Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 5

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First Time (Song by Fabolous and Rihanna)

First Time (Song by Fabolous and Rihanna) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article title formatted wrong, no info. I'd say it's crystal-ballism, but there isn't even any content. Unconfirmed, unsourced. - eo 21:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per the nominator. The single hasn't been confirmed, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Acalamari 20:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:ATT, completely unsourced.  RGTraynor  16:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. -- Mufka ^{(user) (talk) (contribs)} 17:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for all of the above reasons, plus only songs which are notable in themselves need their own articles -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If that's all you can say about a song it probably needs to vanish. JBEvans 18:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no WP:ATT, why did they even bother? Realkyhick 01:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Textbookunion.com

Textbookunion.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A probably well-meaning new contributor added this article. To me, it seemed to have a smidge of notability asserted, but the article read like an advertisement. When it was tagged as such (and other clean-up tags) by various editors, the author got rather annoyed and asked for deletion instead of having Wikipedia contributors add to the article every "20 seconds". However, rather than granting this, and to show good faith, I'd rather we debate the article, as it does (just) assert notability. Your opinions are welcome; mine is reserved.RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 21:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete Advertisement. Company that is not notable for another thing. as "Textbookunion.com" leads to the official website, it clearly exists, but "Textbookunion" only gets 23 g'hits. Bottom line: Not notable, advertisement.Hondasare^{GOOD (talk)} 03:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• I wouldn't say I'm a new contributer, but I'm new at creating new pages from scratch. I'm open to recieving help, I just don't like the page getting all marked up and criticized withing 30 minutes of when I started creating it. I thought people would like to have more information out there regarding any topics, so why not this. If I'm going to be receiving criticism for everything and more people deleting my work than contributing or helping me clean up a bit, then whats the use. My efforts are obviously not worth it to people. I wanted to do something good and give something back by contributing a page, but people seem more annoyed than anything else. I'd rather keep it up... whats the harm. More will be added over time, but if I have to defend my contributions, then I'd rather not even have the page up. I ask that people please reconsider. Also, textbookunion.com isn't a company out for promotion, its an organization. Because I'm new to editing I don't know how to set the template different. Any help would be appreciated. Deltaforce5000 ^(talk) 11:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I apoligize for any inconvenience this may have caused, but this page clearly fails to meet the notability guidelines for web content (See WP:WEB).Hondasare^{GOOD (talk)} 12:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Arbustoo 00:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete, fails WP:WEB. The linked reference is from another university, which admits to some independent attention; nevertheless, the underpinnings of the article are too shaky. That aside, I recommend that the creator look over some of Wikipedia's policies before contributing further, in particular "Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community." The ability to accept that each and every contribution is subject to the review and approval of the community is fundamental on Wikipedia.  RGTraynor  16:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per failing WP:WEB. Also an advert. Sr13 (T|C) 17:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I struggled a bit on this one. I suspect that in time it will become notable but at present it does fail WP:WEB which lists as a criteria "multiple and non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." There is only one published source, that being the newspaper clipping. If the author can add to that I would be disposed to look more favorably at keeping. JBEvans 18:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; violates WP:WEB & WP:SPAM --Mhking 01:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. It's spammy enough as it is, but when the author cops an attitude, throw the book at it. Realkyhick 01:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, already transwikied. --Coredesat 03:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Machead

Machead (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is more like a Wikitionary entry and is in no way notable as an article for Wikipedia. Crashintome4196 21:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wiktionary. So tagged. --Dhartung | Talk 05:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wikitionary (English). Xanucia 22:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete since it has been transwikied. Realkyhick 01:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete under A5, then? --Action Jackson IV 03:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caterina demarco

Caterina demarco (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

does not meet notability guidelines Cricketgirl 17:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete seems to be a hoax. Nothing on Google, which is amazing for a supposed youtube celebrity, especially one who got a recording contract: if that were true it would be making news all over the internet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete, fails WP:ATT, WP:NN, WP:HOAX, and WP:BULLSHIT. There are zero Google hits for this person except for this article and Wiki mirrors. She doesn't appear on the artist list on her alleged record label [1], nor are their any Google hits for her alleged upcoming album.  RGTraynor  16:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. JBEvans 18:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom hoax.--Paloma Walker 19:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As the great Korean War hero Colonel Sherman T. Potter would have said, "Horse hockey!" Realkyhick 01:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Michael 04:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete understanding that the correct full name is Alice Wykeham-Martin Pollock. The argument that simply being an author is not sufficient for notability is supported by WP:BIO; in the "special cases" section The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Being the oldest author (formerly or presently) would likewise be insufficient in and of itself to establish notability for article status, but it would be sufficiently notable to include in a world records article; for instance, one could create a new section for Oldest people that relates the oldest people to hold particular professions, or one could add a record listing to List of world records. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alice Porlock

Alice Porlock (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Prodded as non-notable; prod was removed within minutes. I cannot find any information about this woman beyond the single sentence currently in the article: "Alice Porlock published her first book Portrait of My Victorian Youth when she was 102 years old." There's no reference for this information, and the only ones I could find were random, unreliable websites using it as an example of people accomplishing things despite their elderly age. Propaniac 16:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• speedy delete per CSD A7-bio, without prejudice against recreation with proper sourcing and asserted notability. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article being a stub is no reason for deletion if it can be expanded. It seems that the web provides insufficient content, but it is not the only source available.--Orthologist 17:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment True, but if nobody has any evidence that the article CAN be expanded, I don't see why it should be assumed as such. Also, the one fact that we do have about Ms. Porlock does not make her notable enough for her own article, in my opinion, regardless of how rich a biography we may discover. Propaniac 17:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Upon further searching, I've realized that the author of the named book seems to be Alice Pollock, not Porlock, and she may be a current or former holder of the Guinness record for oldest published author. ("Alice Pollock" has no relevant results on Wikipedia and no further information on Google.) Propaniac 17:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying we could move the page? If she's been referred to in Guiness, she is notable.--Orthologist 18:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If the page is kept, it should be moved to the correct name. And I can't verify whether she is or isn't in the Guinness book; I just found a couple of unreliable references that mentioned she was the record holder. If the page had said that she was a Guinness record holder, I probably wouldn't have nominated, but AFAIK that in itself isn't a steadfast criterion for notability, either, since I believe both the recent, verified recordholders for "most t-shirts worn at one time" were deleted recently. Propaniac 19:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment She's in an older Guinness I have here, from 1976 I think (the cover's missing). --Charlene 01:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete <&SEQ=20070330170856&SID=1 Alice Wykeham-Martin Pollock (1971; so the age is probably right) but is this notability? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Merge (?) and Redirect. Only 12 Google hits for Alice, and in almost every case all the information posted is the single sentence "Alice Porlock of Great Britain published her first book, Portrait of My Victorian Youth, when she was 102 years old," which is in fact the complete text of the article here. Someone is (not very thoroughly) spamming websites with this tidbit, which is inaccurate, because the real author is Alice Wykeham-Martin Pollock, who published her book in 1971 according to Amazon UK. She's in Guiness, yes, but is not notable for anything else, no biographical information for her is available, and no one particularly bought the book, so I don't know if this supports an article even under her right name.  RGTraynor  16:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect. As per RGTraynor, it shows on US Amazon too although it is not stocked by Amazon. I would merge with the correct name and keep it. JBEvans
• Weak Delete with no prejudice against creating an article which includes information, is sources, and is spelled correctly. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep per this in the Library of congress.--Paloma Walker 19:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete article, include book as further reading in Victorian era Probably a great source on the times, but not enough for an article or stub. Anynobody 07:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Per Baccyak4H's comments, CSD A7 thewinchester 04:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No assertion of notability. Publishing a book at whatever age doesn't make someone notable unless there are sources backing it up. A scholarly search using Lexis Nexis revealed nothing that makes her notable. --Mus Musculus 05:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Arkyan • ^(talk) 19:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Monk Bonasorte

