? A woman lifting a 230 pound steel manhole cover on her own, to access on underground vault 8 feet deep with a 6 feet ladder, for the reason there are squirrels in that vault? Either they must breed very strong squirrels in Gilman Springs, or did those little fellows use their OT powers to lift that 230 pound cover? Or do you mean safety violations and death by electrocution are regular occurrences in the buildings inhabited by the scientology organization? Justanother, please clarify these points for we poor "wogs", and clarify also why "tragic worker fatalities" in scientology compounds are "nothing special" and what precisely "happens all the time" in relation to deaths in scientology buildings. Orsini 08:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orsini, I can see that your field of expertise is more cerebral than physical. She did not "lift" the cover, she slid it off using a loop of wire through the handle. That is what Cal/OSHA says and they are experienced investigators that were on-site. And as someone that has removed plenty of heavy vault covers, let me say that would have been no problem for the young groundskeeper and I have seem slight females do it plenty of times (if it is part of their job, they do not like the strong guys to do it for them). And do you have any idea how someone would access an 8-foot deep hole with a 6-foot ladder? Again, read the reports; she dropped it in against the wall and only had to lower herself two feet to the top step. Even you could lower yourself two feet, couldn't you? That is a misuse of the ladder and a safety violation but so is entering the vault. And does carelessness and disregard for safety and the requirements of their workplace kill workers "all the time". You bet. Those are the things I know. Unlike you I will not speculate on squirrels. Your misrepresentation, innuendo, and "conspiracy theorizing" in contradiction to the report of the experienced and neutral on-site investigators is very helpful and illustrative of the techniques employed by anti-Scientology propagandists, so thanks for the, no doubt unintentional, exposition. --Justanother 15:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Justanother, you have been blocked before and warn for using terms like "anti-Scientology propagandists", almost verbatim. Please avoid language like this. Polite discussion is more conducive to constructive dialogue. Orsini's comment may have been inappropriate as well, but you should not throw around such terminology. Thanks. Smee 15:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I stand by my statement, Smee. Orsini's misrepresentation, innuendo, and "conspiracy theorizing" in contradiction to the report of the experienced and neutral on-site investigators is very helpful and illustrative of the techniques employed by anti-Scientology propagandists, so thanks for the, no doubt unintentional, exposition. I would bold it or put it in a {{cquote|template}} but that would be bit much. no? --Justanother 15:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that you "stand by" your statement, but it is most inappropriate. Language like "anti-Scientology propagandists", does nothing constructive whatsoever for anything on the project. Smee 15:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment The report states that the small vault was required to have PVC pipes extend above the roof for ventilation. A squirrel had entered through one of the vents three weeks earlier and been electricuted. The deceased had discussed how much she loved squirrels and that she was worried about squirrels getting electricuted. These were transformers which have insulators a few inches long extending above the metal top with bare 7200 volt conductors. Squirrels often stand on the top and touch the conductors, causing outages due to animal contact. If they are outdoors, sometimes the utilities place rubber protectors over the insulators to discourage this. In an enclosed vault it would not be judged necessary. Edison 16:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT - What Wikipedia is NOT - #6. News Reports. The article starts off with how she died. The only significant amount of information contained in this article is the investigation. That is the definition of a news report. Looking through the article history, it also appears that the intention of this article may have been WP:SOAP based on all the apparent attempts to blame the cause of death on Scientology. Lsi john 15:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT and WP:BLP a 'biography' that's only about someone's death - no-Doc^g 16:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteIt was well established in the 1870's that even momentary contact with high voltage AC is usually instantaneously fatal. The CAL/OSHA documents shown as references provide compelling evidence that her death was accidental. She had no knowlewdge of electrical precautions, and had no reason to enter the vault other than curiosity. The small vault had poletop-type transformers with 7200 volt bare conductors a few feet from the floor. She had asked about the vault in relation to a squirrel which had entered it through a vent 3 weeks before and been electricuted. When electricians worked in the vault, they killed the power first. Such a death is very likely when an untrained person enters such a vault. The CAL/OSHA document called it a "non-criminal accidental death." No safety violations on the part of the owners were found which contributed to the death. Anti-scientology websites such as [11] have misstated the facts to try and create a conspiracy theory. There is no reason to have a Wikipedia article on this tragic accidental death. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and the fact that an accideedntal death was reported does not mean it has encyclopedic notability. Edison 20:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Edison, please see the OSHA report, and in particular, the fact that the report states the subject entered a transformer room measuring 6 feet by 6 feet and 8 feet deep, by means of a 6 foot wooden step ladder. You may draw your own conclusions as to how a person can allegadly use a ladder of length 6 feet to enter a room which is 8 feet deep, after this woman also allegadly moved a solid steel manhole cover of weight 230 pounds on her own. I think that any person who can enter a room 8 feet underground using a six feet ladder - according to an offical government document - is very notable. It seems clear that someone isn't telling the truth about this accident. Orsini 08:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did read the entire report. There would be no difficulty in a healthy young woman sliding the manhole cover off the opening. Female utility workers do it every day. She never had to lift the entire weight. I have seen a similar sized woman move a 350 pound piano (without lifting it!) The report from CAL/OSHA said it was within her capability to slide the cover using the rubber cord which had been left on it after the electricians had slid it off earlier when the squirrel got electricuted, which apparently led her to enter the vault out of curiosity. As for using a 6 foot ladder to enter a vault 8 feet deep, it is not the safest way to enter. Someone could get hurt! One investigator in the report said it looked like she might have fallen from the ladder and touched the bare 7200 volt wire on top of the transformer to catch herself. It would be very easy to make contact in the vault with the live conductors. Utility vaults (better built than this customer vault) often have permanent metal ladders attached to the side, which obviously stop before the exit the vault. It is not that difficult to climb in and out with one. Climbing down the ladder permanently attached to the wall of a utility vault is not that different from climbing down a ladder leaning against the side of the vault. It is original research to claim things are suspicious or impossible when the official report says they are quite possible and that the death was accidental. The vault was a lethal place once an untrained person entered it, and was so hazardous that the electricians killed the power before entering it. The official coroner's report callit an accidental death [12]. An accidental death is generally not the makings of an encyclopedia article. [13] cites 482 accidental deaths a year in the U.S from electricity. Does each deserve an article if it was ain the paper, as they all were? Edison 16:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This death was discussed in reliable sources, so it should be included. *** Crotalus *** 21:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Do you have any idea how many deaths have been discussed in reliable sources? Just about every unusual accident or homicide. - hmwith talk 23:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reliable source is a requirement, not a justification. Your logic suggests writing an article for every lengthy Obituary in every newspaper, which WP is NOT. Lsi john 23:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Per Smee. 65.241.15.131 21:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This unfortunate person is just not notable. Her tragic death was investigated and there was no foul play indicated. Should something change, bring it back. JodyB_talk 21:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The problem is that the real reason this death is notable, the conclusions of those opposed to Scientology who believe that she was murdered or at the very least sent into the vault as punishment, are not attributable to reliable sources. Without that, we don't really have an article; she's just someone who died, probably accidentally. Unless we get confirmation through independent secondary sources that her death is worth discussing, we should not have this article, regardless of whether we believe it is nefarious or not. There is simply no reason for us to have an article that summarizes a CALOSHA report. --Dhartung | Talk 23:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per Dhartung. I see no reason however, that limited information on her death could not be added to the article Lisa McPherson Trust, an organization founded for the purpose of indentifying deaths of scientologists and suspected human rights abuses by the Church. That article is only a stub. The article on Stacy Meyer contains a quote from that group characterizing her death as suspicious so I would presume they have investigated it or have an interest in the event.LiPollis 02:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just because a Scientologist dies doesn't make them notable. Agree with LiPollis that some information might appropriately be added to the Lisa Mcpherson Trust article. Vgranucci 06:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Shamelessly quoting out of context: One squirrel had been killed when it ventured into the vault, Golden Era General Manager Ken Hoden to Karin Marriott of the Riverside Press-Enterprise. — Erik Warmelink 08:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You did not state a reason for keeping. Edison 16:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Multiple, independent reliable sources, meets notability standards imho as much as hundreds of bios we already have. Keep per undue influence being attempted to squash mention of bios perceived as negative by a certain cadre. Wikipedia is not censored. Wjhonson 20:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Who thinks this bio is negative? I'm not a scientologist, and I don't care who this article offends or not. It's soley notability for which this article is nominated, and I hope others aren't letting personal feelings get in the way of neutral opinions. - hmwith talk 12:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep News coverage satisfies notability. --Infrangible 20:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The news covers nearly every accidental death. That does not equal notability. - hmwith talk 12:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Aren't there enough things about which to criticise Scientology without making up conspiracy theories? There are about 50,000 Scientologists in the USA. Out of that number I would expect a few to die each year of various causes. Besides that, do you think that all 21 year old women are whimps? You just slide the cover out of the way, maybe using a crowbar to lift one side. Then you put lean the ladder, while folded, against one wall of the pit and climb down. Not a smart thing to do but no special strength or skill is required. Steve Dufour 21:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand with more sources. Darrenhusted 22:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wjhonson. Robertissimo 02:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliably sourced and notable.--Fahrenheit451 03:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sources are there. We determine notability based on the existence of sources. Everyking 08:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rubbish!--Doc^g 09:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The news covers nearly every accidental death. That does not equal notability. - hmwith talk 12:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does if there are multiple, independent, non-trivial sources. Everyking 19:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If. Lsi john 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think there are? There are certainly multiple sources, and most of them appear to be definitely non-trivial. The only way I could see that you might have an argument is that four of the five sources are from the same paper. Everyking 03:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same paper, that's right. You've basically just admitted that this was an event of primarily local interest, as far as media coverage goes. I have a cousin who was also accidentally electrocuted and who was also written about in multiple issues of the local paper, but he was a Methodist, not a Scientologist, and I guess that makes a big difference to some people here. wikipediatrix 16:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly a locally notable death; the sources are multiple, independent, non-trivial in my judgment. Notable also in relation to Henson, and that the case caused Henson to move the court to dismiss the local DA's office from his case, because it showed bias in the Meyer case, in his opinion, which is an unusual application of that right. Hornplease 08:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Tilman --Kalevala 15:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC) — Kalevala (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note to closing admin I sincerely hope that you will not fall for all the non-notable and far-fetched "conspiracy-theorizing"; such is not the stuff of an encyclopedia and it can stay on alt.religion.scientology and ARS-derivative POV websites where it belongs and where those few that are interested can find all the conspiracy theorizing that they care to. That one of these ARS regulars, Keith Henson, fell for the conspiracy theories and broke the law adds little notability. The only real issue to decide here is if the local coverage in one newspaper meets the requirements of WP:BIO. I will not tell you how to decide that but simply mention that, yes, an accidental worker fatality in what must be a somewhat mysterious Scientology compound in a quiet area of the Inland Empire would get some local attention. Compare a recent situation where three divers perished while wreck diving on the Spiegel Grove. That got a lot of press attention locally and even nationally and lots of notice in the dive community, a community much larger by several orders of magnitude than the Scientology critic community. Did that make the dead divers; Kevin Coughlin, Jonathan Walsweer, or Scott Stanley; notable? Is Stacy Meyer notable? Or is it simply Scientology and criticism of Scientology that are notable?; areas that are well-represented here. --Justanother 13:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to note: Exactly. I couldn't have said it better myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmwith (talk • contribs) 15:31, 18 May 2007

Note to closing admin Please excuse Justanother's longwinded diatribe. In regards a Keith Henson "breaking a law": the California state law was lobbied for by the cofs and is called "interfering with a religion". Henson allegedly interfered by picketing their Hemet, CA compound. It is interesting how the cofs claims religious interference when it, in fact, interferes quite actively with freedom of speech.--Fahrenheit451 05:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F451, can you possibly (just possibly?) make a talk page post without denigrating another editor by name? Is that something you can manage? A yes or no will suffice. --Justanother 11:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is noteworthy in that it sheds light on possible foul play by the Church. This is a valuable piece of information in the coverage of the controversy surrounding Sceintology; this is why it made it into the papers. -Shadowfax0 16:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a news reporting service. Whether the article "sheds light" on anyone's "possible foul play" or not has nothing to do with notability criteria in an AfD discussion. wikipediatrix 17:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even going to ask how can you shed light on speculation and possible foul play? Light is used to illuminate substance and fact. Lsi john 18:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing in the article to establish why this person is notable. If this article is meant to be notable because of some connection to Scientology then this should be in article and reliably sourced. Without this, it is just a death which was investigated, like many many thousands of others which do not deserve articles just because of an investigation. Davewild 18:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please limit the comments to article discussion. Personal debates should be left on user pages. Thank you.

Lsi john 15:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 internet phenomenon is notable, the kid not, and there's no need to write an article to keep him embarassing him. If anything (and if it's deemed appropiated), maybe mentioned in pass in the article about the meme. We're not dicks (fluke and rants to my talk) -- drini ^[meta:]_[commons:] 16:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qian Zhijun[edit]

The person himself is not notable. Besides being the butt (not even originator) of an internet phenomenon (which, in my subjective opinion, wasn't that much of a phenomenon as much as a short lived burst of popularity), he has done nothing to warrant inclusion. By statement of WP's notablity policy, there is no significant coverage, and definitely no multiple reliable secondary sources. ALTON .ıl 23:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. PrinceGloria 00:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of reliable secondary sources, and being covered in international media ranks as "significant coverage". He's a "cult figure"[14], a "nationwide celebrity" [15] and "one of the most famous faces in China"[16]. — Matt Crypto 02:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is widely covered in Chinese news sources, as far as I know. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 02:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily meets the threshold of WP:BIO, having been the subject of articles in multiple national news sources years after his initial appearance (as cited here by User:Matt Crypto). --DeLarge 11:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now expanded with multiple citations from four independent news sources. --DeLarge 12:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This further goes to show the fallacy of WP:BIO and the fact that it urgently needs to be amended... PrinceGloria 09:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete or redirect to List of Internet phenomena with omission of the subject's name, per BLP-related concern that giving massive Wikipedia-based publicity to this sort of "Internet phenomenon" has the potential to damage people's lives for little encyclopedic purpose. See generally, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad. Newyorkbrad 23:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, he already has had massive, international publicity (c.f. "nationwide celebrity" and "one of the most famous faces in China" quotes from above). If Qian Zhijun's life is going to be damaged by this, it's going to happen (or has already happened) with or without us: documenting it on Wikipedia is not going to affect that in any substantial way. — Matt Crypto 00:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand your point, but Wikipedia is now a top-ten website, is the first Google hit when many people's names are searched, and produces publicity of longer duration than many other types of reports and sites. I think that gives us certain responsibilities to be reasonably considerate of how what we write affects people's real lives, regardless of what others might do. See my link above for more thoughts on this. I do acknowledge this is not the worst instance of the problem, however. Newyorkbrad 13:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I mostly agree with WP:BLP and where I disagree I at least understand the motivations behind contrary opinions to my own. But in this case, I don't see any problem whatsoever. This is a 5k stub, but has fifteen citations from four sources (and I could have used a lot more), all of them internationally respected news media for whom Qian Zhijun was the subject of their coverage. His fifteen minutes of fame have now lasted for four years and counting. The page is written in a neutral fashion. There's a redirect from his better known name ("Little Fatty") to the eponymous target article, contrary to WP:COMMONNAME but more in the spirit of WP:BLP. There's no mention of his exact birth date as per WP:BLP recommendations even though it's mentioned on his own site. And given that his official website translates as "littlefatty.cn", he's hardly likely to complain that the moniker is mentioned on WP, or that this article is extending his notoriety against his will -- in that respect he's a much more willing participant in his continued infamy than the Star Wars kid, and at least as willing as Gary Brolsma. This is an appropriately compact article with no fluff to pad it out, no trivia/pop culture appearances sections, no copyviolating examples of his "fame". Maybe ditch the dumpvideo.net external link (better ones are available from the BBC and Reuters), but aside from that, what exactly concerns you? --DeLarge 15:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - before I add my input, could somebody advise on how keeping this article could have a negative impact on this young man's life? I'm not imaginitive enough to figure out how the noteriety will hurt him. Bahamut0013 19:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine you're a random teenager. And imagine one day someone decides that your face is cute, and should be plastered all over the Internet. Imagine that your life is turned upside-down by the publicity, and that your friends and schoolmates get to make fun of you mercilessly for it, and that the notoriety follows you into young adulthood, and that anytime someone sees your face they think of you as the fat kid with the funny face on the Internet, and anytime you apply for a job or a scholarship or even a blind date, someone Googles your name and among the first things they see is a Wikipedia article about the unwanted notoriety that came upon you completely through malice and happenstance and that perhaps you would give anything to get rid of. And perhaps you say to yourself that with time, some of the sillier websites mentioning you will fade away ... until you realize that Wikipedia is one that will hopefully be eternal, and there you and your face and the harassment and teasing you endured are immortalized, presumably forever, or so we as Wikipedians hope.