Monk Bonasorte (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Mr. Bonasorte was a college football player at Florida State, where he made 2nd team All-American. He did not play pro ball. See his stats. I don't think he's notable enough. NawlinWiki 15:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update per article rewrite Delete Notability is a judgement call, here mine is simply non-notable, as raising this level of accomplishment to notability would theoretically swamp Wikipedia. weak keep Sourcing concerns have been positively addressed. His conviction would likely never had made the news had he had not been a football star, so I base my position mainly on the level of coverage of his attributed sports accolades. While they are sparse (albeit high quality), this article would probably merit a keep at the end of the 1980 season. Notability is permanent. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a Florida State student, still doesn't meet notability. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely does meet notability. The article was just poorly written and not sourced, so I re-wrote it. Disagree that it's a "judgment call", because it's not just a matter of saying, "He's notable because he did such-and-such on the football field". He's notable if there are non-trivial secondary sources about him. That's not really all that subjective (unless you want to argue about what is "trivial"). Either there are such sources about him or there are not. In this case, there definitely are. Mwelch 19:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Question' (more general) If the home town and the college newspaper happen to write stories about, say, a Freshman who is cut from the team, is he notable? DGG 03:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I wouldn't presume to count a college newspaper, which cannot be assumed (kudos to those that do, but we cannot assume it) to do their story selection or fact checking in the way expected of professional journalists and editors, to count toward estabilishing notability. It might be an acceptable source for specific incidental info in the article, but I wouldn't think for establishing who is notable. I wouldn't see anything wrong with "home town" newspapers, per se, but if they're the only newspaper that ever has mentioned him (other than the college newspaper's story on this years new recruits on the team), that seems to me ot be reason enough right there to question if is truly intellectually independent of the subject. Mwelch 03:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Let's review; this fellow was a two-time All-American, was GM of a pro sports team, and had a criminal conviction that hit the papers on top of that. The article's decently sourced to boot; there is nothing in WP:BIO requiring that sourcing needs to be geographically removed from the subject, or there would be thousands of articles sourced from nothing more than New York or London newspapers and magazines that would have to go. Looks like enough to me.  RGTraynor  16:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep A two time all-american in any sport is notable by definition. That he did not play pro ball does not detract from his work.JBEvans 18:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. He appears to meet WP:BIO standards- significant awards, sourced. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep No problems to me. Notable enough. Xanucia 22:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, unless the All-American wins could make him worthy of keeping if there was some kind of list or category of winners. I don't know much about football off the field (I do understand how it's played) but if the title is that big of a deal somebody ought to put together an article or list of winners. He isn't the first person in the history of the sport to be arrested, or go back to working in football on the sidelines. Anynobody 07:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per RGTraynor's comments, it's reasonable to keep assuming some further improvment is made thewinchester 04:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per RGTraynor. --Mus Musculus 05:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Profit Inc.

Profit Inc. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Part of a walled garden of articles created by an independent wrestling promoter, for some reason this slipped the net. Non notable, fails WP:BIO and WP:A. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails notability. Most ghits are for the parent company's webpages or for people related to the organization. - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 15:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please consider consolidating this discussion with the parent company's AFD nomination per WP:BUNDLE. - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 15:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  Comment If I'd been nominating the articles at the same time I would have bundled them together, but the parent company AfD has already been running over 36 hours and I was chastised for adding to an AfD that had been running that long once before. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  Reponse: I see. Anyway, it appears consensus is being reached to delete them all so... and I put comments on the related articles so editors commenting on one discussion can link to the other discussions easily. - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 16:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Do the same as whatever occurs in the other debate. I understand nom's reason for listing this separately, but I have to say that the outcome should clearly be the same. Xtifr _tälk 14:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Just to clarify I didn't nominate any of the other articles, I just saw this part of the walled garden had somehow escaped notice. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - if the parent company's been zapped, there's no reason to keep an article about a stable within that company. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• WWC again? Delete as biased, self-promotion. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 00:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hoodlums (Rayman)

Hoodlums (Rayman) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Normally I'm hesistant to call anything ' indiscriminate' because that seems to be the argument de jour, but in this case I think it's definately deserved. In addition, much of the information reads like a a game guide, also prohibited. Also, no sources are given, and according to the cleanup request recently posted, some of them are not in the game, raising potential hoax issues as well as the obvious attribution and verifiability issues whenever an article doesn't cite a single source, which lead me to think this might be original research or at least novel synthesis. Wintermut3 04:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions.
• Comment. It's impossible to describe a video game character without talking about where in the game it appears. That doesn't make it a game guide. (It would if the article would describe how to defeat them, which can be removed.) Case in point: we have (or at least had) a featured article about Goombas. Now Goomba's are clearly better known and more notable, but if we can have a featured article on a character in Mario, it should be possible for other game characters without it being called a 'game guide'. The other issues are more serious, though. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MacGyverMagic as far as the "game guide" issue is concerned. I personally don't think it does read much like a game guide anyway - it includes a lot of information that would be found if the characters described were from a film or book, whilst a game guide would usually be nothing more than a rough description of each character's appearance, a collection of stats and a strategy to defeat it.

As far as the original research and verifiability issues are concerned, most of this information comes from the game in question (Rayman 3). I am the person who added the tags and the cleanup request, and the information that isn't from the game (and therefore unverified) is in the specific sections on "Armaguiddon", "Grims", "Hoodloon", "Hoodstriker", "Hoodstomper (Masterkaag)" and "Mecha-Destroyer". The names "Hoodblaster", "Lavicraft" and "Hoodlock", and the assertion that Grimkeepers "keep a jug of plum juice handy to drink away the shellshock after losing precious Grims in combat" are also unverified and not found in game. The rest is genuine, so rather than delete the whole article, why not just remove the unverified sections and keep the rest? They're also the bits that are written in (at least, what I percieve to be) an innappropriate tone (they're rather informal). I added the tag in the hope that the authors of those sections (StantheGarbageMan and an unregistered user with the IP address 86.52.188.23) would cite their sources, but they haven't done so as yet. RobbieG 15:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Not much content and EXTREME cruft. Quatreryukami 15:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think "extreme cruft" would be a page going into great detail about a single character from the list. The Hoodlums are central to the plot of at least one Rayman game, and appear in others. Each type is listed with a short description. I don't think that's cruft, and I think the use of the term is an insult to the editors who contributed to the page, myself included. "Extreme cruft" would be if we went into a detailed analysis of Toots' remarks, or listed every time a Slapdash makes an appearance. The article is nothing like so extreme.

I'd also like to point out that "the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion," and that the term describes "content which one or more editors consider unencyclopedic", which is a very vague concept. RobbieG 15:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that 'cruft' isn't a term I like to use, if you'll note it is not used in the nomination. On the other hand, the amount of apparently unsourced (and of dubious origin) material in the article leads me to question it's accuracy throughout. Can sources be found? If the requirement for multiple, non-trivial mentions of these things in independant sources is satisfied I'll gladly withdraw the nomination, but my own search seemed to indicate only game guides and walkthroughs (I'm not aware of specific policy but something tells me gamefaqs.com is not a reliable source given that it's all self-published anonymous material). Between the questions about veracity and the issue of sourcing, I had trouble seeing how this could be salvaged in its current form. Would perhaps a merge/redirect to the video game article work? Or maybe a reduction in length?Wintermut3 18:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: This is what the page would look like with all the unsourced content removed. All the stuff that is left on the page is found in the game (Rayman 3: Hoodlum Havoc) itself. Would it therefore be keepable? RobbieG 19:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that even if it only references the game itself I'm still seeing a shortfall from WP:RS and WP:V in that there aren't multiple sources, and it's still all tied to one primary source, I'll keep looking for sources myself, we might salvage this one yet, but to be honest, though the revision does help, I think that makes an excellent merger list. Wintermut3 23:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely if your suggestion is to merge, rather than delete, we can discuss it on the article talk page, not on an AFD? RobbieG 12:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to a merge if that's the way consensus turns out, but in all honesty I have trouble seeing the encyclopedic merit of an article that's a list of enemies from a specific game, especially if no attributions can be found outside the game itself. Wintermut3 21:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Another suggestion. Would it help if the article was renamed "Hoodlum (Rayman)"? That would be more in keeping with the site's naming conventions, and it would show that the article is a description of the Hoodlum, rather than a list of types (the article being altered accordingly). After all, we already have Bumpty, Ing, Albatoss, Nergal and even Eggplant Wizard. RobbieG 15:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Since these character types only appear in a single game, I don't think there's enough encyclopedic material to warrant its own article. Wickethewok 14:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

But that is simply not true - the Hoodlums are recurring enemies that appeared in both Rayman 3: Hoodlum Havoc and the sequel/spin-off title, Rayman: Hoodlums' Revenge. So they actually appeared in two (and arguably three, as the GBA version of Hoodlum Havoc featured a completely different plot and gameplay style from the 3D version) games. They also appear on various gifts and things that are available from the Raymanzone website. RobbieG 18:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Possible merge This page choud possibly be merged into List of characters in Rayman. It would require cutting it down a fair bit but most of the most important info could be kept.Mattyatty 13:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Another suggestion Why not merge some of the information into List of characters in Rayman, some of it into Rayman 3: Hoodlum Havoc, and delete the excess? RobbieG 17:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This has no encyclopedic value to anyone who doesn't play the game; therefore, it is a game guide. Why are these characters notable? --Mus Musculus 05:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to List of characters in Rayman is the most obvious and non-controversial choice here, and is implicitly suggested as the appropriate action by our Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) guideline. RFerreira 05:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete; userfied (test page). Tizio 14:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Q9R

The page is very unencyclopedic and irrelevent. Either needs to be rewitten or deleted because it can't be in such a form as an article. Sushant gupta 09:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete A few lines of code does not an encyclopdia article make. Speedything 10:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Ozgod 12:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as utterly and completely lacking in context. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete useless nonsense--Iyenweyel 12:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete as copyvio. WjBscribe 00:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dearborn Christian School