Now, this article is not, by far, the worst example of unwanted, life-destroying publicity through Internet pranking against an otherwise non-notable, private person that I have seen. The Internet publicity, while unwanted at first I am sure, was not positively hateful, and no humiliating personal secrets were exposed, and the subject seems to have dealt with it in some form of reasonably adaptive way and may even be trying to capitalize on it. So keeping this article would not be as grotesque as would have been keeping some of the other articles I discussed in my comments that I linked to above. But we need to raise awareness of this entire suite of issues, and people need to hesitate before responding "enough Google hits, keep" on articles such as this one. Newyorkbrad 22:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coolgamer 17:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thanks for the input, Newyorkbrad. I'd hate to see some embarassing photos of myself put into an otherwise-respectable encyclopedia. In any case, Being an Internet meme is really not the same as real noteriety. It could indeed be damaging to him, despite his attempts to make the best of it. Bahamut0013 12:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Bryant 11:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from initial closing administrator: please see this. I have overturned my closure and relisted on the basis of substantial new information and arguments. Fellow administrators, can I please suggest that this run a bit longer before closing, to let the debate which was shut down too early by myself complete itself, before making a decision. Thanks, Daniel Bryant 11:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Newyorkbrad and the golden rule--Doc^g 12:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not aviolation of WP:BLP. The article passes WP:BIO and WP:NOTE. Having read DeLarge's commenst on Daniel Bryant's talk page I have to agree with Delarge's position. While Newyorkbrad's comments here are persuassive they aren't addressing the article. Also I respectfully disagree with Alton's nomination - while the "Xiao Pang phenomenon" was reprehensible this article meets the above policy requirements. The grounds for deletion don't include morally reprehensible events or phenomena to remove this on grounds such as Doc glasgow's Ethic of reciprocity (which isn't a policy) or Bahamut0013's points about seeing embaressing photos of oneself on the 'net borders on censorship. Yes the article should be cut down, yes it should be kept neutral, but no it should not be deleted--Cailil ^talk 13:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics aren't policy? Yes, fair point. But sometimes a little humanity can make the world a better place. Knowledge is good - but there are other goods and there is some information that the world can live without. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. Every powerful media needs to have a little social responsibility.--Doc^g 16:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per Newyorkbrad and Doc glasgow. I worry about Wikipedia's role in prolonging the notoriety of people who become the butt of jokes, rather than simply documenting it. If we revisit this in 10 years and people still care about who this person is, I'll be happy to change my opinion. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 16:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Molossia[edit]

This article is written in places "in universe", and it bears 3 maintenance templates. It fails to meet WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N. WP:WEB may also apply. (A note on sources: We have Geocities, the lighthearted Lonely Planet book which is being used to prop up most of these articles, and "Molossia"'s own websites).

Sample quotes: "Molossia's population has remained fairly stable since the nation's establishment in Nevada, at just four citizens." "A sense of humor characterizes most Molossian people, who have a casual and comfortable western lifestyle.". "The culture of Molossia has a generally "western" attitude. The wild horse (mustang) is the National Animal, the sagebrush is the National Plant, Straw Hat Pizza is the National Pizza Restaurant, and Olive Garden as the National Restaurant. Molossia has its own time zone, Molossian Standard Time, which is 39 minutes ahead of Pacific Standard Time or 21 minutes behind Mountain Standard Time." --kingboyk 12:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Read this
On the evening of July 3rd, 1999 XXII, covert forces from the United States crossed the Molossian Frontier without permission and buried a dead dog in sovereign Molossian territory. The peace-loving Molossian government responded to this dastardly assault initially with negotiation, to attempt to avoid all-out war. Negotiations failed, however, as the putrid corpse was not removed. Therefore, the Molossian Army was deployed to deal with this underhanded threat to our sovereignty. Siege was laid against our enemy, using our secret weapon, the ceaseless chatter of a hyperactive thirteen-year-old boy. After two weeks of conflict, the siege resulted in the capitulation of the enemies of Molossia. The dead dog, now considerably more decomposed than before the war, was removed. Some time later, reparations were made to Molossia, in the form of a wood garbage can holder. Today, the Dead Dog War Battlefield, and the new grave of The Dead Dog, just over the now-fenced Molossian Frontier, stand as a mute reminder of the horrors of war and of man's inhumanity to man.
Sounds like the nation is a joke to me. --myselfalso 15:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's a notable joke; more sources have been added to the article. John Vandenberg 15:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most micronations can be regarded as a mixture of fiction and biography. If it remains written in in-universe style, delete as unencyclopedic. If rewritten in out-of-universe style; then I think this can be regarded as a weak keep. -- The Anome 17:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNon-notable pretend nation. Fails WP:A and WP:N. About as notable as "The Republic of the Chair I am Sitting In to Edit Wikipedia." Edison 21:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it is link to reality somehow. JodyB_talk 22:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. AFD is not cleanup. Molossia is probably the best-known "personal artistic project" micronation in existence, and has been around for over 2 decades. Its significance is reflected in the 7-page entry it is given in the recently-published Lonely Planet micronation guide - one of the most extensive in the entire book - larger even than the entry on Sealand. --Gene_poole 22:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs cleanup maybe, not deletion is not justified. Lankiveil 01:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. After taking some time to consider it, I do believe that it passes WP:N and WP:A. While it is not of mass notability, neither is Albert A. Michelson, who happens to be a very important physicist. Also, suggesting that this article should link to reality is like suggesting that articles relating to fiction should be deleted (like the United Federation of Planets, for example). --myselfalso 05:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the best known micronations, if deleted should at least be mentioned on the Micronation article. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia'']] 19:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point; I'm wondering if micronations which don't have much coverage in reliable sources and/or not much encyclopedic to say about them but which get a writeup in the Lonely Planet book ought to be in an overview article? There was mention in one of the AFDs about a possible Minor micronations (minor sounds a bit POV though) or Australian micronations (wouldn't apply here); other titles might be avilable :) --kingboyk 21:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because those plucky little molossians make me smile. --Infrangible 20:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My MSN friend in Thailand makes me smile, but I wouldn't start an article on her :) --kingboyk 21:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - although whimsical, Molossia is one of the better known micronational ventures out there. It requires some objective coverage and a large rewrite, but it's not undoable. --Breadandcheese 01:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep per myselfalso and genepoole. Both make good points why this should be kept. JRG 23:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keept Nomination withdrawn, no votes to delete, broken source links fixed. DES ^(talk) 15:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Treadwell gold mine[edit]

This article contains no citable source material. All paragraphs in the body of the page are not linked to anything which could verify a source. The links at the bottom of the page lead to "page not found". Editor claims work in progress, but he has had several weeks with which to do so, and yet all that is contained within the page amounts to POV, and therefore cannot be published as per Wikipedia guidlines. Carajou 10:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AFD is not a place to discuss problems with article content. The article asserts the subject's notability (the largest gold mine of the Alaskan Panhandle). If the article needs cleanup, copyediting, or removal of uncited material, that can be done without deleting the article. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did not answer the reason for the tag, which was the inclusion of an unsourced article. Saying it's the "largest gold mine in Alaska" without citations is personal opinion. However, I noticed new additions and source material just added to the page after I tagged it, which satifies Wikipedia requirements; therefore, I am withdrawing this nomination. Carajou 15:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (hot!) 16:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oblivion myth[edit]

Appears to be a vanity page by a newish and non-notable band. Andrewa 12:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete as a copyvio and so tagged. DES ^(talk) 13:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a non-notable band's recruitment flyer, WP:BAND refers. (aeropagitica) 19:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bandtogether[edit]

Contested prod. No evidence of seconadary coverage, no reliable sources that are independant of the organization, seems to be of only local notability, does not pass WP:MUSIC, reads like an advertising flyer for the orgabization. DES ^(talk) 13:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my nom.
Speedy Delete as spam. This is a recruitment flyer. DarkAudit 17:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just did' Corpx 18:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Broadbent[edit]

Another vague connection of the Arbuthnots. Not notable. "influential British wine critic and auctioneer" - aren't they all? The only ref: a family tree links to a site where yet again User: Kittybrewster is the webmaster advertising amongst other things "Broadbent Road Auto Repairs" don't bother to click it goes straight to Kittybrewster because "something has gone wrong!" This is getting beyond a joke. Delete or improve and sunstantiate claims made. Giano 14:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for...Delete. Influential wine critics aren't notable. And being a relative of Kittybrewster isn't either. I believe the principle is that if all these people were notable, somebody not a relative would add articles about them to Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 14:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Take it to ancestry.com. Montco 15:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (though obviously needing sourcing). I agree with Bishonen's view of wine critics, but I just checked NewsBank and he's been mentioned 167 times in UK newspapers since 1985. Being wine expert at Christie's, he's often involved in rare-wine stories: discoveries/authentication of antique wine, etc. Tearlach 15:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.... but his family tree according to Kittbrewster - anyone researching him will be wondering about wine not deciding whether to breed from him.Giano 17:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Could be useful if you want a good stable of wine critics for a wine magazine. Provided the ability to judge wines is inherited, of course. Training probably has to begin at a tender age in any case. Pharamond 18:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is an article in the German Wikipedia with a bibliography showing that several of his books have been published in German. (The English article doesn't even have a list of publications, but I suppose it could be added.) Pharamond 18:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep seems to meet WP:BIO per [17]. Described by Decanter (magazine) [18] as "one of the international wine industry's most admired figures". --W.marsh 19:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:A and WP:BIO. Edison 21:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per Bishonen. ~ Magnus animuM ^{BRAIN FREEZE!} 21:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the man is 80 and his prominence as a wine expert seems to have been mostly the 1970s and 1980s. Google Books results show sources to demonstrate his recognition by fellow oenophiles. (Many of them are to Grolier encyclopedia entries for which he was the author; filtering those out still gives many.) --Dhartung | Talk 23:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "one of the international wine industry's most admired figures". He has authored several German books, and appears to be a global expert on wine. Sens08 00:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"one of the international wine industry's most admired figures" Do we have an unbiased ref for that? Giano 08:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BIO. Ghits not a vital issue for someone whose career was likely mainly before the creation of the Web. --Charlene 04:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable wine critic with ample references to meet WP:BIO guidelines. RFerreira 04:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of the most influential wine critics of the past century. This guy mets WP:BIO by a far degree though admittedly this current article does him little justice. I'll try and take a look at this article this week to fix it up. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 14:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn the page has now been referenced and justified. Giano 14:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Can I get some cheese with my wine, really? Burntsauce 17:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletions. -- Bduke 08:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Krimpet (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra protection project[edit]

518 Google links, and only 44 not-similar. Notable? - Sikon 00:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC) --ais523 14:26, 12 May 2007 (U TC)[reply]

Delete as NN: this is just one script out of the zillons available for mIRC. Tearlach 15:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7, the article does not assert any notability. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7. No notability asserted. Tagged as such. DarkAudit 17:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History Society[edit]

Non-notable. __earth ^(Talk) 14:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's a university club, and the article should be called Multimedia University History Society. Give it a couple of lines in Multimedia University. Tearlach 15:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all colleges have this sort of clubs, this does not deserve an article. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 16:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable club Corpx 18:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely not notable Hut 8.5 20:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as A7, no assertion of notability. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make windows xp look like vista[edit]

Contested prod. This article intends to be some sort of list of softwares that can transform Windows XP UI. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, therefore listed for Deletion. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like a combination of a manual and an advert. Neither is appropriate here. Hut 8.5 15:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm, wiki is not a how to guide. meshach 15:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. wikipedia is not a how-to guide. DarkAudit 17:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Added speedy nomination Corpx 18:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major Railway Routes in Pakistan[edit]

just a list Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 15:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sure the info is just as easily findable on the Pakistani Railway website. Corpx 18:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Hut 8.5 20:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, as almost certainly a cut-paste job from somewhere. In due course this will have to be recreated. Hornplease 08:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Young C & Biggs[edit]

Appears to be yet another hoax article about an upcoming album. The only relevant Google hit for "Straight Outta H-Town" biggs "young c" is the WP article itself. Judging by the content of the article, this is probably someone's attempt at humour. Kurt Shaped Box 15:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, should be deleted unless somebody wants to rewrite the whole mess. That's if it can even be made encyclopedic at all. --Segaba 15:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no source, suspected hoax album. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 16:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like OR. Tim.bounceback^{(review me! | talk | contribs | ubxen)} 17:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per Tim.bounceback. ~ Magnus animuM ^{BRAIN FREEZE!} 20:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --CopperMurdoch 21:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and similar comments above. Burntsauce 18:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yaruch Bann[edit]

I couldn't find sources that would verify the information in the article or confirm notability. Prod removed by IP without explanation. FisherQueen (Talk) 15:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make any difference if I'd been logged in at the time I removed the PROD? Now, if the problem with the article is it's unsourced and verification is too difficult, fine, I can see that (I haven't looked into it in any depth, but I can agree with DarkAudit prima facie). If it's notability, he seems notable within his own context (as opposed to "I've never heard of him! Now go away and let me get back to my Mandy Moore CDs!"), but I haven't seen any sources proving this. I didn't think it was right to allow this article to go to its death without someone, somewhere, considering it on AfD (it's too much to ask for a proper AfD discussion, but I'll take what I can get), which is why I removed the PROD. Remember that PROD can be removed by anyone at any time for any reason, and indeed relies upon this fact for its very usefulness. I don't think it's a good idea to prejudice later deletion discussions against that removal by saying, "Oh, it's here because an IP removed the PROD without saying why". IPs can remove PRODs, and you don't have to say why. That's the whole point. 203.122.238.225 04:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of pointing out that the prod was removed is in response to those who would say, "Why didn't you just prod this article?" No, it doesn't make a difference who remove it, I'm just acknowledging that I already tried that method for deletion. While you don't have to explain why, the prod tag does request that you explain the reasons in the talk page or edit summary. The note that the material has already been prodded is customary, and doesn't prejudice the discussion, which is all about reliable sources. I didn't prod this article because I'd never heard of him, but because I'd never heard of him, the article didn't make it clear that he was particularly notable, and my google search didn't turn up any sources that would confirm notability. But because I might have been wrong, rather than putting it up for speedy deletion, I prodded it to give the creator a few days to add sources if sources were available. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable or verifiable sources. DarkAudit 20:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Artist is non-notable as I've found less than 900 hits on all major search engines. ~ Magnus animuM ^{BRAIN FREEZE!} 20:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It reads like a tourist pamphlet, not a biography, and there's not a single third-party reference mentioned. (I would have prodded it first, too.) KrakatoaKatie 07:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Walton ^{Need some help?} 19:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haiku Reservoir[edit]