Dearborn Christian School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Whole page is copied and pasted from schools website, [2]. Not an encyclopedic article, needs either a substantial rewrite in neutral language or to be deleted. As it stands at the moment, i say delete--Greatestrowerever 23:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• I tagged this as a copyvio, since it's identical, and no assertion of fair use is made. --Haemo 00:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 01:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avatar: The Last Airbender (disambiguation)

Avatar: The Last Airbender (disambiguation) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Their is no reason a person would stumble on to this page. Both articles it disambiguates to are linked in the template at the bottom of the article, so their is no put for this article to be. The Placebo Effect 00:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ganfon 00:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a pointless disambiguation page. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 01:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, for the same reasons as stated above. Mastrchf91 01:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - unnecessary as all the articles are about the same franchise. Metamagician3000 01:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, they're all related to one another. Better as a template - and I think it already IS. — CJewell (talk to me) 03:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Who would search for this?! You wouldn't have Gundam disambig, Naruto Disembig, Doom Disembig, Playstation Disambig and etc. 142.58.101.27 03:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Considering they all refer to aspects of the same franchise, they should be referred to from the original article. --Canley 05:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - The page is completely unnecessary. Who'd search for this anyway?--$UIT 05:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant to the template {{Avatar}}. If this disambig page is deleted, please also delete the {{otheruses1}} template at the top of Avatar: The Last Airbender. -- Black Falcon 05:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sr13 (T|C) 08:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Ozgod 12:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as the Avatar (disambiguation) page is already completely sufficient to the purpose. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons above. ɱўɭĩє^{What did I do}_wrong 00:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; it's unnecessary. Bigtop 04:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirected to Bad Company (drum and bass group). Arkyan • ^(talk) 19:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BC Recordings

BC Recordings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable website/record label. After the website, Wikipedia is the first hit on Google, and they don't seem to be the subject of multiple reliable sources. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Lugnuts 11:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 01:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Bad Company (drum and bass group); the article notes two "BC Recordings". The first one is almost certainly non-notable per WP:CORP - 10 Google results for < "BC Recordings" 1979 "Bryan Campbell"> with none of them being reliable sources [3]; while the other generates much more results and is associated with a notable band. Resurgent insurgent 14:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect per Resurgent insurgent. I'm confused about Lugnuts' vote -- why should we keep? Please add reasons for a vote, as this is a discussion, not a vote. Rockstar915 05:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Bad Company (drum and bass group); there's no need for a separate article, and the first BC doesn't appear notable. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. Notable in connection with the group name. JBEvans 21:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per FisherQueen thewinchester 04:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mutant Ninja Turtles Gaiden. NawlinWiki 02:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renoir (MNTG)

Renoir (MNTG) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fan-made character from a non-notable fictional fanwebcomic. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mutant Ninja Turtles Gaiden --Brandon Dilbeck 03:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Since this article's faith is closely related to that of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mutant Ninja Turtles Gaiden, I suggest we apply the same result to both articles. This one can't exist without the comic article and if for some reason the fancomic turns out to be notable, we should probably have an article about the character (here or in a merged form). - Mgm|^(talk) 12:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- -- Ben 15:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I have another suggestion... how about a mass nom for all the character articles after the main article's fate is decided? -- Ben 15:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Ooh. I see. This is the only unique character article. -- Ben 15:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The main entry, Mutant Ninja Turtles Gaiden, has already met that fate. Aarktica 19:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable character from a fanfic comic. -- Ben 00:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The main article has been. Abeg92contribs 00:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, or if anyone wishes to be adverturous this could probably be speedy deleted per A7 as nn web content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment A7-ed. -- Ben 00:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Learning Performance

Learning Performance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company without the barest sign of satisfying WP:CORP. Google for ("Learning Performance" "John Dibley") gets 3 hits, this article, and the company's websites. Google for ("Learning Performance" "Heather Starbuck") manages to get 7 hits - this article, the company's websites, and business directories. [4] The prod tag was removed with the objection: "Learning Performance is mentioned in plenty of external sites, but without reference to Heather Starbuck or John Dibley. They do not run things personally. Also added about Study Skills," which fails to address the obvious problems regarding verifiability and notability:

1. "mentioned in plenty of external sites" - where? There are no sources in the article. The only external links are to the company's websites and these only show the company has their own web presence, nothing more.
2. "They do not run things personally" is not even hinted to in the article, and in any case it does not explain why any reputable source who wrote about the company would want to omit information as basic as the name of its founder, which brings us to the conclusion that...
3. There probably are no external sources independent of the company that have written about it in detail.

If no independent reliable sources have written anything about the company, we should not have an article on it. Resurgent insurgent 13:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Article has potential but needs a major rewrite per nom in lieu of deletion. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. The problem with the education suppliers industry in the UK is their low level of internet use and a limited community in which to demonstrate credentials. I was hoping my article might help to address this and start a trend. Having reviewed the verifiability and notability pages I agree that the article I've written doesn't currently meet Wikipedia's very sensible rules. But as Baccyak4H states, this article has potential. Whilst there are newspaper articles and reports on school websites about us, there are only a limited number of relevant internet references that could be incorporated into the article. I'm about to go on holiday for three weeks, however I do believe that I can put together something that is more relevant to Wikipedia. Can we consider either leaving this article as a stub until I return, or simply reviewing my progress in late April/early May? Davidestarbuck 15:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin - Please userfy to User:Davidestarbuck/Learning Performance --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 05:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. There isn't really a mechanism for delaying this deletion vote, and the article is sourced only by one article in a local paper. Just another company, insufficiently notable. Herostratus 17:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Ozgod 12:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm not persuaded by the current case for notability, and there are clear WP:COI issues. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree with FisherQueen, primarily about the conflict of interest issues in the article. Also, there are no sources for the information. I believe that this article also does not assert the notability of its subject. --Cyrus Andiron 13:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thom Wolf

Thom Wolf (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contained sections copied directly from other sites, contains mostly incoherent (patent nonsense) information, little actual information about subject 99DBSIMLR 16:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This is spam, a vanity article, and patent nonsense about a non-notable person. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaksmata (talk • contribs) 13:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

(Man, that bot's fast - it took me one second to realize I forgot, but it was already signed for me!) Jaksmata 13:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No sources. Abeg92contribs 00:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, not intelligible. Clear self-promotion. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Honestly, the last part is completely unsalvageable. It's nearly impossible to follow the changes in tense not to mention the erratic word choice. Also, the subject is non notable. --Cyrus Andiron 14:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amber Arend

Amber Arend (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable pornstar. Epbr123 17:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. Dismas|^(talk) 18:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:PORNBIO. Appeared on one cover, Hustler's Barely Legal, but that is not the same as Hustler magazine. That's not enough. Herostratus 16:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Per Herostratus.  Smcafirst | Chit-Chat | SIGN  posted at 00:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No arguments present within the article stating notability. Tabercil 03:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as not meeting notability standards in WP:PORNBIO. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United States election audits and electoral fraud

Original research that does not even really cover the topic alledged, merely mentioning that claims of fraud occur from time to time and then presenting a subjective list of notable political machines. Indrian 18:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No mention of election audits. The list of persons is not sourced and may well be unsubstantiated original research. The remainder of the article is anodyne but not sufficient for an article. Herostratus 17:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom and Herostratus. The title is a bad one and doesn't really fit the article. If the article really were a collection of information on various audits and fraud then the topic would be too big and indiscriminate.Noroton 00:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I find the article somewhat incoherent and its main content is a brief description of the US electoral system. The only mention of fraud is three links to other articles, and the list of bosses is culled from the Political machine article where it makes a great deal more sense. The two subjects this article does cover it does so in an inferior way to their dedicated articles, and it doesn't mention audits at all. -- Mithent 01:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone wants to make a legit article about the topic. Koweja 04:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I don't think it's OR, I doubt that even the reddest of 'the cabal' would argue that electoral fraud doesn't take place. I think this article could be very greatly improved, with just a tiny little bit more time and effort. I don't see any attempt to discuss the articles future on the talk page, which I never like to see when an article is up for deletion. I like to think of deletion as a last resort, not a first action. Cloveoil 04:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete An article on election auditing and/or fraud or both together would be fine, even needed, but this isn't it. I don't think that every poorly written article should be kept because it could be improved. Some should be, but this throws up a title and follows it with nothing. --killing sparrows 06:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - although the topic has the makings of an important article, the article itself does not articulate it. I say it be started anew (ie: don't protect the delete) with pertinent and referenced information as it is just an original-referenced mess right now. --Valley2city^₪‽ 08:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Cant this form part of a sort of disambiguation page, with links to US elections with fraud where there is likely to be detail on what went on during the election anyway? --PrincessBrat 11:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - doesn't appear to mention election audits at all and doesn't analyse the alleged frauds it lists. The phrase "electoral fraud in one jurisdiction or another at any time is a virtual certainty" is indicative of the quality of the article, containing as it does an assumption which cannot be verified. BTLizard 12:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The existing article on Election fraud seems to be sufficient to cover the topic, this article doesn't seem to be clearly focused on one subject. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is entirely WP:OR. The point of the article seems to be to articulate that machine politics leads to election fraud, and there are no sources backing that up. --Mus Musculus 13:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A mishmash. The top material is better dealt with elsewhere. The list of bosses could be moved to Political boss, although I think removing all living persons from the list would be good policy, in accordance with WP:BLP - one man's "boss" is another man's "influential politician"... Brianyoumans 19:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as OR, unsourced and somewhat confusing. Is it about election audits, electoral fraud, or political bosses? How do the three topics combine to become an article? The topic may be of interest, but this article doesn't appear to be the right approach, to me. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It is unsourced, non-encyclopedic. Not sure if it counts as OR however. But it does not belong without sourcing. Also, the title is inappropriate and does not reflect the content properly. JBEvans 21:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Not original research and factually correct. The USA is corrupt as hell and this is a quality article which helps people realise that. Xanucia 22:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - what you describe may be so but - unlike Karl Marx's view of philosophers - the point of an encyclopedia is to describe the world, not to change it. BTLizard 17:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - lacks rigor, and is likely to be a vehicle for POV pushing (not that I necessarily disagree with Xanucia's point about the state of U.S. election "law" in the era of hanging chads and black-box "voting" machines). --Orange Mike 03:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outerz0ne