Non-notable water reservoir, google search found no information about this reservoir, also this article provides no context. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 15:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How did you use "google"? -- User:Docu

Delete It isnt even mentioned in the Maui Island article Corpx 18:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A small storage pond / With very few Google hits / Certainly Delete. Tearlach 18:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Only 116 hits across 4 major search engines; non-notable water reservoir. ~ Magnus animuM ^{BRAIN FREEZE!} 21:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. And well played, Tearlach. --Dhartung | Talk 22:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a report about the reservoir. -- User:Docu
Keep. Notability requirement does not apply to geographic localities, only verifiability does.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was whip it, whip it good. Disregarding the accusations of a bad faith nomination and the argument that this article has been kept before, it basically comes down to whether this article should be kept as useful despite a lack of reliable sources and verifiability; arguments against this appear to be in the majority. Krimpet (talk) 05:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wipipedia[edit]

Non-notable website, without any claim of notability, no reliable sources, no verifiability. bogdan 16:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Somewhat sophisticated sockpuppetry is suspected to have occurred in this AFD. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Newport, but please contact me as some possible sockpuppets here are not listed on that page yet. --W.marsh 00:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that, since a number of edits have been made to the article since the AfD started, the article should be judged in this version: [19]--Taxwoman 21:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy requirement to judge an article based on an initial revision. 131.181.251.66 06:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's encouraged to improved articles during debates. If the article has been improved during the debate, then it should be judged by its improved status, and those who judged it by an earlier one may want to check if their concerns have been met. The way it was earlier can of course explain comments that are not now evident. We 're not debating which revision should stand. DGG 07:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to remove silly stuff like "it attracts visitors from around the globe", but I got reverted, because allegedly the article should not be edited when at AfD. Every website attracts visitors from around the globe, so I don't see any point in writing that. bogdan 07:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that if an article is being AfD'd because it allegedly lacks references, it is utterly unacceptable to delete the references in the article during the AfD process. If anyone looks at the article as it was, he or she can come to a conclusion about the adequacy of the references; if the have been deleted, this is impossible.--Brownlee 14:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand what are reference within wikipedia. A link to a small search engine's result page is not a valid reference and neither are random blog posts. bogdan 20:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What size does the search engine have to be to fit your concept of a valid reference? How many page results/searches/size of database must it have to be acceptable for you? What is a "random" blog post? Is this the same kind of thing as a random AfD? --Interesdom 10:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has to do with the fact that it's a result in a search engine, not with its size! Being listed in a search engine is not a notable thing in itself. bogdan 21:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme BDSM Delete 900 articles in 3 years? Hardly notable. - Francis Tyers · 16:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know we judged web sites by size. It seems to be the best site covering the subject matter with the relatively highest standards.DGG 07:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of journals which cover the topic of fetishism to a much higher standard. We judge websites by the WP:WEB notability criteria, which this site fails. - Francis Tyers · 08:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about stating some of these journals? Are they really enclopedic? --Interesdom 10:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See below. - Francis Tyers · 22:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many articles are expected on the limited subject of (according to you) "extreme BDSM"? To come up with 900 on such a topic sounds impressive to me. Is it the "extreme" aspect that you are objecting to; if so why not object to the extreme history or extreme television entertainment within Wikipedia? If it is the BDSM aspect you are objecting to, can you say why it is not acceptable in a specialist encyclopedia but it is acceptable in a general one such as Wikipedia? --Interesdom 10:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no (or whatever the safe word is) delete--Doc^g 16:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment What new issue is being raised here that wasn't extensively discussed during the last two rounds: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wipipedia and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wipipedia (2 nomination) ? -- AnonMoos 16:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- People ignore the policy when voting. Anyway, this article could be speedy deleted under the no notability claim/spam rule. :-) bogdan 18:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which policy?--Brownlee 21:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia:Verifiability bogdan 22:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not seeing anyting in that policy that speaks to spamming, and "notability" is only mentioned in passing. Are you sure you have the right policy? Because this is clearly verifiable: Here it is!. WP:V allows the citation of selfpublished sources about themselves.Grace Note 03:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I just went to take a look there, that website is doing a lot better than before and there are many informative articles on BDSM. But I'm not sure about whether it's notable or not, so given the benefit of the doubt I !vote weak keep. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 16:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, with a dozen edits per month, my personal wiki has more edits :-) bogdan 18:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please do not supply incorrect information; there were well over 100 edits in the last 30 days.--Runcorn 20:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - if you include vandalism and reverts of vandalism, yes, there were over 100 edits :-) bogdan 20:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please keep the debate rational. There are far, far more than a dozen edits in most months.--Taxwoman 17:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Wooyi. Chris 16:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Could be kind of notable with the articles there. Corpx 18:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But it's not. Prove that it is notable. bogdan 18:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just erring on the side of caution Corpx 18:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nobody here brought any real arguments against the non-notability claim. bogdan 19:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erring on the side of caution here means delete until sources are actually found. Verifiability/reliable sourcing doesn't become optional just because the site is a Wiki, contrary to what many people believe. The closest thing I can find to a source [20] isn't in english and an inspection suggests it may be a typo and they meant Wikipedia, since they only say Wipipedia once. --W.marsh 19:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No evidence is being supplied that has not already been considered and rejected at AfD and DRV.--Runcorn 20:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rejected by you apparently, in the second AFD. I'll start the article on my blog, which has exactly as many reliable sources as Wipipedia. Thanks for the precedent. --W.marsh 20:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a WP:POINT violation. Plus, I only said I'd give this article the benefit of the doubt, and only !voted weak keep instead of a conventional keep, so no need to be infuriated. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please adjust your sarcasm detector... anyway how much benefit of the doubt does this article get though? It's had years for people to find sources. --W.marsh 20:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think for the third AfD in a year the onus is really on the nominator and supporters to show a clear case for deletion that wasn't raised in the other two, and I haven't see that here. --Myke Cuthbert 20:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Myke Cuthbert. The only case for deletion seems to be that the nominator doesn't like the article.--Brownlee 21:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's actually that it doesn't meet WP:WEB / WP:RS and no one can argue that it does. In fact the only argument for keeping is that people like the article. --W.marsh 21:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither WP:WEB nor WP:RS are policy and even as guidelines, one of them is in question. I suggest you look at the founding policy of WP:IAR and then accept that people (in two previous AfDs) have decided that Wikipedia is improved by this article. --Interesdom 10:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - how about this rationale for deletion; this article has zero reliable sources which assert, or support notability. It patently fails the notability guidelines - and the fact that it has been previously kept, and yet still no sources have been added after months, indicates that it cannot be adequately sourced. I would seriously like to see some rationale for why this article doesn't violate notability standards. --Haemo 22:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's even odder that two people voting keep in this AFD signed onto your exact argument for deletion an hour earlier in another AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marijuana Anonymous. Why Wikipedia just loves some websites and not others, sources be damned, is quite strange. --W.marsh 22:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Seriously, to wit the arguments have been:
- "The previous AfD's kept it" - which, I frankly don't understand, given that no arguments were presented for why it should be kept, given that it fails notability standards. The most numerous argument was some combination of liking it and it's useful.
- "The Wiki has many useful articles" - which has no bearing whatsoever, and is a variant of it's useful.
- "It could be notable, if it had sources, so I'm erring on the side of caution" - I think after being AfD'd repeatedly, and no sources added, this shows it's unsourcable.
- "I disagree that it fails WP:WEB" - but there is no explanation of why the use disagrees.
It's stunning that people are willing to keep an article on such a basis. --Haemo 22:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment People keep saying that it fails WP:WEB (which is not policy) or has other faults, yet they are unable to prove these assertions at AfD or DRV to the satisfaction of now three different admins. Please either prove these assertions or provide fresh areguments--Brownlee 22:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:WEB says sources need to exist. If it meets WP:WEB, where are the sources? It's rather odd that the utter lack of sources somehow doesn't show you that this doesn't meet WP:WEB. If it meets WP:WEB people would have no problem linking to sources. --W.marsh 22:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WEB is not a policy, so whether or not it meets WP:WEB is not a valid argument.--Runcorn 09:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:V and WP:NPOV is policy though... and we can't really generate an accurate, neutral article when everything is sourced to the website in question (especially since Wikis are not reliable sources in the first place). Even to ignore a guideline (WP:WEB) there needs to be a very good reason. "We like it" is absolutely not a good reason. The only reason we include this site and not my blog is that random Wikipedians like this site... that's pretty obvious bias. --W.marsh 13:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - all its sources at the bottom appear to be blogs, wikis, the site itself, and other unreliable sources. It thus fails WP:RS and WP:NPOV. It needs a major rewrite and sources at best. — Pious7_Talk^Contribs 22:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What is new here? Its notability and WP:WEB and everything else have been thrashed out at enormous length three times already and there was a decision to keep. WP:AGF, why nominate it again in the hope of a different result?--Osidge 15:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Except no one credibly argued it met WP:WEB or notability standards, just that they liked the site, in so many words. The closes were made either by vote counting or apparent bias. Just because we made bad decisions in the past doesn't mean we have to keep making them perpetually... see Gay Nigger Association of America and Jimbo's comment [21]. --W.marsh 15:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So let's get this straight. Three different admins have closed previous discussions; all clearly rejected the WP:WEB and lack of notability standards arguments, not to mention the WP:RS and WP:V ones. So it seems that either they were all biased, or they were all incompetent and could only vote count without weighing the arguments.--Osidge 15:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, did you read Jimbo's comment? There's no serious argument that reliable sources exist here or that this meets WP:WEB. These policies and guidelines weren't rejected so much as they were ignored... no one's arguing this actually does meet WP:WEB or that reliable sources actually do exist. Several admins in this AFD have called strongly for deletion... why is the fact that 3 in the past decided to keep so compelling? --W.marsh 15:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Surprising as it may seem, not every off-Wiki comment by Jimbo is binding policy or to be taken as universally applicable. Obviously, if he were to comment on this AfD his views would receive due weight.--Runcorn 21:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's review the history. In the first AfD, it was alleged that the article failed WP:WEB and lacked reliable sources. These arguments were rejected and the AfD was a Keep - not a no consensus, a keep. In the second AfD, precisely the same arguments were made. These arguments were rejected again, and the AfD was a Keep - not a no consensus, a keep. Not willing to accept defeat, the movers went to DRV. Precisely the same arguments were made. These arguments were rejected again. It begins to look as if the claims that the article fails WP:WEB and lacks reliable sources are not universally accepted. In this AfD, precisely the same arguments are being made. They were not valid arguments on the last three occasions; why are they valid now?--Taxwoman 17:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're saying this does meet WP:WEB? Where are the sources? No one has argued that it meets WP:WEB, they've just argued that they like the site, more or less. No one ever closed saying "Keep because this meets WP:WEB", they basically said "keep because a bunch of people want to keep". --W.marsh 17:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to insist that (arguably) not meeting a guideline is a reason for deletion? Where is the policy that refutes WP:IAR and says that an article not meeting a guideline should be deleted? --Interesdom 10:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above keep arguments and per precedent. As a side note: bad form for the nominator not to disclose the prior AfDs. Some of us remember them, however. Carlossuarez46 19:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In case anyone is wondering, the Deletion review is listed at [[22]] on 28 December, where the administrators argued over whether WP:WEB was followed properly in the 2nd AfD and the conclusion was no consensus to overturn. --Myke Cuthbert 20:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT aside, the issue at this AfD is the same as at previous ones-there are simply no reliable secondary sources to support anything in this article. Notability aside, WP:V, a core policy, is pretty clear on that situation-"If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." And we can't keep around articles which inherently violate core policies. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly - the same issues are being raised for the fourth time and the concerns over WP:V have been rejected three times before.--Runcorn 21:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nothing here can reject WP:V. V says we shouldn't have it. So we shouldn't. Consensus couldn't, for example, decide we ought to have a POV article on something. It can't override V any more so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That misses the point. Three times it has been decided that WP:V is not violated; it is not right for a few editors to claim that it is.--Taxwoman 22:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, it's been stated that it's not, but the horse only has four legs, regardless of how often people say it has six or fifty. If you'd like to show V is not violated, just provide secondary sources-and I betcha this discussion will never happen again! Otherwise, stating "But it's doesn't violate V! Really!" doesn't change the fact that, if no secondary sources are available, yes it does. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:AGF, some people may believe that it fails WP:V. That doesn't mean that it does. There is no requirement to have secondary sources; they are just preferred.--Taxwoman 22:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I just showed above that secondary sources are required... Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB -- fails our inclusion criteria. Jkelly 21:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If, after all this time, there are no reliable sources, there probably won't be any. Corvus cornix 22:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Absolutely no reason presented to delete this except to burn for the sake of burning. It's perfectly verifiable: Here it is! How easy was that?! Grace Note 03:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By that logic we could have an article on any of several billion webpages that can be verified to exist... but we're not a directory, we're an encyclopedia. --W.marsh 03:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It still fails WP:WEB. From what I remember, it was argued last time around that the content is worth keeping due to being hosted on the "London Fetish Scene" website. That's unpersuasive - if we (still!) don't have any reliable, substantial, independent sources about Wipipedia itself, we simply don't have anything to base an article on. Sandstein 05:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Relevant policies and guidelines: WP:V, WP:WEB, WP:RS:

(Note: correct statement should be "relevant policy and guidelines" unless the other, equally or more relevant policies are also going to be included.) --Interesdom 10:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:V, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."
- There are currently two "cited" (I use the word loosely) assertions, and five uncited assertions. Attempts to remove the uncited assertions are met with a) refusal to cite, b) restoration of the assertions.
From WP:V, "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article."
- There are currently no reliable sources (as defined by WP:RS, or any sane definition) in the article. See below for more details.
From WP:V, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
- This is policy. This article does not rely on any third-party published sources with a reputation for accuracy, giving the breakdown, we have: 1) palavrasecoisas.blogspot.com — a blog in Portuguese, 2) surch.co.uk — a search engine, 3 and 4) The "news" section of Poor Mojo — which styles itself as an "online literary journal", but appears to be a self-published website.
- There are a further three links in the references section: a) A link to Wikia, b) A link to a blog, c) A link to a site which is "... set up to allow people to post what they find relevant in the news and general interests of people." [23]
From WP:V, "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
- The article currently contains no reliable third-party sources.
From WP:V, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. "
- Of all of the references, this applies to: 1, 2, 3, 4, a, b, c (that's all of them).
From WP:RS, "Wikipedia articles should therefore ideally rely on all majority and significant-minority treatments of a topic, scholarly and non-scholarly, so long as the sources are reliable."
From WP:RS, "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."
- Blogs do not have a reliable publication process. Anyone who doubts this can try signing up for blogger, livejournal or whatever and then posting "Wipipedia is a dreadful site that is run by people who think lions are made out of hats. On it there are people who yell at their wristwatches in the street and those who encourage clouds to attack children". Sites such as CodeWolf do not have a reliable publication process, sure it is possible for the owner to remove the links, but he isn't a specialist in the field of Sexology, he is a software consultant.
From WP:WEB, "Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with our policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability, web-specific content"
From WP:WEB, "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."
- This is not true.
  - Blogs are trivial.
  - News items in news aggregators are trivial.
  - Search engine results are trivial.
From WP:WEB, "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization."
- Not true, it does not pass.
From WP:WEB, "The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster"
- Not true.
  - It is republished by www.informedconsent.co.uk. It ain't Nature, but this this is kinky sex and this is the main UK BDSM community site. BalzacLFS 19:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now lets have a look at some reliable sources:

- Google Scholar: 5 results for "Wipipedia", none of which refers to Wipipedia, the first is a mis-citation of Wikipedia, the remaining 4 seem to be mis-hits.
- Google Books: 1 result for "Wipipedia" in Kim H. Veltman (2006) Understanding New Media: Augmented Knowledge & Culture (Calgary : University of Calgary Press). Again, this is a mis-citation of Wikipedia.
- Science Direct: No results
- Cite Seer: No results

- Francis Tyers · 07:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Francis' reasoning above. That's a very thorough analysis and it unquestionably in my mind establishes that we should not have this article. It's a tiny wiki that we only seem to have an article on because some of its members are long-time contributors here. Sorry, folks. Guy (Help!) 09:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe case against the article seems to be that WP:V allegedly requires secondary sources. In favt, WP:V says no such thing. The relevant policy is WP:NOR, which says "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Anyone reading the version of the article as it was at the point when the AfD started (as opposed to subsequent edits) an see that that was exactly what was done. All we need to do is to restore that version and the arguments for deletion collapse.--Brownlee 14:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:V says "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." --W.marsh 14:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I invite people to exmine the article as it was at the point of AfD, not as subsequently edited and assess the references for themselves.--Brownlee 14:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (since I set up the Wipi I don't feel I should vote on this) It is not a very good article and has not improved much over time which is a reason to delete it in my opinion. The wipipedia is however mirrored on www.InformedConsent.com which is the UK's largest BDSM website, whether this makes it notable is arguable (and has been argued) and this could be a reason to keep it. The one issue I do have is that most of the people arguing for deletion using the not notable criteria do not seem to have any direct experience of the BDSM lifestyle (please correct me if I am wrong) and seem to be looking for the same standard of notability as they might apply to more serious areas of knowledge. This is kinky sex we are talking about, you are not going to get articles about bondage techniques in Nature or any other serious journal for that matter. Notability is always going to be determined by the community to which it is linked. With this in mind would it be an idea to bring in some of the sysops that look after the main BDSM categories to voice their opinion? BalzacLFS 17:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong there are articles in serious scientific and academic journals all the time about "kinky sex". For example:

- - S Bardzell, J Bardzell (2006) "Sex-interface-aesthetics: The docile avatars and embodied pixels of Second Life BDSM". Position paper for the workshop Sexual Interactions.
  - D Langdridge, T Butt (2004) "A Hermeneutic Phenomenological Investigation of the Construction of Sadomasochistic Identities". Sexualities
  - A Beckman (2001) "Deconstructing Myths: The Social Construction of “Sadomasochism” Versus “Subjugated Knowledges” of Practicioners of Consensual SM". Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 8(2) 66-95

Three examples, there are hundreds, nay thousands more. Just do a search. - Francis Tyers · 11:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that these are articles about topic of human sexuality and how BDSM fits in to it not a practical guide to the subject. BalzacLFS 22:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Sex-interface-aesthetics..." seems to be about a virtual world; this topic is covered slightly in Wipipedia but it is far from the main subject.
"A Hermeneutic Phenomenological Investigation..." (give me a break!) seems to be a work from a psychology student (I think) and is about sex on the Internet, ignoring objective reality.
"Deconstructing Myths..." is, as stated, from the Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, which gives some idea where this is coming from.
NONE of these directly address the topic, NONE of them are written by people who even pretend to be practioners, NONE of them are encyclopedic, NONE of them directly address either BDSM nor fetish, NONE are "more notable" than Wipipedia. Sir, you are scratching the bottom parts of the barrel to support an unsupportable argument. --Interesdom 06:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of them are on the subject of kinky sex, which is what was claimed, "This is kinky sex we are talking about, you are not going to get articles about bondage techniques in Nature or any other serious journal for that matter.". These are serious academic journals, and serious articles. Thus proving the statement wrong. Of course I searched for "kinky sex" you could try with BDSM:

D Reynolds (2007) "Disability and BDSM: Bob Flanagan and the case for sexual rights". Sexuality Research and Social Policy
P Kleinplatz, C Moser (2004) "Towards clinical guidelines for working with BDSM clients". Contemporary Sexuality
JK Noyes (1997) The Mastery of Submission: Inventions of Masochism
WA Henkin, S Holiday (1997) Consensual Sadomasochism: How to Talk About It and How to Do It Safely
K Kolmes, W Stock, C Moser (2006) "Investigating bias in psychotherapy with BDSM clients.". Journal of Homosexuality
MD Weiss (2006) "Mainstreaming kink: the politics of BDSM representation in US popular media". Journal of Homosexuality
Connolly, Pamela H. (2006) "Psychological Functioning of Bondage/Domination/Sado-Masochism (BDSM) Practitioners". Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality
A Spengler (1977) "Manifest sadomasochism of males: Results of an empirical study". Archives of Sexual Behavior

Like I said there are thousands of journals and academic quality books that focus on this subject. It is not as obscure as you make out. - Francis Tyers · 07:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not aware that there are particular admins look over particular groups of articles. Many eds. comment from time to time. I sometimes support such articles, partly because I think that " blogs, wikis, " etc are the reasonable sources for material about topics such as this, where most of the available material is on the web. Obviously it has to be used carefully, but I think one can prove the notability of a site from careful use of such sources, though obviously not everyone agrees. It this case it is clearly N, unless one hides one's head in the sand. It would be a shame if Wikipedia of all places been ossified in its use of resources. This isn't 2001, or even 2004. I agree with the logic about communities.

Keep DGG 23:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not a vote, please explain your reason. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 00:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see the paragraph just above. I creatively added the !vote at the end. Guess unconventionality does not pay, in posting as in sourcing. (smile) DGG 05:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Arbitrary Break The First[edit]

Weak keep. I do think it is somewhat notablish. Ab e g92contribs 01:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Earlier on, Brownlee asked to analyze the article "as it was". I think that's a great idea!
- In the "notes" section:
  - 1. If the URL contains "blogspot", it does not lead to a reliable source.
  - 2. A search engine result, and a great illustration of the pitfalls of using such sources. This is used to source the claim that the website is "quoted or referenced by other web sites." Being indexed on a search engine is not being "quoted or referenced". Any such inference would be original research.
  - 3, 4 (redundant to each other): Self-published, as evidenced by the "we" pronoun.
- So, let's check the "references" section.
  - 5: A Wikia wiki. Wikis are not considered reliable sources (we don't even use our own wiki as a source!)
  - 6: A blog.
  - 7: A web forum. (Yep, it's a forum, hit "register" and you can see the good old PHPBB code.)
- So, perhaps someone hid the reliable sources in the external links section?
  - 8: The site itself. Doesn't get more self-published than that!
  - 9: "London Fetish Scene". It runs Wipipedia, so again, self-published.
  - 10: A forum/blog/chat site.
So, let's analyze WP:V: "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This topic, as shown above, has no reliable, third-party sources. Formation of the pretty obvious conclusion is left to the reader. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was one of the earliest to chime in that the burden of proof might be different on a 3rd AfD than on the first. Since that interpretation has been disputed by some editors with a different point of view than me (probably really nice people with whom I'd enjoy a beer or coffee, but that's beside the current issue), I wanted to bring up something for discussion from Wikipedia:Consensus which I just ran across in another context, but which might be meaningful.

[Consensus can change, but WP does not ignore precedent.] [F]or example, editors should not continuously nominate an article to WP:AFD until it reaches their preferred outcome. However, an issue that was decided in the past can always be discussed again, especially if there is new information to discuss. An editor who thinks that a consensual decision is outdated may ask about it on the relevant talk page, at the Village Pump, or through a Request for Comment to see whether other editors agree.

I think two points are definitely relevant--one is that new information about the article's deleteworthyness (oh what a neologism!) should be weighted more heavily than information which was available in the last two AfDs and DRV. Since I believe the RS, V, and WEB situations have all improved since the last two AfDs, I think that they should not be considered new information. Second that it would have been better to first challenge the previous consensus on the article's talk page before coming here (the "Sourcing" entry on the talk page post-dates this AfD).

I hope I'm not out of line in considering this debate more about the AfD process itself (and how often is considered "continuously nominat[ing] an article to WP:AFD until it reaches [the] preferred outcome") than about the fate of one particular article. Thanks. I welcome further discussion. --Myke Cuthbert 02:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The previous two AfDs were closed keep because there were plenty of people who like the site and ignore the rules of wikipedia. Also, the admins who closed the AfDs performed a vote count instead of argument weight. I would like to remind the closing admin of this AfD that Wikipedia is not a democracy and AfD is not a vote. The votes which don't bring any good argument about why the article is verifiable (i.e. whether it has reliable third-party sources) can be simply ignored when deciding the result. bogdan 09:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know how you came to this conclusion. Certainly nothing in the closing admin's comments for either of the previous AFDs has suggested they were ignoring argument weight in favour of vote count. JulesH 23:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:WEB. JFW | T@lk 08:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is republished by www.informedconsent.co.uk. This is the main UK BDSM community site. BalzacLFS 10:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:WEB is not policy, WP:IAR is. This is an article about a specialist encyclopeida. That the encyclopedia is (only) available on the Internet should be no disadvantage to it: were it to be publshed in printed form I am sure it would be bought, quoted, mis-used and argued about by many people, just as many such books covering BDSM or fetish are, just as are specialist encylcopedias. True, it would be nice to quote professional people's objective data on the web site (published in tried and tested media, of course) but let us be realistic about the subject matter and realise that just is not going to happen; it won't happen about the encyclopedia nor about much of the subject matter, some of which is covered in this encylopedia. This does NOT make the topic meaningless, nor useless, nor inaccurate, nor even unverifiable to the greatest extent possible. --Interesdom 10:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP -- In three days, no one has yet really answered my question of what issues are being raised this time around which were not already discussed in the last two AFDs. AnonMoos 12:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there's evidence that shows sockpuppetry has almost certainly occurred in all 3 AFDs, especially the 2nd, that shows what's been going on has probably been artificially influenced. Once this is made public there might be yet another AFD, who knows. But those who want "new evidence" will eventually have plenty of it. --W.marsh 17:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the third criterion of WP:WEB due to being mirrored on informedconsent.co.uk which is (I'm led to believe) the UK's best known site on the topic (it's certainly the top result of a UK-only google search for "BDSM", which must count for something). JulesH 19:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't have an article on Informedconsent.co.uk yet, does it deserve an article itself, in your opinion? Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it does, yes. JulesH 23:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I have, in fact, created that article. JulesH 09:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being mirrored by a non-notable site does not make you notable. :-) bogdan 21:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Within the UK BDSM community InformedConcent is a notable site. It is used by people interested in BDSM to share information about the lifestyle and practices. Sure there is a lot of trivia in it but that does not make it not notable BalzacLFS 22:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, and still wrong! Having a lot of trivia does not make a site non-notable. IMDB has tons of trivia, but it's notable. On the other hand, failure to be covered by reliable independent sources does make that particular site non-notable. IMDB is covered by quite a bit of third-party material, so it is notable. That's the difference. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the article I just created on informedconsent.co.uk. There are reliable sources covering this site. JulesH 09:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use the site itself as a reference and the Tanos source looks like a blog (which isn't reliable). — Pious 7 11:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like WP:LOCALFAME to me, to be limited to a specific community in a specific country notability-wise. — Pious 7 11:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reading through this and the article only shows the mirroring as any credible claim to notability. Come back when Informedconsent.co.uk merits an article and we can consider whether mirroring connotes any kind of notability or sourcing. --Gwern (contribs) 05:53 16 May 2007 (GMT)
Delete — not notable, the tiny amount of neutral and verifiable information that can be collected about it is insufficient for an encyclopedia article, and WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep. Wikipedia is not a Web directory, and being uncensored does not obligate us to include every trivial detail of every random kink some handful of people suffer from. ➥the Epopt 11:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Siege of the North (Battle)[edit]

User Jimblack keeps creating these articles about (minor) occurrances in the Avatar: The Last Airbender cartoon. In this case, it's about a certain battle in the episode The Siege of the North. That episode already has it's own article with information about the battle, making this article absolutely redundant. Furthermore, it's completely unsourced (Jimblack's track record shows that that's not likely to change) and not notable as a stand-alone article. Atlan (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fictional events like these do not have a place in an encyclopedia. A fictional battle like this has no life outside of the media from which it originates. --Daniel J. Leivick 17:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any reliable info. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nonsense Corpx 18:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- 1) The battle is contained entirely within a single episode, as such that episodes page should deal wit it. 2) The battle was an isolated event; except for frequent references to Aang's shocking power it is never referred to again, and has no far-reaching impact. 3) Everything else everybody already said. JBK405 14:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per consensus and article's improvement. diff. PeaceNT 04:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marijuana Anonymous[edit]

no secondary source to assert notability, Google news search found nothing related to this organization. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 16:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article can even be construed as an advertisement for the site. Corpx 18:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per [24], [25]. Plenty of sources seem to exist, this meets our inclusion standards. --W.marsh 19:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Over 66, 000 hits on 4 major search engines. ~ Magnus animuM ^{BRAIN FREEZE!} 21:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a legitimate organization similar to Alcoholics Anonymous, the article now provides reliable sources to that effect. Burntsauce 18:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the reason why this organization cannot be developed to the scale of AA is that marijuana is not addictive in nature, and no one has ruined their life because of marijuana. ^{[citation needed]} However, if sources are enough I am willing to withdraw the nomination. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and for the "citation" sorry about making uncited claims. I don't use marijuana, but I know many others who do and none is addicted. It's anecdotal evidence, I guess. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 19:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Notable. Many google hits and many archived news articles. http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&tab=wn&q=%22Marijuana+Anonymous%22 --daveh4h 21:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as legitimate as Narcotics Anonymous. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because DO BONGS Jerkcity 05:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 16:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Downs Country Club[edit]