Outerz0ne (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A series of hacker conferences. The second one was attended by a bustling crowd of 50 people. Having trouble seeing the notability of this event. De-prodded without comment. - IceCreamAntisocial 22:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. BlackBear 00:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unreferenced, and 50 people attending is pretty small. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is something that really needs to have sources online, and it doesn't. Abeg92contribs 00:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, although my !vote could be bought for one of those kewl T-shirts!--killing sparrows 06:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, does not appear to meet the notability standard. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Debu

Debu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notability not presented per WP:BAND - minor local band and no references. Please use MySpace for this people!! :) Baristarim 22:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. Baristarim 22:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no other sources. Abeg92contribs 00:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as above and reads like advertising copy anyway. -- Mithent 01:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Consur with above. JBEvans 10:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I can't find any evidence of notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete (for the 8th time) and protect. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scream 4

Scream 4 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete. Largely Crystal Ball and speculation. Much of the information is "Maybe, maybe not". The film is not even in production yet. The poster is also obviously a fanmade one. CyberGhostface 00:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, crystalballery. --Dennis The TIger 02:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Dariusk 02:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and protect from creation I swear i saw this for the third time. George Leung 07:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and protect until there's something verifiable to say about this film. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete need more than just unsubstantiated information. A movie with no cast, director, script, or producer does not exist. Thus, neither should the article about it. --Cyrus Andiron 15:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Crystal ball. As far as I can tell, it's not even entirely clear if there is going to be a 4th installment. Seed 2.0 19:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Certainly CB. Too many if's and maybe's. No firm information here. Wait until something solidifies. JBEvans 21:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Online,The recent News of a Scream 4 was Revealed on both my site and the American Scream Site..A user on the American site came online saying he has a subscription for movies and that in his package was an advertisement for films that are either in production,or in casting Stages etc.. In that same article was a link to type in browsers,this link was for THIS SITES SCREAM 4 Page that has been put here!! I agree that the poster does look fan-made though,i could do the same in 5 minutes and make it look better too.! But i ask that "For now" to leave it on and see what other news appears IF any does soon.. GhostfaceinNotts 14:26, 7 april 2007 (GMT)

Do you have any proof of this article or is it just hearsay on your friend's part?--CyberGhostface 17:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I will ask the lad to scan it on his Pc so he can send it to me or even post it in my forum.He cant stop talking about it so i believe him.I will contact him today and get back to you ASAP..GhostfaceinNotts 16:04, 8 april 2007 (GMT)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Subtle Knife. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] His Dark Materials: The Subtle Knife

His Dark Materials: The Subtle Knife (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is pure speculation, and violates WP:CRYSTAL. This movie hasn't even been announced, and therefore there is absolutely no information / sources that can be found and added to the article. I think it would be better for the article to be deleted and re-created when (and if) this film is announced. -Panser Born- (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to the article on the book, wherever that is. Jtrainor 00:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Subtle Knife. --Wafulz 00:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect, per Wafulz. Abeg92contribs 00:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anna Clifford

Anna Clifford (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Judging from a search on Google and Google News, the subject appeared in a few newspapers for about three days in mid-March. Along with the fact that there are concerns about a biography about a living person (publicizing her DUI even more), I don't believe the subject satisfies notability guidelines with her 15 minutes of fame Wafulz 00:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No notability, no references. --Cúchullain ^t/c 02:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Additionally, the user who created the page claims to be the subject herself here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. --Dariusk 03:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Certainly not worthy of inclusion and especially so if she created the page. JBEvans 10:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- cool hairstyle, but not notable. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; Wikipedia is not the News of the Weird. Tizio 14:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, but keep the mention on the Mohawk hairstyle page. Seems worth the mention (unlink it, though), the pic is a nice example, and we certainly have permission for it. More important question: how can you have a mohawk that high and be driving a car at the same time? Was it a convertible? Pinball22 15:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Even if it really is Clifford uploading the image, she would not own the copyright to the photo. That would belong to whatever jurisdiction processed her arrest. If that was the case, it would only be fair use in an article on Clifford (which seems likely to be deleted) and not on an article about Mohawk hairstyles, where there is ample opportunity to snag a GFDL, CC, or PD image. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 19:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Question. You mean mug shots are not in the public domain as creations of the government? Glad I looked in on this debate, because I definitely didn't know that . . . oh, and delete, by the way.Mwelch 21:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think only works of the federal government are automatically in the Public Domain. A DUI mugshot would be either a state or municipal issue. --Wafulz 22:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Wafulz is indeed correct. That is not to say that some jurisdictions don't put their images in the public domian, but the usualy Wikipedia tag about images created by government employees being in the public domain generally only applies to the Feds. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 00:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Much obliged to each of you. I indeed learn something new every day. Mwelch 00:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Whoops... I didn't even consider the possibility that mug shots might not be in the public domain! Pinball22 15:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• For what it is worth, Image:Anna22.jpg would be great for the Mohawk article, but the user did not realease the image under a free license. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 18:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This is one of those cases where you have to consider the fact that in three, ten, or even thirty years, no one will know about or remember this. Just because it was news for two weeks, that doesn't mean that it is notable enough for an encyclopedia. I'm not even going to touch on the conflict of interest problems in the article as well. --Cyrus Andiron 15:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Flunks both WP:WEB and WP:BIO. Painfully close to CSD A7. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 19:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO DUI/DWI non notable. The mohawk, however, would fit the mohawk page per Pinball22.--Paloma Walker 19:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete I saw her on the smoking gun and got a laugh at her mohawk, but an article is not called for. Especially mentioning her kids names and dates of birth. Anyone who wants to see DUI mugshots can check out [5]. Anynobody 07:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was REDIRECT to The Amber Spyglass. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] His Dark Materials: The Amber Spyglass

His Dark Materials: The Amber Spyglass (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is pure speculation, and violates WP:CRYSTAL. This movie hasn't even been announced, and therefore there is absolutely no information / sources that can be found and added to the article. I think it would be better for the article to be deleted and re-created when (and if) this film is announced. -Panser Born- (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to The Amber Spyglass (novel) for the time being. -- Mithent 01:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per Mithent. --Dariusk 03:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Educational exchange between Hong Kong and the mainland

Educational exchange between Hong Kong and the mainland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Only Education in Hong Kong links to this article. The article is mostly original research, lacks sources and suffers from poor grammar and spelling. It remains uncategorized. It was created more than a month ago and all edits have been within a couple of days after its creation. No edits in a month. FateClub 01:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - no sources, original research. --Dariusk 03:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep.--Wizardman 02:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of Brazilian apartheid