A private country club and golf course. Nominated for speedy deletion under A7 which I refused as the article claims notability in terms of the high reputation of its golf course. The key issue here is whether the privacy of the club renders it not notable. No vote. Sam Blacketer 10:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Almost all (or is it all) major golf courses are private. DGG 20:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed Primary Criterion of WP:CORP. There is no independent and reliable secondary source to pass the notability of this club. — Indon (reply) — 09:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The golf magazines ranking the course in the top 20 says something. I'll admit, the article does not, as written, clearly demonstrate notability. However a quick search brings up ample evidence for notability. The article needs to be expanded and referenced. Yes, you could argue that it technically does not meet the notability requirements as written, but they are available in a search. Why delete the article only to have someone recreate it again? Tagged for references. Vegaswikian 23:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, but the onus of putting references are not on the reader but to the editor. At the current state, I'm still seeing this article as non-notable enough. Having only one source that tells not primarily about the subject but a ranking is not enough for me. As a company article, I would expect secondary sources about customer reviews, independent expert reviews, interviews with the management, or other noteworthy events. — Indon (reply) — 07:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then add an "unsourced tag". By nominating for deletion, you are saying you HAVE researched the topic and found no references at all, and want to have the topic deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chaser - T 17:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the subject matter seems to be notable enough, even though the article as currently written may not convey that fact. Charlie 09:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ludicrously premature creation. Delete and keep deleted until 2013. DS 14:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2013 NBA Playoffs[edit]

Crystalballery and speculation. Maxa megalon2000 17:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's still blank tables, not useful. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 17:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for those tables to exist till 2013. Corpx 18:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no actual content, A3 Hut 8.5 19:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Violation of WP:CRYSTAL, recreate in 2013. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 19:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - empty, test page. Resolute 02:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Pomte 18:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Scouten[edit]

Clearly nonesense Gavin Compton 17:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely made by some love-sick fool.24.29.74.132 18:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete tagged so. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 18:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result wasDeleted, no RS that are independent. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reformed Presbytery in North America[edit]

Non notable church Corpx 18:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable or verifiable sources. Only sources provided are from their own organization. DarkAudit 18:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability and I can't find any Hut 8.5 20:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm ordinarily sympathetic to articles about smaller denominations in a well-known tradition, but I don't think this one qualifies. Their history as this group begins only in 2000. Claims of being successors to an earlier group will need better sources. The article is very polemical in tone, which needs to be moderated if it's to survive this AfD. I think this one is possibly salvagable, but it needs a lot of work. -- BPMullins | Talk 22:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BPMullins. Even assuming this group dates back to 1840 as they claim, the article indicates that they have had great difficulty maintaining a full governing board (greater presbytery), because that would require two ministers, a number they have not been able to achieve for much of their history. ~~The history of the group as narrated in this article is very tendentious and would need to be revised to achieve a neutral point of view.~~ The article would also require sources to indicate that this group is known to outsiders (historians of religion, etc.) as a denomination. --Metropolitan90 03:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment edited because the biased portions have been removed. --Metropolitan90 17:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Allow me to point out that this article is currently the subject of a vandalism/edit war with an anonymous user. St. Anselm and I have been reverting what someone referred to as "frighteningly POV edits". I'd vote "Keep", but hopefully protect it so that it can only be edited by users who are logged in (I have a lurking suspicion that the anonymous user has an account already; if he (or she) were forced to log in, we might be able to get some productive discussion going). While I'm not sure of the notability in terms of size, I think they're notable as the only example I know of who continue the practise of lining out (which was historically practised by all Presbyterians), and hold it as a point of principle (see Presbyterian_worship) for details). I'm not associated with them, but I've been aware of them for a while; I'm pretty sure that the claims of being successors to the earlier group are true (I heard about them before 2000, and my Mum remembers hearing about them when she was younger), but I also think it'd be difficult to find references for a lot of this stuff that isn't from documents internal to their denomination. -- TimNelson 04:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Tim Nelson. We definitely need to keep this article for all those who wish to navigate the maze that is Presbyterianism. StAnselm 05:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep, for reasons stated above. They are old and notable, especially for their internet presence among Reformed Christians on the web. Yahnatan 00:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I really see no sound way we can decide on denominations except by regarding any organized group which has references to show it is as Notable. It is not appropriate for us to argue over how distinct the doctrines must be, or how many the believers. DGG 05:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Am I missing something? Where is their internet presence? Where are the references? Even their official web site has been unavailable throughout most of this AfD discussion. --Metropolitan90 08:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect the site referred to is http://www.covenanter.org/, although I'll let Yahnatan speak for himself. -- TimNelson 09:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps the internet presence is more for the "Steelites" in general than the specific RPNA. For instance, [Still Waters Revival Books www.swrb.com/] has a very strong Steelite influence, and has a lot of visitors to it. Supporters of Steelite doctrine have been strongly present in many Reformed discussion groups, despite their small numbers. 1, 2. Perhaps it would merit moving to Steelite instead? Yahnatan 11:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not sure that would work; I get the impression that some think that the term "Steelite" is POV. I can't think of a good name that covers both RPNA and SWRB (and the church the SWRB owner goes to). -- TimNelson 13:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree that 'Steelite' is probably a poor choice, but a rename to a more comprehensive topic is probably the best choice. We've got a couple of days to think about this; let's all consider a new name. -- BPMullins | Talk 17:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mistress Ching[edit]

Is this fictional character really notable enough for an article? I don't think so. Make her walk the plank -- I mean, delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable enough to warrant an article Corpx 18:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per notabality --St.daniel ^Talk 19:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who? Absolutely no sources. DarkAudit 20:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable fictional character; no verificable references. 65.241.15.131 21:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this information was taken from here or a similar site. Delete, because the brief mention in the Brethren of the Coast article is probably sufficient. The articles on Capitaine Chevalle, Ammand The Corsair, and Sri Sumbhajee should also be deleted because there is no reason to believe that these characters are going to make more than a brief cameo in At World's End. Of the "nine pirate lords" described in official literature, only Jack Sparrow, Hector Barbossa, and Sao Feng really need articles of their own. The rest should be covered briefly in Brethren of the Coast. *** Crotalus *** 21:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hardly a notable enough character to warrant its own article. There should only be one page listing the Pirate Lords, including Mistress Ching, Capitaine Chevalle, etc. PNW Raven
- Comment The one that does exist is also up for deletion. The text for the secondary characters is identical between the individual articles and the big one. The other three cited above have now been placed in AfD status. DarkAudit 14:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 16:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Codec (Metal Gear)[edit]

Prodded back last year but an editor believed it should go to AFD. Two editors have agreed the article should redirect to the series. An other said otherwise. I bring it here to get a consensus. The reason I initially prodded it was:

The 2nd paragraph is complete speculation (see WP:OR)
The 3rd paragraph isn't even about the codec but rather that a radio replaces its function in MGS3.
The last 2 paragraphs are just about interesting things you can do on the codec screen (or radio screen since it switches back and forth from MGS 2& MGS3)that is more suited for a MGS or game wiki. It is interesting? Yes, for MGS players. Is it suited for an encyclopedia? No. Wikipedia is not a game guide.
Cutting away all the things that shouldn't be in a wikipedia article, we are left with only this to say about a codec: It is a fictional radio communication device that is used in MGS series as a device to save the game, give the player info, and move the story along. All you need is a paragraph at most explaining what a codec is to someone who has never played the game (keep in mind this who we are writing for; people who already have played MGS know what a codec is). We don't an entire article dedicated to this. Mitaphane _?|! 19:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect - as per nom, no useful material that can't be encapsulated in main Metal Gear article --Fritzpoll 23:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Metal Gear Solid, as it contains some encyclopedic content, but content which is probably better placed in the main article. Charlie 10:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Walton ^{Need some help?} 19:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Fiero[edit]

A role in a McDonalds ad is not very notable nor are his other roles. Metros232 19:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A fast food ad is insufficient acting credit. Sources are a personal site and MySpace. Not reliable and verifiable. DarkAudit 20:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Extremely un-notable Corpx 21:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Has the notability of Absolute zero (the value, not the article). ~ Magnus animuM ^{BRAIN FREEZE!} 21:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT Delete I do not agree with the purposed deletion. Mr. Fiero is one of the first people to be branded by a fast food chain. It is not a typical marketing ad but is a first in history for a fast food chain to do this type of marketing. If this is the case then the whole "i'm lovin' it" information should be deleted as well the "Jack" character for jack in the box. This alone is sufficient to establish encyclopedic information. The reason i'm here is because I found him on the parking lot floor —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.183.75.161 (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- User's edits have all been to this article or this AfD, withthe exception of a couple of edits to caller ID spoofing. DarkAudit 03:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete The other mcdonalds branded people should be included or have their own wiki. If he had zero credit whatever-so-ever how did we all end up doing some research on him? Following the links I can see their are many wiki's out their they have less notability. I've been trying to find the other mcdonalds people that have been on the bags with no luck but finding the sports players. I say let him stay, he's truly part of marketing history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.165.35.84 (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- User's only edit. DarkAudit 03:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE Don't question the Joseph's wiki, I DO recognize him as a worthy enough to be included on wiki... Some of the other celebrities are on wiki as well. I should sign up on wiki but I don't often come on here unless I note something that caught my eye and want to know more about it. Just like what a encyclopedia article is suppose to do, inform, educate and instruct if anything which this did. Thank you for Joseph Fiero Perez article. ~ Amanda / 09:19, 17 May 2007 (PST) — 71.118.173.146 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rex Liu}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Walton ^{Need some help?} 19:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adunai[edit]

I can't verify that this is an accepted philosophical position beyond the website of one Eric Drewes[26]. De-prodded without comment[27] by the same IP who added Eric Drewes to the List of inventors [28]. Pan Dan 19:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe this should be redirected to Names of God in Judaism, where Adonai already redirects. Pan Dan 20:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as soapboxery and unverifiable original research. --Dhartung | Talk 22:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of philosophy-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 14:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DS 14:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PissDrunx[edit]

Surely this band isn't notable? Axl 20:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Do not appear to even come close to WP:MUSIC.--Anthony.bradbury 20:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7. No assertion of notability. DarkAudit 21:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7. Individual people might be notable, but as a band there is no assertion of notablity or anything they have recorded. 86.140.3.176 18:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The above vote was by User:A1octopus who had forgotten to sign in.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of music featured in Skins[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics. The songs on this list have nothing in common except for happening to have been used in episodes of the same TV series. Otto4711 20:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Songs are also listed in most cases on the episode pages anyway. Reedy Boy 20:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Songs have nothing in common other than their selection on this programme so this is not a notable collection of music. A1octopus 21:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UKClimbing.com[edit]

It's a web forum which doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB. Phony Saint 20:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this forum is not notable enough. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree - not notable or mentioned elsewhere Corpx 21:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability, popularity is not sufficient. -Will Beback ·:· 00:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find a single outside article that mentions the forum with the exception of forum entires and RSS feeds, so it really is not notable.--Kylohk 09:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above Think outside the box 08:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 here. No argument that there are serious policy problems (like with verifiability or neutrality), no agreement about whether this falls under content policies like WP:NOT. There's just no consensus here. W.marsh 16:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs featured on The Office (US TV series)[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics. These songs have nothing in common beyond happening to have been used in an episode of a TV series. Otto4711 20:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral List seems mildly entertaining and a tiny bit informative. Corpx 21:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per Otto4711 ~ Magnus animuM ^{BRAIN FREEZE!} 21:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this list into the trivia section of each episode.
Keep I've been moderating this site close to it's origination on Wikipedia. The music on "The Office" is an integral part of the series. It's just like a soundtrack. To delete this, you'd have to delete all the "Song List" articles. Like the ones for House or The Office (UK). CJMylentz 03:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles for the songs from House and from The Office UK are in fact both up for deletion. Otto4711 13:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indeed the one for House has now gone. A1octopus 18:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the article for the Office UK is now also gone. Otto4711 13:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listcruft, These songs have nothing in common other than their inclusion on this show. If the show was to put out an album then that would be different because the album could be notable, but otherwise this is an indiscrimate collection of loosely related topics, one of the things which Wikipedia is not. A1octopus 18:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the music's notable include it in the article on the show; if not, well it gets deleted. Carlossuarez46 19:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These songs are a great idea as people can go back to the page and find out what songs appeared in each episode. It is perfect to say, "Oh I loved that song from Season 2 Episode 4, but I cant remember the name" It is a great reference and a must keep.
Keep per CJMylentz.-BillDeanCarter 23:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR and precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs featured on The Office (UK TV series) and the deletion of the House-related list. Crazysuit 05:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I do suppose lists of this sort are unencyclopedic (as per WP:NOT#DIR), I have to admit that I also find them both interesting and helpful. If this does end up being deleted as the UK series/House lists were, I should expect that the information would be collected in each individual episode page for the series? The music is an important aspect of the series and the songs used should be mentioned somewhere. Pele Merengue 16:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page may seem useless to some, but it is actually very important to all the articles concerning The Office. It prevents people from adding songs from the office on other pages and so it makes other articles better because they have less trivia. Yaanch^Speak! 01:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better here than there is not a convincing argument. Otto4711 00:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I dont get some of you people. Wikipedia is meant to be a source of information, yet some of you seem to have nothing better to do than go marking extremely useful pages for deletion. For fans of the show, this is an very useful source of information - in one easily browsable location. The music is an integral part of the show, and has ALOT to do with it. If you find this page 'irrelevant' then go assault some other articles with your unwanted presence, this article was going fine without your interference. Rebound86 13:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING is not a convincing argument. Otto4711 00:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the "keep" arguments here have boiled down to WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING, and WP:ALLORNOTHING. I can see how a fan of the series would find this list helpful, and informative, but that's not a reason it needs to be on Wikipedia. Surely another website, a fan site for The Office for example, could have this same information, if indeed the main article cannot feasibly contain it. (Also, I don't find the "we need this spin-off article so that the main article doesn't get cluttered with trivia" very convincing.) Charlie 10:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Music plays a significant role in television. Listing songs used in episodes is encyclopaedic. Remember that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia. I believe that eventually this can turn into a decent article. Matthew 14:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Wikipedia is not paper does not mean that every aricle is given a free pass. Regardless of the storage medium if the article fails policy it should be deleted. Otto4711 15:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Krimpet (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notepad++[edit]

No claims of notability, no independent sources Corvus cornix 21:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; a Google search shows quite a few independent references. Many of the hits are blogs, but even so, that does help to show some level of notability in the Internet community, even if they are not reliable sources in and of themselves. And this post from a Microsoft developer might count as a reliable source. Most of these blogs do actually discuss Notepad++ rather than simply mention it in passing. *** Crotalus *** 21:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Blogs are not reliable sources. Corvus cornix 21:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, but they do help to establish a level of notability. And I would argue that a blog hosted on the MSDN servers and written by Microsoft engineers could be considered a reliable source for Notepad-related subjects. *** Crotalus *** 21:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've heard it mentioned a lot by fellow programmers. Strong Keep. Corpx 21:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "I've heard of it" isn't a reliable source. Corvus cornix 21:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I've tried it myself and it isn't bad, but apart from this trivial PCMag blurb, I can't find reliable sources in English (there may be some in other languages). --Dhartung | Talk 22:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a Google News search even of just the past 30 days yields a result, and there seem to be a number of nontrivial mentions of the program outside of the official website. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 00:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide those? Otherwise it still does not claim notability... --Iamunknown 18:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: to claim that this editor lacks notability seems unjustified. Just some examples for its notability: it has very active forums on SourceForge with over 10,000 postings, and also an active mailing list with 336 subsscribers and close to 11,000 archived messages. Traffic to the project site is substantial: http://sourceforge.net/project/stats/graph/detail-graph.php?group_id=95717&ugn=notepad-plus&type=prweb&mode=week&graph=1 Several NotePad++plugins are being developed, numerous translations exist, documentation, a FAQ, even branded merchandise - in short, this is a popular open-source project with a substantial community of developers and users. Textor 20:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, the software is downloaded about 250,000 times a month.[29] --82.32.176.228 15:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please reread the nomination. Nowhere did I say "lacks notability". I said "no claims of notability". That's an entirely different kettle of fish. Corvus cornix 22:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as above, although it could use a cleanup Think outside the box 11:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article needs cleaned up—not deleted. --Hamitr 14:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reasons as above --Gunny01 08:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Notepad++ is used by some many people (there have been 3,882,680 downloads [30]) so it has great importance. Its article should be improved to reflect how good it is. There is no reason to delete the article. Some people even run it in wine as it is so good. The article is decent, and there IS NO REASON TO CONSIDER DELETING IT. User reviews of Notepad++ (every rating is 5/5 Corvus cornix's 4th edit was adding this AFD --Adam1213 Talk + 07:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC) I thought it was for a min, but I quickly realised that it was not and removed saying that [31] having it put back [32] has caused confusion. --A dam1213 Talk + 08:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, no it wasn't, have you even looked at Special:Contributions/Corvus_cornix? Probably not. Additionally, don't ask other editors to "save the article by voting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notepad++" like you did at several editors' talk pages; this isn't the polls, this is a discussion to generate consensus. --Iamunknown 07:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain why you think this nomination was my fourth edit? Corvus cornix 20:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this software is used by a large number of people (check its official page, and forums). Also, notice that it's a GNU project as Wikipedia is. --Tasco 0 17:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How does that make it notable? --Iamunknown 18:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Besides, there's a big difference between a GNU project and a project using the GNU FDL. On the topic of the deletion debate I'm inclined towards a keep vote, but the article certainly needs a lot of work both structurally and in terms of the citation of reliable sources. --Safalra 18:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Like Safalra said, the article needs work, but it should not be deleted since it's an notable text editor and used by many people.
Looking at GNews, there are only a few news articles about how Notepad++ has a new vulnerability; Google search results don't turn up anything either (other than download sites). Since this is a purely online thing, I should imagine that, if it were notable, the program would be mentioned on ZDNet or other top tech news sites; it currently isn't. Doesn't appear to be notable to me, plus very few independent sources, so I'm leaning towards deleting it. --Iamunknown 20:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article needs cleaned up, Notepad ++ is a great software --207.13.77.47 01:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - This is a significant piece of software, well worthy of a Wikipedia article. While most of the sites that speak of N++ are blogs and the numerous sites that offer it as a download, the number of them is a sign of importance. Take into account the number of downloads, the activity on the forums there, and all the ongoing work on the project and plug-ins, it would simply be odd to have no Wikipedia article on the subject. Killing it because all the "claims of notability" aren't good enough feels like a technicality. However, I would agree that the article needs some work. creativename | Matum u mok-aan! Matum u shara-hai agh golug-hai! 06:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per consensus. PeaceNT 04:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of the heaviest people[edit]

Contested prod. Partially unsourced since December at least, WP:BLP issues (even if sourced) and just unencyclopedic. Garion96 (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many of these individuals already have their own articles, and those articles do appear to have sources. The most prominent such sources should be added to the list. Unverifiable entries should be removed. Standard editing can save this list, and it doesn't inherently violate WP:BLP any more than Oldest people does. Weight is a provable physical attribute, just like age or height. *** Crotalus *** 21:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At least for now, and hope that more references can be added. Corpx 21:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added some references, so I reckon this can be properly sourced. The media loves big fat people! --Haemo 22:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. All entries need to be sourced. Mgiganteus1 22:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although still quite bizarre, a list of the most obese people can aid others in their studies, so I suggest this to be left alone.Communist47 23:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but why the arbitrary threshold of 1000 lbs? This excludes historically notable people - particularly Daniel Lambert. Tearlach 00:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm, this reminds me of the numerous discussions for List of tall men. Not sure which way to go with this, but there are some questionable statements in a few of these articles. FrozenPurpleCube 04:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Keep but remain to something more clear like List of record body weights...don't know exactly. Bulldog123 04:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The supposed chart topper of this list, Carol Yager, has some discussion which indicates that the estimated weight which places her on this list is sourced from questionable data to begin with, which is a possible WP:BLP violation. I suggest people read Talk:Carol Yager and give this a second thought. RFerreira 04:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Yager died in 1994. Mgiganteus1 06:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just like lists. Useight 15:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Choosing to support this was tough (as it's a sensative subject), however there seems to be no intend to insult or add emotional injury. GoodDay 20:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How about changing it to a category? Nzgabriel 21:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Korn's ninth studio album[edit]

we don't know even the title of 8 album and excluding ONE sentence said by jonathan davis there is no official confirmation. There is no reason to write anything about this "album" ... or mayby we should leave only those two-three sentences in the main article Panzerny 21:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepExactly what Bejnar said: there'll have to be an article here soon anyway. So why not just keep it and edit as more info becomes availible? That seems like common sense to me.URFG 19:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)URFG[reply]
Keep more news is being generated, and the album will soon be up here anyway. Jmlk17 21:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an example of exactly why some pundits reject using Wikipedia. This article may be written, with a proper title, when and if the album is released. "Wilkie defeats Truman". Furor does not equal notability or anything else. --Bejnar 00:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. There's already enough information with the band's eighth album. There seems to be a lot of speculation with the article and no resources whatsoever which makes it original research. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Douglasr007 05:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When there's enough information to make the article without crystalballing it can be reposted under the album's correct name. 86.140.3.176 18:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The above vote was by User:A1octopus who had forgotten to sign in.
Delete The problem is that in fact there ain't any information about this album... and most of this article is complete bullshit ( David recovering from wrist injury <sic!> ?? it was 7 years ago !! . ) . Many of those "facts" are taken from comments the band made about how the eight album is gonna sound, not about the NINTH one. Panzerny 13:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If and when it comes out, make a new article. Until then, I say delete it. Slavlin 21:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Dunbar[edit]

Delete as not notable. This is a nicely written, substantial article, totally unsourced, about a non-notable Montreal bon vivant. --Bejnar 21:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. An interesting read, no doubt but I'm afraid I don't see this article meeting WP:NN either. On top of that, there are very few Google hits after you discount false positives, wiki mirrors and pages that mention Mr. Dunbar's namesake, former Ambassador Prof. Charles Dunbar. NN. Wikipedia articles are not simply memorials. -- Seed 2.0 22:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Farewell toast, er, delete. Wikipedia is not a society journal. An article on the Ambassador, of course, would be welcome. --Dhartung | Talk 22:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:N, WP:V, etc. -- MarcoTolo 22:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 16:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raleigh Muns[edit]

Article does not assert notability needed to pass WP:BIO. Being a reference librarian and writing a few articles for the Daily Kos are not nearly sufficient enough to make a person notable. I do not think that helping to archive the CIA's World Factbook is enough to make Muns notable either. There does not appear to be coverage from many reliable sources. Pablo Talk | Contributions 21:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm willing to believe that someone can be a notable reference librarian, but this isn't quite it. Without sources, there is no notability. --Dhartung | Talk 22:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article contains multiple sources establishing notability, inline with Wikipedia:Notability (people) (sources given are also verifiable and reliable). I do believe, however, that this article could be sourced better—preferably with inline citations. It could also be copy edited to a higher quality. Remember, Wikipedia is not paper, so... while the Encyclopaedia Britannica may not have an article on this person, Wikipedia can. Matthew 10:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Matthew. Notability has been established, and I quite frankly wish to know more about how he helped compile information life the CIA's world fact book.EnsRedShirt 06:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, notability has been established but needs to be fleshed out. I'm also interested in the CIA World Fact Book and how such a unique and interesting resource came to be.awgh 18:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If someone discovers content rendering the encyclopedic expansion of these worthwhile, a consensus to do so may always be developed at the talk page. Until then, consensus favors redirection, solely for convenience.

One third and one quarter[edit]

I would argue that these are dictionary definitions, and they do not necessitate an article. There exists already an article at one half, which perhaps is justified, but perhaps not the third and the fourth. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain it does not seem more unencyclopaedic than one half or a list of quarter terms. Further, I disagree that the bar should be that they "necessitate" an article, but that there is the potential for an article. I would also note that print encyclopaedia have at times included articles on such terms. Darker Dreams 22:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and transwiki. Stubs about words belong at Wiktionary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the transwikiing. One third is not a word, any more than one apple or one hour. There are already wiktionary entries for third and quarter. For one quarter: redirect to quartile. We don't have an article tertile, otherwise I'd say: redirect one third to there. --Lambiam ^Talk 23:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing much enyclopedic to say about either one. FrozenPurpleCube 23:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think redirects would be better than deleting or moving to wiktionary. One could redirect say to 3 (number) and 4 (number) respectively, or to quarter, etc. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have no objection in principle to a redirect to third or quarter though I don't know how often it'll come up. FrozenPurpleCube 02:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if articles are expanded in the form of one half. Otherwise delete and redirect to fraction. --Dhartung | Talk 04:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or do as Dhartung suggested--Cronholm144 05:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect, Wikipedia already has an article 1/3. I would suggest a speedy close to this afd and redirect there. This is a non-issue.--agr 19:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 1/3 is a dab page. Only one meaning is relevant, and that leads to another dab page, third. Redirecting there is possible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete linas 00:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't think even one half should exist, none of the articles offer any insight into their subject. Cedars 00:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Week keep~~ for some reasons its bugging be that integers are seen as more important that fractions. Surely their must be somthing interesting to say about these numbers, either from a mathematical point of view or a cultural one. I'd be inclined to keep these for a while to see if anyone find intereting to say about them. --Salix alba (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to third and quarter. --Salix alba (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Walton ^{Need some help?} 19:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stock market downturn of 2002[edit]

The article doesn't cite any widespread use of the term, or really prove notability. Surely we can't have a new article for every "downturn" that has ever occurred for a year. Articles about the Dot-com bubble, and 9/11 attacks already exist, specifically mentioning the resulting economic effects. What distinguishes 2002 from any other year the market didn't do as great as expected?--Ybbor ^Talk 22:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: There's a whole bundle of these articles: Early 2000s recession, October 27, 1997 mini-crash, United States housing bubble, Accounting scandals, Corporate scandal, Dot-com bubble, Subprime meltdown etc. It would be nice if they could be tied together in some way, with redundant stuff merged and the remaining articles given a thorough going-over. Perhaps a Wikiproject could take them under its wing?--Nydas^(Talk) 11:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This one needs to be kept, however it could definitely be tied in with the Early 2000s recession or the dot-com bubble. The stock market downturn of 2002 was a result of those two events. It's definitely a notable bear market in the history of the stock market. However, it does not need to be tied in with anything about the housing bubble, the subprime meltdown, and especially not the October 27, 1997 mini-crash. The mini-crash was essentially a one-day blip in the middle to end of the most powerful bull market in history. The subprime meltdown and the housing bubble are things that have been occurring since the end of the bear market that this article describes (2002/2003 - ?). Could we make an article that talks about the stock market's declines from the topping out of the Nasdaq in March of 2000 until the market bottomed in late 2002? This wasn't just a one year event. Clinevol98 05:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: although not a single day drop, this was a notable drop on a percentage basis. Calwatch 07:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List Of Eazy E's Songs And Albums[edit]