Allegations of Brazilian apartheid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This isn't an encyclopedia article, it's a biased collection of statements, few of which are notable (or even real allegations, per se). There's no way to make a real article out of this. Cúchullain ^t/c 01:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Merge changed to Keep back to Allegations of apartheid, the article is not long enough to deserve its own wikispace. --FateClub 01:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it turns out it's a commonly used term in Brazil, based on real allegations, and used by all sorts of notable people. Moreover, the article has been considerably improved, and is already too long to be merged into anything else. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Merge per FateClub. --Dariusk 03:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and merge any relevant content (if any) to other articles concerned. Baristarim 04:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The GFDL does not allow us to delete and merge. JoshuaZ 19:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Useless and hopelessly prejudicial article. metaspheres 20:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- many argue this today. Article needs works, but will improve.--Urthogie 13:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Allegations of apartheid has already been deleted, as have past "allegations of apartheid" articles. Just because someone says it doesn't mean the claim is notable, and it certainly doesn't make it true that the situation compares to what really happened in South Africa.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Michael Löwy, Cristovam Buarque, Mark Weisbrot, Tobias Hecht, and others who have used the term are all notable people. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete insufficient material for an article, and a theme that needs to be discussed seriously in human rights of Brazil articles and elsewhere rather than in an article which is centred on an occasionally used informal metaphor.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "Social apartheid" is a common term for a specific kind of discrimination in Brazil, directed primarily at Afro-Brazilians, and rooted in former slavery. This article is the right place to discuss that seriously. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • No it isn't, Jayjg. Its an informal rhetorical term occasionally used in passing. The most common terms are "social inequality" or "income inequality" and related to articles such as Gini coefficient and List of countries by income equality etc. If this article was renamed Social inequality in Brazil, then we might be approaching some sort of encyclopedic approach.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 12:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Looking at the article as it stands now, do you still assert there is "insufficient material for an article"? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, I still do, Jayjg. You've just quoted a few people at length who have simply used a metaphor in passing whilst referring to a complex issue, solely to ensure the article remains as part of some strategy involving Allegations of Israeli apartheid. That is not an encyclopedia article. The group of keep voters below, who largely edit Israel articles and whom I have never seen before on Latin American articles or African-diaspora articles, confirms that this is an attempt to distort and subvert the consensus process in order to continue a game, which you yourself admit is a violation of WP:POINT. The knock on effects, which are subverting and damaging unrelated subjects concerning race relations in Brazil, or articles such as Tourism in Cuba reveals that this game does not have wikipedia readers' best interests at heart.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Tourism apartheid in cuba has been an article and significant subject for a long time, so I don't see how it relates to recent actions by Israel editors.--Urthogie 16:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it was written by Jayjg, so that's how it relates. And it was some of the same editors below who opposed its obvious merge into Tourism in Cuba for reasons to do with some WP:POINT game on an Israel article, not for the benefit of readers interested in Cuba.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

To me it's important that the accusation of apartheid not be just the subject of an article for Israel. So it's more NPOV than POINT, in my view.--Urthogie 16:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Article lists notable accusations regarding a significant phenomenon in Brazil, and the Allegations of apartheid article is currently deleted. More material undoubtedly exists, and could be added to flesh out the stub, but we don't delete stubs simply because they are stubs. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I've fixed the references, and added more material so that it's significantly less "stubby". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Jayjg. Also note that the main Allegations of apartheid is currently under DRV. JoshuaZ 19:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Jayjg, else merge to Allegations of apartheid, if it gets undeleted. --tickle me 20:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand this article. There seems to be very much material online alone. Tewfik^Talk 20:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if other Allegations of apartheid in X series are kept. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keepo - Fine references, but perhaps not presented correctly. Just needs improvement then. The Behnam 22:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - if one set of allegations is notable, so should this. --Leifern 22:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, rename to Social inequality and Brazil and expand this much more meaningful topic. Because clearly, "apartheid" here is a political metaphor. The same division into rich and poor exists everywhere, with the accompanying territorial segregation of slums and palaces, of public and private scools, of street sweepers and lawyers. And the resulting social segregation (this is a standard term, not "apartheid") is but an insignificant part and the consequence of it. Mukadderat 00:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per Jayjg ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep With a caveat: perhaps there could/should be a discussion about deleting all articles that deal with the subject of Allegations of Apartheid against X, but what we may not do is cherry-pick among them; that creates an inherent POV. IronDuke 14:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above and I agree with IronDuke, no cherry picking. Carlossuarez46 16:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep --Shamir1 05:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Irritated Keep in the interests of consistency; Allegations of Israeli Apartheid's validity as a keeper being no more compelling than this. Then maybe Allegations of Apartheid can be undeleted to contain the list. Gzuckier 14:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • So basically, because some editors created an unencylopedic article about Israel, Israeli focussed editors are going around en masse and supporting equally unencyclopedic material on unrelated Latin American subjects to prove a point about consistency? This mass violation of WP:POINT should mean that the fake consensus of "keep" above is null and void.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

How is trying to bring consistency to the encyclopedia a WP:POINT? If you disagree with this approach then perhaps you should take a larger interest in editing this series of articles.--Urthogie 16:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no "series of articles", they were a selection of disparate topics linked by wikipedia editors to make a point. There can be no consistency of response to issues concerning exclusive hotels and beaches in Cuba, economic disparity in Brazil and the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. They are entirely separate matters, linked only be one rhetorical word said in passing as part of a broad analysis. Considering that I have contributed to scores of articles that refer to race relations and economics in Latin America, its not really fair to demand that I begin editing this set of phoney articles which was created to make a point about a country in the middle east, and not to enlighten readers about Latin American disparities.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid actually seemed to have consensus for not deleting, though.--Urthogie 17:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The "consensus" in all these matters has been subverted and corrupted by the activities of Israel focussed editors, who are block voting to ensure that "Israel is not singled out", rather than having the interests of wikipedia readers in mind. This has to rank as the most transparent, depressing, and damaging effort to subvert content and the decision making process I have ever seen on wikipedia.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 12:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as per Jayg Dsol 16:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per JayG thewinchester 04:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete (G1) Utter nonsense created by a likely vandal only account.--Húsönd 02:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guten tag

Guten tag (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Nonsenese. Would have CSD'd it but I'm relisting it as the (possibly incomplete) AfD process has already been started.Seed 2.0 01:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Transwiki and Delete. A Template:Copy to Wiktionary will be added to the article, which will trigger robotic transwikification and post-action article tagging, after which the article can be deleted without further delay. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mindfuck

Mindfuck (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced since December, an obvious neologism and pretty much original research. JuJube 01:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for any of the following reasons: original research; unverifiability; listcruft; dicdef; synonymous with and already covered at nonlinear storytelling and plot twists, per the first sentence which equates the terms; no assertion that the term is notably used in literary or artistic criticism (professional or otherwise). Pop Secret 03:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom and Pop Secret--$UIT 05:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. I haven't read up on their policies in a while, but this seems like something they'd take (and they don't currently have a page for it). --- RockMFR 06:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I have to say, looking at the title I immediately thought Speedy Delete G1, but I realized I have heard the term before, especially in reference to these movies. More citations are needed, but this has the making of a real article. I know I'm on the losing end of this battle thusfar, but I'm not going with the majority on this one. I think we need to give this article a little more credit and allow it to go beyond the list stage which exists right now. --Valley2city^₪‽ 08:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki - this is in common enough use to be more than your usual neologism, but is better suited to Wiktionary. The long lists could be lost, though, as they pretty much boil down to "list of movies containing some kind of plot twist". - iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• If this article is true, keep. It seems to describe a known literary technique. But surely that sort of literary technique has another older non-sexual name? Anthony Appleyard 16:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki but only in the normal usage, meaning malicious psychological game-playing - that's certainly worthy of inclusion in a dictionary. But this article's usage is different and original research: it fails to provide RS showing it to be an established literary and movie genre term. Tearlach 02:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary (English). Even though I'm no longer living in an English-speaking country this is a very common phrase and has started to be used in other languages also. Xanucia 22:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons cited above. Yakuman (数え役満) 05:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki definition to Wiktionary, but delete OR list of films, etc. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• delete Gman124 22:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article could use some expansion and sources, but I think it's worth having on Wikipedia. I have heard the term "Mindfuck" before, and it seems to be more of a genre or subgenre than just the use of certain literary devices. --66.41.145.88 02:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep per 66.41.145.88 and Valley2city thewinchester 04:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 01:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Narg

I am pretty sure thwartment is not even a word. --Infrangible 02:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, nonsense. No salvageable material.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing verifiable I could find (WP:V). The first just seems to be something made up one day; the second I can't find any sources for; the third seems too minor to merit an article, if it is indeed turue. Crystallina 02:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. nonsense —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SYSS Mouse (talk • contribs) 03:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
  • • Delete. I am also not sure thwartment is a word, nor is anything else on the page remarkable. (Personally, I thought Narg was what the Brain said.) — CJewell (talk to me) 03:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Nonsense article--$UIT 05:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• strong delete unsourced & nonsense & unnotable --Iyenweyel 12:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced and non-notable neologism. (aeropagitica) 15:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Trash. Down the -atory with it. Anthony Appleyard 15:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. For the record, though, I understand 'thwartment'- so it must be a word, right? Maybe it wasn't a word yesterday, but it is now. It's the best thing about this article. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability (hey! I have ten toes too! going to write one on myself). NawlinWiki 04:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marshall Mayer

Marshall Mayer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete. Non-notable person. Contested speedy. ... discospinster _talk 02:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. --Dariusk 03:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Having ten fingers and ten toes, playing Scrabble for fun, and watching 24 are not even close to being claims to notability. --Metropolitan90 03:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drown Megan Records

Drown Megan Records (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a clean-cut case of failing WP:MUSIC. I couldn't find sufficient external coverage (WP:RS) about this record label, and the article text doesn't imply much. Crystallina 02:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Per Crystallina. Abeg92contribs 10:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Drown this article ... err, Delete. Fails WP:ATT, WP:MUSIC, WP:NN. Only 33 Google hits [6], each and every one of them a Myspace page or a Wiki mirror. No assertion of notability, and it looks like there's a good reason there isn't one. Rather hilariously, the top several comments on their Myspace page are spam penis enlargement ads.  RGTraynor  16:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per RGTraynor. Half the page consists of redlinks at this point anyway and I'm confident in saying this record label is nn. Seed 2.0 18:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless notability can be demonstrated... which seems improbable. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete criterion A7. James086^{Talk | Email} 03:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Pressman