There are just six albums on the list, which can be easily accommodated in the main article; the bulk of the list is tracks from the albums, which don't belong on a list like this in any case (see relevant WikiProjects and similar articles). (Note that the poor formatting and incorrect article title aren't what's at issue here; they could be cleaned up.) I'd have simply merged and redirected, but experience tells me that a battle royal would have ensued, so this seems to be the best approach. Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've made my vote delete rather than merge & redirect because I've just seen that there's an Eazy-E discography, making this article doubly pointless. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - There is a discography for this. --- 72.142.212.28 20:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is already a perfectly good and better named article for this. A1octopus 14:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to Keep. Walton ^{Need some help?} 19:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man 4[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Film's are unstable by nature when it comes to development and there is no guarantee the film will be made. Same information as last AfD, just more sources citing it. See previous AfD here. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Admin Xoloz has already ignored a recent deletion review, where the consensus was to keep the page deleted, and restored the page. His comments of "Debate here is moot -- Uncle G's new version is beautiful (introduced late in the debate), and should be moved into mainspace" show he couldn't keep an objective opinion about the information at hand. It's clear that there is no concrete evidence the film will be released. The only sources are of Sony expressing and interest in making more films, which does not equate to the films definitely being made. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Spider-Man film series#Future per WP:CRYSTAL. No one from the first three films have renewed their contracts, and no production start date has been set. There has been only talk about development, and this does not equate actual production. Sufficient information exists at Spider-Man film series#Future. This article fails #1 because the film is not "almost certain" to take place. To avoid making this a subjective argument, I would like to point to the history of Spider-Man, which had been in development hell since the late 1980s. Superman Returns was not made until 20 years after the last film. Batman Begins was not made until 8 years after the last film. The following projects and their years are how long they have been stuck in development, despite announcements being made and having franchise potential: Captain America (2000), Clash of the Titans remake (2003), Deathlok (2001), Ender's Game (2002), The Giver (1994), He-Man (2004), Hot Wheels (2003), Prince of Persia: Sands of Time (2004), Rendezvous with Rama (1997), Ronin (1998), Shazam! (2002), Sub-Mariner (2004), Terminator 4 (2003), Y: The Last Man (2003). Headlines for these can be seen at my subpage. We already had an acceptable location to report talk about future films at Spider-Man film series#Future, and because this film is merely in development, with no director or cast attached, and no production start date established, it cannot warrant its own article. If one is inclined to review the page history, rumored cast information was already added to it after its creation ([33], [34], [35]). With the underdevelopment and early nature of an article like this, this only opens the doors to users eager to provide content of speculative nature. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some recent examples of speculative content have been added, further indicating that the article, at this point, is not at all able to stand on its own at this point: [36], [37]. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- copied essentially from speculation, can't see how it passes CRYSTAL David Fuchs^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 23:14, 12 May 2007
Keep, meets WP:CRYSTAL standard. We're talking about the next sequel to a film that has broken all previous box office weekend records, not at all similar to the production issues it had getting off the ground, or to Superman (a franchise that generally sucked at the end of its run) or Ender's (which is held up due to the author). --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CRYSTAL has nothing to do with how well a previous film does. It's about what can be considered to be concrete proof that it will come out. Per criteria #1:
  "''Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election, and 2012 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2016 U.S. presidential election and 2036 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. A schedule of future events may also be appropriate."
- This article does not meet this criteria. It's not like the Olympics. We know the Olympics are going to happen, it's a scheduled event that has been around for decades (scheduling wise). They set the locations ahead of time. Films are not that stable. By nature they can change cast in the blink of an eye, release dates, production dates, or collapse altogether. That does not satisfy the any 1 of the exclusion criteria of CRYSTAL. The "event", that is described in criteria 1, is the film's release. To be in "preparation" requires filming to actually be underway. They don't even have a script, cast, director, crew, production start date, release date; this film is nothing more than a stream of thoughts traveling down the cyber pipeline. Sony says "we want to make more", but that does not equate to "it will happen". Trying to say that Spider-Man 3 is doing so well (when it's only been a week) that it means we WILL have another movie is pure original research. There is no proof that the film doing well will make them produce Spider-Man 4. We might as well create Spider-Man 5 and Spider-Man 6, because Sony said they were going to make those too. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You actually provided the perfect quote for why the article passes crystal, If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Eight sources for three paragraphs is incredibly well-documented. --JayHenry 15:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, I do see the sources cited from reliable publications and many websites have talked about a confirmation for the next Spider-Man series e.g. IMDB. However, when I did a Google search, MSNBC said something like "No stars, no Spider-Man 4". Also, Sony has not mentioned anything about Spider-Man 4 on their website. So for now, its just crystal ballism and there should be some confirmation more or less that the film will be made. Terence 09:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect: Only a tenth of film projects get made, and whilst Spider-Man 4 is the sequel to three hugely successful films based on an iconic character, this is definite crystal-balling, for a project without a confirmed director or stars. Alientraveller 11:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The notion that there was any sort of consensus to keep this page deleted at DRV is not accurate at all. Xoloz did not lose his objectivity (in favor of what anyways? his pro-Spider-man 4 bias?) and the claim that he ignored the DRV is both untrue and unfair. To the subject at hand, I disagree about the interpretations of WP:CRYSTAL above. Crystal says articles should not contain "unverified speculation." This article does not -- it contains a confirmed statement from the head of Sony Pictures that they intend to create more Spider-man movies, as well as additional information from reliable sources. In other words, this is an excellent example about how Wikipedia should handle articles on movies in development. There's not one single sentence in this article that's misleading, unsourced or in any way inappropriate. --JayHenry 15:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You should read criteria #1 for what is "exempt" from crystal balling. Spider-Man 4 does not show that it is (and I quote) almost certain to take place. Having reliable sources saying Sony wants to make more films does not negate the fact that we don't know that it will ever happen. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have read the policy, and I'm sorry that I interpret the policy differently than you do. My comment above explains why I think this article passes crystal, If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Eight sources for three paragraphs is exceptionally well-documented. The purpose of WP:CRYSTAL isn't to keep well-sourced information out of wikipedia, quite the opposite in fact. --JayHenry 15:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That information isn't out of Wikipedia. It already exists on the (film series) page. It was there before Uncle G ever laid hands on it. It's the same information that was originally on the Spidey 3 page, we just moved it to make room for more relevant information about the actual film that was released. And citing 3 websites that use the exact same interview hardly proves anything about the film. If you follow the logic that you are presenting, we should created the articles for 5 and 6, because right now there is not any information that is specifically pinpointed to part 4. It's all about 4, 5, and 6, and the future of the series as a whole. This statement alone (more specifically, what's in bold), Both of their contracts were for three movies, and a fourth movie requires fresh contracts, inviting speculation that one, both, or even all three may be replaced, wasn't even stated by someone with the studio, it was an observation made by the writer of the article, but we're presenting "speculation" as if someone has officially stated that if they try and raise their salary we'll replace them. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Jay, did you read the reasoning behind my vote? The same information existed at Spider-Man film series#Future. We're not trying to suppress any kind of information about it, but it's not appropriate to have an article this early because the development phase is not concrete and speculation is rampant (see the examples I provided). There is no intention to keep discussion out of Wikipedia; it's a matter of whether the article should exist yet, since the film is not guaranteed to be made. When there is further information about Spider-Man 4, we will build up at the wiki-link. At a point where production is all set, we can move that information here to create a full-fledged article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I understand your points, I just disagree. As for the claims above, you are incorrect, all the "speculation" in the article is well-sourced, including that they intend to continue the series even if Dunst, Maguire and Raimi are not attached (the article doesn't make any claims about salaries). We should have this page now. I wasn't suggesting you were trying to surpress information, I am just saying that this article passes WP:CRYSTAL, and really it's not even a close call. Since "Spider-man 4" has now been referenced in multiple, non-trivial reliable sources, (etc.) I think it's appropriate to have a page for it in addition to having similar information at Spider-Man film series#Future. People are going to search for Spider-man 4, and when they do, they will have an accurate, well-sourced account of the subject. Make 5 and 6 redirect here for now, as the information would be redundant for the time being, that's fine. But no reason to delete, salt or protect any of those pages. --JayHenry 18:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        When people search for Spider-Man 4, they can be appropriately redirected to Spider-Man film series#Future. Please understand, when studios announce that they will make films, this does not always carry through. Thus, at this point, an article for Spider-Man 4 is extremely misleading and gives the impression that the film will be made. Just because it breaks box office records does not mean that production will go off without a hitch. With that argument, a spin-off like Magneto should be in production by now. However, if you look at the link, it's been in development since 2004, with no sign that it will be fast-tracked to production. The Hobbit and Halo are similarly stalled franchise potentials. Information about the Spidey sequels are better housed under the section I've mentioned because if it is not its own article, then there would be no impression that the film will be made. In addition, it's going to require higher maintenance. You can see the revisions I provided with rumored information. An article that is underdeveloped will be filled out with more rumors and speculation than necessary (happening again recently, seen here), which is why it is best to be housed in a section under the film series article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. I've heard nothing, and they've said nothing confirming that it is even thought to be in production. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete because Spider-Man_film_series#Future should take care of this since it is all speculation. Weak because I don't care too much about the outcome since this page isn't harmful--just unnecessary. gren グレン 01:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it's stating the possibility of a fourth movie. So why delete it just for it to be recreated?--Hornetman16 01:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why create it if it is only to be deleted? One is far easier to do. Creating an article can be down with a click of a button. If the film never comes out, and we're stuck with nothing but speculation, we'll have to go through this AfD all over again, because people will assume that it not being made automatically makes it notable, which it doesn't. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Spiderman film series#Future and protect. I agree that there will probably be an article at this title in the future, but at this time there is not enough information to create a seperate and encyclopedic article on it. If and when that situation changes, this article can be recreated. --EMS | Talk 15:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I think we should redirect it to the article Spiderman.--Dalmation 20:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To this article (Spider-Man) or to this article (Spider-Man film series)? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect, at least for now. If concrete information on an actual fourth film comes out, the article can be unprotected and recreated. -Sean Curtin 02:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that, contrary to the claims above, none of the verifiable information here was or is actually present in the articles to which it is being suggested this be redirected to. Redirection would thus lose verifiable content, which is of course not what we should be aiming for as Wikipedia editors. Also note that, contrary to the statements above, it is now twelve sources for four paragraphs. ☺ Uncle G 11:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On May 1, we moved all of the sequel talk from the Spider-Man 3 page to the "film series" page. Just because you rewrote it doesn't mean the information wasn't the same. Here is there information as it was in April, right before we moved it. You just found different source to express the same information. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 11:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed. That I wrote it doesn't mean that it isn't the same. The fact that the information in this article is clearly not present at the link that you give, is what means that it isn't the same. There was no mention of SPE's statements, nor of what Maguire's said after the theatrical release, for examples. Indeed, there still isn't. Mis-characterizing this as a "rewrite" is to ignore the fact that the verifiable information in this article was not, and is not, actually present in the other articles to which you are pointing. Uncle G 15:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The only thing missing about what Maguire said was about the years it would take to develop a script (in the version I linked). It states in there that he said he'd come back if the whole team did. As for the SPE statement, the version I linked had Sam Raimi stating that Sony was going to do a 4,5,6, because he was just reiterating what Sony had already said. So, yes, it is the same. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple reliable sources. I would not mind redirection either. Abeg92contribs 17:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you clarify if you want to keep or redirect, please? It can be either kept as an article or temporarily redirected to the film series article. The plan is that when there is enough information to show that the film will be produced, the redirect will be changed back into an actual article. The argument has been that while there are sources that reflect the intent to film Spider-Man 4, the lack of a director or cast at this point does not ensure that the film will be made. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a result of people who 'just don't like it' when they got the WP:CRYSTAL explanations over at SM3's talk page. repeatedly. This pretty much counts as a content fork. ThuranX 21:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything salvageable and redirect to Spider-Man film series per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:CFORK. Current article duplicates content of aforementioned article and does not have enough certainty to stand on its own. —Viriditas | Talk 04:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, but this article seems to fulfill the requirements to keep based on policy. The first sentence of WP:CRYSTAL is "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." The article is well-sourced. I see no problem here. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 06:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing wrong with documenting verifiable speculation, but this does not equate the actual production of the film Spider-Man 4. A case should first be made to show that the film will actually be produced, instead of talked about, before permitting an article based on it. That's why I advocate placing future information at Spider-Man film series#Future and move it to this film article if (not when, intent does not guarantee production; see development hell) it enters actual production. There are still obstacles -- contract renegotiations, budget constraints, script development (Maguire himself said this would take a few years) -- that need to be overcome before production can be guaranteed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In other words, you want merger, not deletion. Article merger does not involve deletion at any stage, and requires that edit history be retained; and thus your actual opinion is to keep. Uncle G 15:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I believe his opinion is to keep the information, but delete the page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: The article has good sources, and it's about a sequel to a movie that's breaking all box office records madly! Spider Man 4 is being planned by SONY and the content on this article isn't false. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.178.44.75 (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- You guys need to realize that we aren't denying the content of the article. We are saying that there isn't proof that the film WILL come out. The only thing that article expresses is the want of Sony to make more. It does not say when, how, or with whom. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 11:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, by redirecting the article (which you actually did) you are denying the content of the article, by the simple act of blanking it. Uncle G 15:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't deny anything, as I've stated that what YOU wrote is the same as what was already there. You just used different sources to convey the same message. You are trying to play the semantics game of what's merging/deleting/denying. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This version of the article looks highly sourced to reputable citations. 12 is pretty good, in this instance, though I don't know how many the previous version had. Smee 07:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- The 2006-04-06 and 2007-01-30 versions that were deleted had zero sources. The former comprised solely an infobox and a completely speculative cast list. The latter comprised solely an infobox and a completely speculative 2-line plot summary. Neither comprised any content resmbling the content of the article at hand. Uncle G 15:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of those "sources" actually say "Spider-Man 4 is or will be made." It's just people talking about their future involvement in a possible fourth movie. We have no basis for the name. ' 14:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ... apart from the 3 sources that quote people saying that Spider-Man 4 will be made, in as many words, and the 4 sources that use the name "Spider-Man 4" in their very titles. Uncle G 15:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - 3 sources quoting what they think, not what is fact. It is their opinion that it will be made. Do they know when? Do they know how much it will cost? Do they know who is going to direct, write, star in it? Umm... No. Verifiable speculation doesn't change the fact that it's still speculation. They don't know. Warner Brothers thought they knew another Superman movie was going to be made right after Superman IV, but it took them 20 years to get something off the ground and into actual production. That right there proves that you can talk all you want, but if you don't DO then it doesn't matter. Sony hasn't take any other steps in making Spider-Man 4 beyond trying to negiotiate with David Koepp. Negotiations don't mean anything other than "let's talk". That could easily fall through if he requests too much money. As for the name, all of the sequels have simply had a numerical identifying on them, so people calling is "Spider-Man 4" are simply following the trend. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Spider-Man films and next time do this without wasting time with a deletion discussion. Nothing to debate here. Encyclopedic content, with references, mererly needs editoral discussion on the talk pages to decide the location. No need for AfD to get involved. Remember Merge=Keep; location of content within the encyclopedia is discussed on talk pages not at AfD. Carcharoth 15:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I've put on the merger tags, so I guess this AfD can be closed. I put a request into "Proposed Mergers" and I think this merge may be a bit controversial on the idea that people disagree what satisfies crystal ball, and where information should be listed when it's in a grey area. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several reliable sources have confirmed it - • The Giant Puffin • 13:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Krimpet (talk) 05:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian Roman Catholic entertainers[edit]

46% of Canadians are Roman Catholic. This intersection of occupation and religion is comparable to the deletion of the delete category Category:Roman Catholic entertainers : Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 29. A non-notable intersection in list format. List can only be fully sourced by unreliable religious-obsessed websites anyway. etc. Bulldog123 22:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm with you on this one (~~though abstaining, for now~~) but if you'll indulge me for a minute while I play devil's advocate (and blatantly ignore WP:WAX in the process): how is this fundamentally different from, say, List of Scientologist celebrities? In terms of sheer numbers, there's obviously a difference but, conceptually, the list is just as random as this one (ie. attribute A has very little or nothing to do with attribute B). And as far as sources go, it would be possible to just include those entertainers who are publicly speaking on behalf of or representing the Catholic church in some function (which, as an aside, might make this list a tad bit less ~~inordinate~~ random) which would increase the likelihood of finding valid, reliable third party sources that do not merely mention the religious aspect in passing. -- Seed 2.0 23:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, It's fundamentally different from List of Scientologist celebrities because:

Scientology and celebritism is actually linked to a huge degree. This is not a non-notable intersection. You always get talk of Scientology and actors and actresses in the media. You don't get the same thing to ANY degree with any other "religion" except perhaps Kaballah, which isn't really a religion but more of a religious activity. Plus scientogolists are usually self-professed. You're not born a scientologist like you might be born into the Catholic religion. Maybe some newborns are, but we're not concerned about that with most wikipedia articles.