David Pressman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete. Non-notable person. Contested speedy. ... discospinster _talk 02:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete for obvious reasons. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and I re-added the speedy tag because you can re-add the speedy tag if the original author removed it. Nardman1 03:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete with some regret. Achieving tenure at an American university is a major accomplishment, but in and of itself it does not establish notability as required here. I did some investigation of Dr. Scheman's accomplishments before allowing for a Delete consensus. First, the award listing "2006 Fessler-Lampert Chair in the Humanities"; there is a "Fesler Lampert Chair" at the University of Minnesota, but it is in aging studies and Dr. Scheman is not one of the three current co-holders of the chair (ext. link). Second, none of Dr. Scheman's writing credits are books; rather they are book chapters or papers included in compendia. Third, it is clear from the Stanford Encyclopedia article that Dr. Scheman has some influence in current philosophical thought; but her contributions are limited extensions from the work of Wittgenstein and do not appear to set her apart from her peers as a thought leader. These things taken together would appear to not satisfy the requirements of WP:PROFTEST. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naomi Scheman

Naomi Scheman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

complete nomination by anon SYSS Mouse 03:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 05:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Very weak delete - currently nothing to show she passes WP:PROFTEST, but she may well do so. The comment on the talk page "I am trying to create this page for a group project in one of Naomi's philosophy classes" doesn't bode well, though. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - promotional article, no assertion of encyclopedic notability made, no indication she passes either WP:N or the relevant subject-specific guidelines. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Her achievements appear to be those of an average competent college professor, and I don't think she's notable enough to require an article. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Not completely obscure, but I'm not convinced she meets WP:PROF yet; maybe in a decade or so. Brianyoumans 20:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable enough for me and of interest to many people. Xanucia 22:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The bio (apparently done by an enthusiastic student) ommited a few details. She has served as Associate Dean of the Graduate School at Minnesota, and she's also been chair of the women's Studies Department. She is a full professor at Minnesota, and Minnesota is a major research university. She is a member of the Austrian Studies Program--presumably as a Wittgenstein specialist. She's edited a book, and published a chapter in another, that they forgot to list, She's held a few important university positions there , including member of the Center for Bioethics,.... . In general full professors at major universities are notable, for they will have done much more than the "average professor" The average professor in the humanities publishes one book or maybe a few articles. To become a tenured professor at Minnesota, she certainly needed to have written a good deal beyond that. She has published one book, edited another ,and written considerable parts of four. She has passed several external reviews by experts for their notability in the profession for appointment and promotion. We don't establish notability in WP, we see if the profession has established notability. More if I find some. DGG 01:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This sentence from the article sums it up for me (emphasis mine):She is best known on the University of Minnesota campus for her "Sexuality and Self-Image" course in the women's studies department. She is also well known among University of Minnesota students for her introductory logic class. She also gives an introductory course in scientific ethics at the Physics Department there. Off campus she's pretty much unknown. Anynobody 07:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Bellczar 23:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article is poorly sourced and gives little evidence of notability. Furthermore, there are massive conflict of interest issues and much of the page appears to be copied from her bio from the Women Studies department.[7] I believe that many, perhaps even most, full professors at the University of Minnesota are notable, so I would not oppose a recreation of this article from scratch if a user not connected to her can make a well-sourced case for her notability.--FreeKresge 04:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I used some information from official web pages. The subject's presentation of objective data on official web pages about professional details is generally acceptable. The difficulty writing this article, in fact, was that the pages were not sufficiently informative. I have no personal connection with the subject, have never heard of her before seeing this article, have no particular interest in her academic field, have no connection with the University of Minnesota. Indeed, I discuss the dfficulty posed by he naive writing by her apparent students. That's why I rewrote the article. The information about her research and writing and service is what proves her notability. ' DGG 06:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Sources establishing notability must be independent of the subject of the article. After all, many people pad their resumes to make their accomplishments look more important than they really are. The number of publications is not impressive if it represents the sum total of her published scholarship. There is no evidence in the article that any of the publications has been particularly influential.--FreeKresge 18:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per iridescenti and ors thewinchester 04:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, there is nothing here that makes her notable above your average professor. I'm sure she has an on-campus following, but that doesn't do anything for WP:PROF. --Mus Musculus 05:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] T-600G

T-600G (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

complete nom by new editor SYSS Mouse 03:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete No notability, only one link, no references, author doesn't seem to know how to write a good article. Reywas92^Talk 03:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic fancruft, major chunks of speculation and opinion, essayish/storytelling tone. Note prior speedy and prod victim. --Dhartung | Talk 03:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Speculation/fancruft/made up. Maxamegalon2000 05:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I hate it when people say "fancruft" in deletion debates, but this really is... fancruft. --Canley 05:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a free web host for fan nonsense.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It actually references "my original Wikipedia article" - which I guess means this is a recreation of a deleted article. OUT!!! Brianyoumans 19:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. For all of the above reasons. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Article could be cleaned up, but it should not be deleted. --Darth Borehd 01:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I nominated this article for deletion. A strong clean up won't fix any of the problems. elwyn5150 09:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. desertowl1026 23:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge into RollerCoaster Tycoon (series). Arkyan • ^(talk) 19:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RollerCoaster Tycoon (book series)

RollerCoaster Tycoon (book series) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No notability established (prod contested) SYSS Mouse 02:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge Real published book series based on a somewhat more notable game series. I'd be fine with merging it to the page on RollerCoaster Tycoon (series), but I'm also satisfied with it as a standalone. FrozenPurpleCube 03:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, these are choose-your-adventure books and this is just a listing of the contents. --Dhartung | Talk 03:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or weak merge book series from a notable publisher, spun off of a very notable bestselling game series. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge This shouldn't warrant more than a sentence or two on RollerCoaster Tycoon (series) though. Seed 2.0 18:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge for now unless someone feels like writing an actual article on the subject. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as per above comments. Xanucia 22:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - book series from a notable publisher Yakuman (数え役満) 05:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri (via) 07:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Seed 2.0 thewinchester 04:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Melissa Moore

Melissa Moore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Claim to notability is appearances as musician on 3 albums by modestly notable other musicians (see talk page). I don't think that's enough. Also including her band The Rabbit, which claims notability only by Ms. Moore's presence. NawlinWiki 03:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete both per WP:MUSIC. She's in the Sparklehorse orbit (brother of her Rabbit bandmate) but these two associations are not enough by themselves. --Dhartung | Talk 03:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No sources. Abeg92contribs 10:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no assertion of notability, no indication she passes WP:MUSIC. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, googling is difficult because her name is kind of common, but I don't see the notability here. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both She doesn't appear to be mentioned on the articles for the other musicians she's worked with. Without her, the band article is even more pointless. Anynobody 07:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both per WP:MUSIC. Bubba hotep 11:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both, not enough notabiility. Kla'quot 04:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. The article is anodyne in its current state, the company appears to meet WP:CORP in having "...been the subject of non-trivial coverage by two or more published works.", and there is no strong numerical or argument advantage to either side.

Whether there is another article in here struggling to get out, about the malfeasance and legal problems of the entity, I do not feel qualified to judge. It's perfectly acceptable to have negative information on an entity providing that (1) it's true (2) you can prove it. I did find it curious that links to legitimate material on the company have been removed and I put those back in. Herostratus 02:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Herostratus 02:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MDS International

MDS International (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Admins have removed notable information - inserted Primary Source Material and made this an advertisement. Violates WP:NOR and does not fulfill WP:CORP with all of the press worthy information removed.WizardOfWor 11:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is confusing. "Admins have removed notable information???" To what purpose? Upon perusing the history log, fluff was removed from the article, NOT notable content. As for WP:CORP, how does that relate to this article? The company apparently has a rather interesting technology known as Hypercable; I suspect including material on this alone would suffice for notability. Aarktica 14:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• I do not agree. This company helped to found an industry not only with Equipment but with legal challenges and then by being prohibited from US sales and imports by a US Federal Court. Why is that FLUFF? Without the "fluff," this "company," now a shell, is not notable. Your link is to marketing material, not a report from a customer or press. Are you familiar with this technology? As well, the inventor of the "technology" left the company due to the "fluff." If the technology is Notable, why is the exit of the inventor, not notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WizardOfWor (talk • contribs) 2007-03-27 15:19:15
• Dubious original research from primary sources was used to make the article an attack piece [8]; after a review of the sources due to a complaint to WP:OTRS, I found that little to none of the information of the article was even mentioned in the sources. This article was then stubbified. [9] Since then the only changes have been corrections to basic factual information per the company's website by an employee of the company. Nominator posted this AfD after being unsuccessful at keeping article in his preferred version, which included the attacks and misinformation. Might be worth a note that the nominator also uploaded a company logo for the article claiming self-public domain as the license (obviously, this has been deleted). I will be researching whether or not company meets WP:CORP as follow up to the OTRS request and will update my comments here. Shell ^babelfish 17:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Here are some secondary sources I believe qualify the article under the notability guidelines:

1. Bonisteel, Steven. "MDS Gains Ground In Bid To Share Satellite Spectrum - Company Business and Marketing", Newsbytes News Network, The Washington Post Company, 2001-05-08. 
2. "Northpoint Technology Underscores MITRE Report Finding of Spectrum Sharing Feasibility", Business Wire, Berkshire Hathaway, 2001-05-15. 
3. "MDS America bolstered by FCC decision to open and auction DBS terrestrial spectrum", Wireless Satellite and Broadcasting Newsletter, 2002-05-01. 

This does appear to be a rather brief spurt of media attention though and the company doesn't have an article in the French Wikipedia, which one would expect since it is headquartered there. Just a guess, but I believe the current edit war may stem from an on-going court case, participants in the edit war appear to represent one company or the other: MDS America, Inc. v. MDS International,SARI, 04-72353-DT (E.D.Mich. 2005-12-27).Shell ^babelfish 05:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Information that is pertinent to this discussion has been moved here. - WizardOfWor 00:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cúchullain ^t/c 03:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete, fails WP:ATT, WP:CORP. Without going into the above conflict, it's plain that whatever information has been dredged from various Internet nooks and crannies, the article's defenders have not put any of it into the actual article. If the article actually establishes some notability and sourcing -- which it does not -- then my opinion may change.  RGTraynor  17:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Original article seems to be mainly an attack page; take that out and you're left with dubious notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep based on the material found by Shell.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
• Delete. Seems to be a small insignificant company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.17.236 (talk • contribs)
• Keep based on findings by Shell. Needs to be appropriately tagged for cleanup and sources, but that is not a reason to delete. --Mus Musculus 05:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete- no assertion of notability made (CSD A7). WjBscribe 06:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kurt Aberdeen

Kurt Aberdeen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable. Appeared in two compilation films, isn't in IMDB, doesn't meet any of WP:PORNBIO, has less than 600 google results. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7... no assertion of notability here.--Isotope23 16:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JD & the Nashville Ramblers

JD & the Nashville Ramblers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to minimum notability standard (WP:MUSIC). User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - advertising, no indication WP:MUSIC is passed, no assertion of notability, only 26 ghits. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Google doesn't turn up good evidence to support notability; just the usual show advertisements and band site. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The article does not prove the notability of the subject through reference to multiple reliable, independent sources that cover the subject non-trivially, and I (like the 2 editors above) was unable to find proof of notability via a Google search. -- Black Falcon 06:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 04:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. While the first part of the nom isn't a reason for deletion, the second part is. --Coredesat 03:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jay Bhula

Jay Bhula (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Cricket in the United States just isn't a major sport. Plays for organzations that don't merit their own articles. Citicat 04:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable and the article seems to have been orphaned for a bit--$UIT 05:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Google brings up no hits other than mirror sites. www.cricinfo.com doesn't list him, and they list everyone. The alleged "source" link cited is actually a link to a page on the (somewhat better known) Anil Kumble, not this guy. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above, fails WP:ATT, WP:BIO. Does the United States even have a generally recognized "highest level" at which cricketeers can play?  RGTraynor  17:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I'd say only if they played for the United States national cricket team - presumably anyone that good would be playing professional cricket in England, India etc instead of staying in the US so would qualify that way. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Cricket is bigger in the U.K., nominating it for deletion just because we in the U.S. don't care about it would be presumptuous. (Do they watch it in Australia, New Zealand, or Canada?) Anynobody 07:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: It's not presumptuous at all. This isn't about the relative importance of cricket; it's about the relative importance of this player. Just because baseball is a big sport in the US doesn't mean that WP:BIO needs to be changed to encompass non-notable Pakistani first basemen.  RGTraynor  13:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Yes, cricket is very popular in Australia and New Zealand (and a lot of other mainly ex-Commonwealth countries). However, a 15-year old schoolboy cricketer isn't going to be notable whichever country he's from (Delete). EliminatorJR ^Talk 20:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Orderinchaos 11:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JDub Industries

JDub Industries (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable company (if that). 1 non-wiki ghit (a blog) Citicat 04:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - unremarkable company. So tagged. MER-C 10:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Please note that the author of the article argued to keep twice. --Coredesat 03:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vitello's restaurant

Vitello's restaurant (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Vitello's Restuarant is the establishment where Bonnie Lee Bakley, wife of famed actor Robert Blake, was shot to death in a car. That, I'm afraid, is all we'll ever be able to say about this otherwise non-notable restaurant. Pascal.Tesson 04:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Citicat 04:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the fact that it figured prominently in a part of popular culture wherein a famous murder took place should be enough to warrant its inclusion in wikipedia. Note that Sparks Steak House where a far less famous murder took place is also included in wikipedia. Juddtrichter 05:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)judd
  • Note I copied this from the afd talk page; it is the contribution of the article's author. MKoltnow 05:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTE. Info on Bonnie Lee Bakley interesting, but not enough to prove notability. --HubHikari 05:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, etc. In fact, Bonnie Lee Bakley was not shot to death in this restaurant, but was shot around the corner from the restaurant after having eaten there. So it even loses that "claim to fame". Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Heck, even if it were the right spot, which it's not, this would merit nothing more than a Merge and Delete.  RGTraynor  17:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly you don't live in LA if you think Vitello's, a Valley institution and former regular hang out for celebrities, is not-notable. Though I can't vouch for the food. Castellano wasn't shot inside Sparks either, so why don't you go delete that too? Robert Blake and Bonnie Lee had just eaten there, Blake went back to get his gun, when he returned to his car she had been shot. This is an event that will last in LA folklore as long as the Black Dahlia, OJ, Specter and other famous crimes. User:juddtrichter
  • Then by all means, go and nominate Sparks Steak House for deletion. Saying that other articles exist is not a valid reason for hanging on to an article. Please address the concerns of this debate that the article does not demonstrate notability by providing sources to reliable, secondary sources that would establish such notability. Arkyan • ^(talk) 18:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Its association with BLB is peripheral at best and that alone would not make it notable. If, as Judd asserts, it is a well known LA spot then that might make it notable however that's not the thrust of the article. If someone were doing research on the BLB murder they might mention Vitello's must I doubt they would need a reference on it. JBEvans 21:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - historic location Yakuman (数え役満) 05:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - even though I agree with Yakuman (数え役満), the article itself is too small. As long as it's mentioned in their articles (Blake and Bakely) it's gotten all the attention it needs. Anynobody 08:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep unfortunately the threshold for notability at WP is low, and being the scene of a celebrity's wife's murder seems to meet it. We have Golden Dragon massacre but no article for Golden Dragon Restaurant, but I would figure that the restaurant would be notable due to the massacre, and body count seems to equate to celebrity in these sorts of things. Carlossuarez46 16:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete as original research and per WP:FICT. As the information already exists elsewhere, there is nothing to merge. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maximus Decimus Meridius

Maximus Decimus Meridius (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete or Merge into the Gladiator film article. Article merely details a scrunched plot summary of the film and what is, at this time, an unsourced section about his name. Either way, this character doesn't deserve his own article. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 04:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: There is little precedent for fictional film characters to have their own articles; I can't think of even any recent Academy Award-winning pictures to do so outside of longstanding print popularity as well.  RGTraynor  17:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There are hundreds of entries for individual characters, places, events, etc. for the Lord of the Rings trilogy, so why not for this as well? Hoshq 19:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Well, when you have three books of a quarter of a million words, more than a dozen other ancillary works, sixty years of history and a giant fanbase, you have the wherewithal for a lot of articles. (If you mean the film adaptation of those characters, examining the actual articles shows that they're an afterthought to the literary entries; for instance, in the very long article on Aragorn, the information concerning the most recent film adaptation is exactly three sentences long.)  RGTraynor  20:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, just because other crap exists doesn't mean it should. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 03:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: - While there is interesting trivia there, most of the info was gleaned from the article, and that which was not seems wholly unsourced. Smite it righteously. Arcayne 02:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and delete per WP:FICT. Carlossuarez46 16:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable for being on the "100 Heroes and 100 Villains" list. 1ne 01:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Explain to me, taking in account the WP:N policy, how this list automatically makes this character notable enough for an article; also explain to me how that overrides the fact that this article merely details a torn down plot summary of the film. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 05:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - primary character (Alastor Moody is not close to being a primary character) of a notable work, has made a Top 100 something or other, alluded to in other media works, as well as James Traficant. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 04:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Just because other BS exist doesn't mean anything; that article you mentioned could easily be AfD'd and deleted in a second. Being a primary character doesn't automatically merit an article, either. Also, go read a bit of WP:FICT as well. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 05:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, the entire thing is WP:OR. No sources at all, and none forthcoming since no one has written the comprehensive guide to characters in "Gladiator" to my knowledge. --Mus Musculus 05:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lygodactylus