- Sourcing will be hard if not impossible because

Most celebrities don't advertise their religion, and if they do, they're already well known for it. Sourcing is going to be nimpossible (near impossible) if we need to look for direct statements from the celebrities themselves on their religious belief. Otherwise there are WP:BLP problems, privacy issues etc. I agree strongly with you that self-professed celebrities who publically speak of their religion could be included, however, those are few and if we DO do that then it would have to be for all religion/ethnicity/sexuality lists like it. Bulldog123 00:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points. Delete it is. -- Seed 2.0 08:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Origional research--Sefringle 20:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are differences between categories on this and lists; lists (can) provide sourcing and don't contribute to bio cat clutter. Also, we have the great guideline on categorization on cross-section that is cited as the basis of the cat deletions to now. That said, here there is no real value and not the minimal hope of value of the cross section of Roman Catholics and entertainers, regardless of Nationality (here, Canadian). I may be persuaded that List of Canadian Roman Catholic politicians could stay, although I think Category:Canadian Roman Catholic politicians ought be deleted; because although we would be hard pressed to write an article Canadian Roman Catholic politics to keep the cat alive; there are perhaps some issues (like the US) that a politician's Roman Catholicism comes into play. Carlossuarez46 02:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carlossuarez46. Pavel Vozenilek 00:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa reyes[edit]

Page is basically nonsense apart from the first sentence... I could improve it but the subject still isn't notable. Chelsea Korka's article was deleted and I can't see why Reyes is any more notable. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 23:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Articles like this really tick me off. Why the hell can't people realize that encyclopedias (encyclopediae?) NEVER use first person?! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 02:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete this article could be laminated and preserved in the BJAODN-parallel collection of atrocious WP bios. I don't know which is more classically pathetic: that her hobbies are "Shopping, going to the movies, watching TV, Listening to everything by Justin Timberlake" or that the beaux eaus she's "rumoured to be dating" is totally unknown to Google... Pete.Hurd 06:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Subject is not notable. doxTxob 19:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As already stated, the subject has no notability. I know sloppy work isn't grounds for deletion, but this article is full of unsourced information, rumors, point of view, trivia, and nonsense. Acalamari 16:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just realised that this article has already been deleted... I missed it because of the incorrect capitalisation. Can this be speedy deleted? (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Reyes) PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 22:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I think it can be. I note that Melissa Reyes is protected to prevent it from being recreated, and it seems the creator of Melissa reyes got around it by not capitalizing the first letter of her last name. Acalamari 22:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 14:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Uropi[edit]

Non-notable contructed language. Article has languished unreferenced by reliable sources for over two years. Tagged for notability for about a month now with no improvements. Article attests the language was invented by a linguist, which might hint at some notability, but I'm unable to confirm this, and the linguist named is a red link. A web search gives no indication of reliable sources. 1300 google hits, but search made difficult by the fact this appears to be a Maori word, so many are unrelated NZ govt pages. Delete Aagtbdfoua 00:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google Books finds this text where a description is used for a comprehension test in a textbook, and it looks seriously non-notable: a language limited to just a teacher and his pupils and friends. Tearlach 00:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to Be: Emo[edit]

Video doesn't appear to be notable. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only notable source is a short item on the blog of the Bakersfield Chronicle. If this had appeared in the paper itself, it would count as one independent source towards notability. Even then it at least one more similar source would be needed. As it stands this article clearly does not meet our notability criteria. Gwernol 01:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the first to nominate the page for deletion oh so many months ago. The consensus at the end was that there was no consensus, with many "keep" votes placing their faith in the eventual "full length" feature version of the film, coverage in a magazine that was eventually going to be published, and the aforementioned Chronicle article. Neither the full-length feature nor the full-print article have surfaced, and, as the edit history will reveal, no one can seem to find anything of value to be said about the movie. A Google search for '"How to Be Emo" film -wikipedia" provides 13,200 resutls, but a look at the first ten reveals the film's self-promotional material, YouTube/GoogleVideo, and message board posts. Sliding futher down the line uncovers a few blogs, more self-promotion, and more message boards before dissolving into a pool of the unrelated. This is a non-notable film by a non-notable artist, and the evidence promised hasn't surfaced. Lets get it right this time. Consequentially 02:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Consequentially --Fredrick day 16:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentFrom what I saw on the first AfD was a clear consensus for delete. No clue why it wasn't closed as such. Especially with keep votes like "Keep. I've heard about it." --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 16:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Newly added source, SuicideGirls*Japan. If it's not notable I'm not sure how the Japanese have heard about it. Regardless, this new source should definitively meet the guidelines for Notability(web). This article isn't about the feature film, just references it, so web is the appropriate category. TIinPA 03:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think "the Japanese have heard of it" is sufficient to establish notability. What is sufficient is if "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Depending on how generous we are, you have somewhere between zero and three: Danielle Belton's blog, Elites TV's review, and SG Japan's feature(?). It also seems that these may well be the only three sources in existence. Are any of these good enough? Are two or three works "multiple"? I guess we'll see. — The Storm Surfer 04:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The inclusion of another source -- especially when prompted by an AfD -- is nice, but I still feel that the article falls short of demonstrating notability. Especially with web content, which by definition should breed scads of independent press given the ease with which one can access it, three tenuous sources does not a convincing argument make. Other web phenomenon included present numerous (certainly more than three) references and include major mainstream publications. The notability criterion for web items demonstrates this: the examples of "independent converage" include U.S. News and World Report, Playboy, The Guardian, Wired, and other reputable, well-known, independent sources. That the sources you offer seem to rehash the same few facts and share the same taglines implies collusion to me, or at least a degree of similarity that would lessen their weight in an argument about inclusion in the encyclopedia. The blog does not merit inclusion, as blogs are explicitly mentioned in the "don't use me" column when it comes to notability. That leaves us with SGJ and Elites.TV. I'll look into those two insofar as their quality as a reference, but that still leaves a lot to be desired. Two sources for web content? Are we kidding ourselves? Consequentially 20:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel 08:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities[edit]

For all the reasons given below and copied here from the talk page. -- RHaworth 09:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the entire article is in this form useless and not relevant (see Wikipedia:Relevance) because all topics are covered already on other pages at Wikipedia (like Panoramic photography, Equirectangular projection, QuickTime, PanoTools, Hugin...) and this is an encyclopedia not a tutorial page , overview or feature comparison (see WP:NOT). Also the text is just copy and pasted from other wiki pages. As all of us that followed John Spikowski know, the final goal is to add 5 links to panotools.info to this page and to create another battle ground as John demonstrated in the past (PanoTools Group (history link [38]), contributions, talk page archive,talk page). -- Wuz 13:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing of the history between you and John Spikowski. There is nothing in WP:NOT against feature comparison lists and charts. There are thousands of them on wikipedia. See my comments farther down. The other wikipedia articles you mention do not have detailed lists or charts of this software. --Timeshifter 09:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is about stitchers, viewers and utilities not panorama photography in general. Panoramic photography The reference to Equirectangular projection is about map projections not panorama photography hence the direct reference to the PanoTools wiki. I don't see the point having separate promotional pages (not allowed anyways) and keep in the spirit of the Wikipedia offering factual non-biased information. I think the reaction to this page is more hurt feelings buy a vendor then what's best for the community. BTW: There isn't one link or refencence to the PanoTools group on the Panorama Tools page or this new page that is a little over a day old. All I hear from the pro-NG editors here is complaints but no contributions. Let's put some of that energy into the articles instead for a change. -- John Spikowski 09:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the above is a keep. (And what on earth is a "pro-NG" editor?) -- RHaworth 19:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is an attempt to consolidate the panorama software offerings into a central source without bias and the 'fluff' added to the promo pages. John Spikowski 19:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as nom. (and please John, every user on Wikipedia can read page histories and will notice that you tried to promote your page [39] and have been blocked severals times (see talk page), not me. So please keep your rants out of Wikipedia and stop your personal attacks.) --Wuz 19:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a significant specialized class of software--and as a superior way than individual articles on the products.DGG 04:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I have thought of checking out tools for creating and editing panorama photos. This type of list is a good starting point. As long as all the politics, reviews, and advertising language is kept out of the article. --Timeshifter 01:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Software products should IMHO have their own respective articles if relevant, even stubs like Pixelpost have their own article and are already linked from appropriate categories. Existing categories such as photo software, photographic techniques and photo stitching software should be used to group articles. There is also another article Image stitching that can be used for a short overview. Einemnet 07:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories do not list features. Nor are they comprehensive like a detailed list or chart. Items on a list or comparison chart do not have to be notable in themselves. The topic of the list or chart has to be notable. Otherwise wikipedia will only be listing the largest companies with the best advertising budgets. Freeware and open source software would especially be at a great disadvantage. WP:NOT#DIRECTORY has a couple wikipedia site searches that link to thousands of detailed lists and charts on wikipedia. That guideline section says "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List." I am sure that many people will not have heard of many of the people on the Nixon Enemies List. For many of these lists and charts there is nowhere else on the web that one can find such an NPOV list or chart. Few companies would want to maintain lists on their websites where they favorably discuss their competition. Few magazines have enough time or editors for maintaining such lists or charts. --Timeshifter 09:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information about things that the reader doesn't already know about. If you know about a particular software package, there are many sources of good information, as well as in most cases trial versions. I've spent an unreasonable amount of time searching for new QTVR utilities. I just discovered this article and am going through the apps mentioned and looking to see which ones I add to my set of tools. I would be very sad to see it go.

In addition, QTVR utilities are a very specialized field. There are often small utilities that do only one thing. They may not be on their own notable, but finding out about their existence is useful.Bhimaji 23:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only editors here that want this page removed is the vendors/project managers that want to keep their seperate product promo pages from being removed and consolidated with the other panorama offerings. John Spikowski 00:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This page would be of use if it would not be full of promo talk for your sponsors (like Kekus, EasyPano, RealViz see [40]) and if you wouldn't file AfDs for competing products --Wuz 00:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas, As mentioned above, this is a first draft using content available to me to build this page. I tried to remove the sales aspect of the entries and stick with the facts. Your more then welcome to edit any of the vendor entries that you feel sound too sales like. My hope is this becomes a good resource for people to find the software used in panorama photography. (including yours Pano2QTVR) John Spikowski 02:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I now see the source of the conflict. I have no idea of the relative notability of the various products. Wikipedia says that only notable topics should have articles. The detailed list is notable because the topic of the list is notable. Individual items on the list do not have to be notable. Notable items on the list are allowed separate wikipedia articles. Non-notable items on the list are not allowed their own wikipedia pages. I believe that is the current state of wikipedia guidelines on the issue of notability: Wikipedia:Notability. The nutshell says: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." --Timeshifter 08:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I assume the consensus is to Keep the page. I would like to continue work on the page but I want to get by the removal process first. If there is anyone else besides Carl and Thomas that want this deleted, please vote now as the five day discussion period is coming to an end. John Spikowski 04:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am reluctant to vote. My instinct is "delete" as this is barely more than a collection of external links. There seems to be a desire, however, to have a header article for the Category:Panorama software, and this could potentially be revamped into such an article. It would have to eliminate the "laundry list of software" approach and use reliable sources. It would need to discuss the generic features and strengths and weaknesses of panorama software, not specific packages. It would need to be renamed, as the current name violates naming conventions. There seem to be very troubling WP:COI motivations. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panorama Software seems to have been started partly out of confusion but partly out of interest in promoting the search engine ranking of the Category:Panorama software. I don't want to step in a mud puddle, but I should bring up the history between Spikowski and Wuz and others, which began years ago off Wikipedia and continues today on it. Therefore I can only vote keep if this article is moved and cleaned up to standards. As it is, however, it must be deleted per the nomination. --Dhartung | Talk 09:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is much precedent on wikipedia for this detailed list. This is not a directory or mere collection of external links. The links are citation/reference links. The list is detailed. From WP:NOT#DIRECTORY is this: "Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. This site search, and this one, pull up thousands of examples of lists and comparison tables. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted; see List of locations in Spira for an example." I don't see COI problems with the list as long as prices and subjective judgments, reviews, politics and advertising hype are kept out. --Timeshifter 11:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding how this process works is if there is no clear consensus for deletion, then the article is kept. The only delete votes are from the management that split the PanoTools group after 3 1/2 years with over 2700 members. I think the bitterness factor needs to be taken into account as bias in the votes of these two editors. John Spikowski 17:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is generally true, although administrators must also take Wikipedia policy into account. My evaluation is that as it stands the article does not comply with policy. The closing administrator may or may not see it the same way.--Dhartung | Talk 21:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Closure is this:

An AFD decision is either to "keep" or "delete" the article. AFD discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to "keep". ... --Timeshifter 17:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this reference might be relevant to our discussion. Category:Technology-related_lists. John Spikowski 23:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dhartung. The article has been cleaned up greatly since your last reply. --Timeshifter 07:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this page goes then even more so should the individual pages on PTGui and pano2qtvr. Seems strange that a page listing various panorama software is targeted for deletion by the authors of pano2qtrv, etc. who themselves had an individual wiki page on their own software that was no more than an advertisement of their own products.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuw (talk • contribs)

See What about article X?. The existence of other articles has no bearing on this particular discussion. PTGui, for one example, just had sufficient keep consensus that John Spikowski withdrew his nomination. --Dhartung | Talk 21:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew my nomination because the founder of the PanoToolsNG group posted a "Save The Pages" message to their group asking for unsigned Keep votes. What was the sense of a discussion when the 'wiki bullies' were going to dominate the page and not even read any of the past reasons for combining the page into a notable resource. John Spikowski 21:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is poor: citation needed for A dictionary tells us a panorama is "a picture (or series of pictures) representing a continuous scene". The introduction contains a large number of external links. Whoever wrote that introduction knows stitching only from hearsay and neglects the existence of applications that don't rely on setting control points by the user. QTVRAS, IPIX: not even mentioned. It's just a list with some minimal information, but I see no advantage over a category without a good comparison chart. Even each app's platform is missing if not stated on it's company's web site on page 1. -- next chapter's introduction lacks citation, links and facts. QuickTime introduced viewing of panoramic content long before Java. Other important technologies not even mentioned. Product descriptions look like shortish advertisements. -- Next section "Panorama Utilities": a list of three products looks more like the holes in Swiss cheese than like an overview. Introduction? Nada. -- Section "Virtual Tour Builders": are also utilities and belong in the upper section; no introduction, poor descriptions, no feature comparison. No wonder why such a little number of articles links to this "list". It has just no relevance. And I fear this type of page will not attract much contributors. -- Einemnet 23:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was only started on May 12, 2007. See the history. I think it is a very good article considering the short amount of time so far. The things you mention are items for improvement, not reasons for deletion. The links are citation/reference links. See: WP:CITE#HOW and Wikipedia:Embedded citations. --Timeshifter 17:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also an interesting fact that this article was submitted for deletion before it was even 24 hours old. John Spikowski 00:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a references section, and started converting some of the embedded citations to footnoted citations. This way it will be clear that the links are citation/references. --Timeshifter 17:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed the subjective advertising-type language that I saw. There may be more to remove. --Timeshifter 18:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeshifter, thanks for the footnote idea! I finished what you started and realized it was difficult to remember the footnote number you clicked once it scrolled down to ref. list. I expanded on your idea and built an external footnote section. This allows the reader to click on a interesting product from the same place they are reading the short description. A company/person - main URL ref. gives the hidden product link more information without looking like a "link farm". John Spikowski 00:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John. When one clicks a footnote one is immediately sent to the correct reference. No need to scroll. Plus the reference is highlighted in light blue. With footnotes there is absolutely no doubt that it is a citation/reference. Just having inline links can cause problems sometimes, because some editors will claim they are spam external links. Please trust me on this. If you want to avoid future Articles-for-deletion reviews, use only footnoted references wherever possible. It is easy to do. Just add <ref> and </ref> to the beginning and end of the link info. See Six-Day War for an example of a hybrid footnotes and references system. Do not use the word "external" in the title of the reference or footnote sections. Otherwise, some editors will consider it a spam linkfarm, and will delete all the links. See Wikipedia:External links. Only a few external links are allowed on wikipedia pages. Always try to convert external links to reference links by using the link correctly as a citation for something specific in an article. Citation/reference links must meet guidelines of Wikipedia:Citing sources. --Timeshifter 05:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see what you mean about the footnote reference being at the top of the page. It means the reader has to click twice and is disassociated with the text that the link belongs to. Lets do whatever the norm is so we can move forward with this. John Spikowski 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carl, I have stitched more panorama images in one month then you will in a lifetime. (multi-state virtual tour business) If you re-read the stitcher intro again you will notice that I said from control points meaning using PTStitcher scripts to products like Panoweaver that automates the complete process. As mentioned in this page discussions, that it looks like you didn't read, this is the first draft and I said it's lite and put a call out for experts like yourself to contribute. Since you only troll the talk and discussion pages and offer no help to the content, your comments fall on deaf ears. Check out the Category:Technology-related_lists pages and you will see how this page fits. John Spikowski 01:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would really contribute to overall civility if you all would set aside your past associations and opinions of each other and focus on the task of improving this encyclopedia. Please cut out the personal attacks. --Dhartung | Talk 07:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this page meets the criteria for acceptance and cleans up the mess of random panorama pages being created with no association. I nominate that this discussion be closed and the page kept and improved. John Spikowski 07:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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