Lygodactylus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

List cruft of all red links. Masterpedia 04:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - the german wiki has a good stub and I've copied some material across. Not sure why the nominator thinks a stub on a genus does not belong here. Expand this rather than delete - Peripitus (Talk) 05:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Sourceable, notable, expandable and encyclopedic. I think every species, much more so every genus, should be in WP.--killing sparrows 11:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, to my knowledge any species/family/genus or other biological classification group can be kept so long as its existence is verifiable, and that doesn't seem to be an issue here. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Solid keep — Valid genus. Sorry, but to say this is list cruft seems like pure deletionist cynicism. — RJH (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Biological genera are noteworthy.--JyriL ^talk 16:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, duh. A genus of geckoes, with a fairly large number of redlinks for the species. Yes, this is pretty specialized, and it may be a while before someone with the requisite familiarity with geckoes comes by to fill them in, but I can't see deleting this for purely subjective reasons. I am suddenly moved with a hankering to own a Lygodactylus rex as a pet. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, although there is probably a better visual presentation of all those species. --Mus Musculus 05:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep as notability is verified through reliable sources in the article. Any discussion regarding moving the article should be taken to the article talk page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alpine Fighter Collection

Alpine Fighter Collection (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is about a collection of planes within a non-notable museum. Article is editors own thoughts and analyses. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. WP:NOT#OR Masterpedia 04:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 05:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete but more due to the issue of failing notability guidelines per WP:LOCAL. Nothing here to support the fact that this collection (not even sure if you can call it a museum?) is notable. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The museum it's in doesn't even have an article, and there is no evidence of the collection's notability on its own merit. --Mus Musculus 05:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This article is a poorly written stub, but the collection easily passes the google test. It is not original research within Wiki guidelines. Information contained in it was not referenced but was non-controversial and readily available in the public domain - particularly in print, for anyone with access to a New Zealand library. Some references have now been provided.

The importance of the Alpine Fighter Collection is not so much the present aircraft, but

• 1/ The collection played an important part in expanding the warbird movement in New Zealand beyond trainers such as Harvards and Tiger Moths to the present degree of relative prominence in the warbird world. Though I suspect some Wikipedians may deem all New Zealand non noteable, over 100,000 people visited the collections biannual Easter Airshow, not all of them Kiwis and not a press number, but measured accurately, by ticket sales. (c.f. Oshkosh, which gets a huge well written article for a 2-6x greater attendance, though of course the audience for that airshow are the intrinsically more important Americans). This is not a handful of aircraft in a basement, or a local importance issue like a non-noteable street or library. Over 100,000 people. To quote an authority deletionists may recognise, "Aw, Come On".

• 2/ The collection has international importance for the work returning to airworthy condition a Nakajima Ki 43 "Oscar", (the Japanese Army's main fighter in 1941, and second only to the Zero in importance), and pioneering restoration work on Russian warbirds - in particular returning a fist full of the previously all but extinct Polikarpov fighters to the air, (The I-16 Rata was the leading Republican fighter in the Spanish Civil War, the most numerous Soviet fighters in 1941 and the worlds first retractable undercarriage monoplane fighters when first introduced. None had flown since the early 50s when the collection started. They restored 6).

While there is no reason for deletion, there would be a reasonable argument for combining it with an article on the New Zealand Fighter Pilots Museum. A second best solution would be merging with Tim Wallis and / or Warbirds Over Wanaka stubs, (incidentally, at the risk of encouraging deletionists, the associated Warbirds over Wanaka and Tim Wallis articles could use expansion / wikification). Winstonwolfe 05:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC) (modified aditional info 10 April 2115 NZ time)Winstonwolfe 09:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• keep though my first thought is that it should be merged with the NZ Fighter Pilots Museum (using the Museum for the main namespace) Charles (Kznf) 13:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• keep but move to New Zealand Fighter Pilots Museum or similar and expand accordingly.-gadfium 19:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- gadfium 19:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per gadfium. --Limegreen 22:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs about famous people

List of songs about famous people (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article already survived AfD a year ago under a different name but I believe consensus may have changed in this case. The criterion for inclusion is way too broad and the result is a page of trivia and a random collection of indiscriminate (and unreferenced) information. Some of the content might be salvageable as separate articles but I don't think this passes WP:NOT. Pascal.Tesson 05:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - overly broad inclusion criteria. Impossible to fully assemble this list in any meaningful time frame. Equally difficult to determine any threshold for "famous", esp. when discussing songs, which can be famously opaque. --Haemo 06:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT. JuJube 08:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, per WP:NOT. Completely unmanageable list, ambigious inclusion criteria etc. etc. etc. Dr bab 11:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - how famous is famous? What criteria does a person have to satisfy for a song about them to qualify for inclusion in this list? Would being the subject of a Wikipedia article suffice? Or is it enough just to appear in... this list? Silly. BTLizard 12:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nom and above and WP:NOT. The vague inclusion criteria (who defines famous?) means this is a perfect example of an indiscriminate collection of information. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This list is as interesting as many other lists in Wikipedia. Anthony Appleyard 15:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete 'Interesting' does not defeat policy, delete per WP:NOT Hornandsoccer^Talk 18:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete solely for not answering the Carly Simon's "You're So Vain" question. >: ( Seriously, though, listcruft, belongs on Wikitrivia or something. "Famous" is inherently subjective, and a good portion of the list's entries seem to be "Songs with Famous People in the Title" - c.f. "Frances Farmer Will Have Her Revenge On Seattle" - or "Songs With Famous People in the Lyrics" (c.f. "Buddy Holly" which oddly enough is not contained for mentioning Mr. Holly, but rather Mary Tyler Moore - don't these kids know Rock and Roll anymore?) --Action Jackson IV 19:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment For an answer to the Carly Simon question, you have to check out this. Always read the Daily Telegraph obituaries - the answers to all kinds of obscure questions are revealed. --Charlene 04:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Bless you for that. I'd been staying up nights, fretting, but now I know. Wot'a'man, an inspiration for !love balladeers! Shenme 06:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note - the list does mention Buddy Holly for being called "Buddy Holly", but Elvis has a mention under "actors", so I still stand by my vote. --Action Jackson IV 19:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete as nonsense (CSD G1). WjBscribe 06:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cool Page

Cool Page (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Nonsense promotion page being used as a sandbox PaladinWhite 05:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete: G1: Nonsense. --Valley2city^₪‽ 05:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Harris Goldman

Stephen Harris Goldman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article smacks of obvious NPOV violation and article's sole contributor, User:Youknowyouknowmyname, is the son of the subject. This article is in violation of both of the "core wikipedia policies" enumerated in WP:NPOV, both NPOV, and the faxt that User:Youknowyouknowmyname cites himself as a reference as seen at diff. --Valley2city^₪‽ 04:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I see no claim of notability, or grounds for one. Pete.Hurd 05:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I see 'claims' for notability (groundbreaking work in technology, compositions performed by major orchestras), but no proof, i.e. references. The burden of proof should be on the creators of articles, not those reading them. --killing sparrows 12:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I was the closing admin on the earlier PROD deletion. I restored it when the creator protested on my talk page. I placed the Unsourced template on the page last night to try to get some standard sourcing. The creator replaced it with an effectively WP:OR source that doesn't even touch on most of the things mentioned in the article. We need 3rd party sources for articles like this. I might change my vote if such valid sourcing is provided, but as it is, it should go away IMHO. - TexasAndroid 15:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I did some digging and found a bit of controversy, but I don't think it is enough to save the article, so far. DPT does seem to have been a pretty successful company; there isn't much about it online because the company was sold in 1999, which is a long time ago in web-time. But if someone found an article saying they made real contributions, this might be worth keeping.Brianyoumans 22:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Juxtapono

Juxtapono (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a self-published game, an article that reads like an ad, and some bizarre unrelated references. There is a Conflict of interest too, but that's not a reason for deletion Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 05:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as spam. 21 ghits including WP's. No reviews.--killing sparrows 12:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • GHITS according to Google, "119 for juxtapono."Juxtapono 05:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I'm concerned about the conflict of interest. The article reads like an advertisement and that is my main reason for deletion. In regards to notability, you can buy one ebay, and it looks legitimate. --Cyrus Andiron 14:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The references seem to have nothing to do with the subject at all, there is no assertion of notability, article reads like promotional/spam material, and so on. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT, lack of relevant sources Hornandsoccer^Talk 18:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• RESPONSE
• (1) All references cited are relevant
• Bennett, Charles E., Latin Grammar (Allyn and Bacon, Chicago, 1908) defines the compound Latin words JUXTA + PONO and describes their meaning
• N. Vincent: "Latin", in The Romance Languages, M. Harris and N. Vincent, eds., (Oxford Univ. Press. 1990), ISBN 0-19-520829-3 Further illustrates the use of Latin terms JUXTA and PONO
• R. C. Bose, S. S. Shrikhande, E. T. Parker, Further Results on the Construction of Mutually Orthogonal Latin Squares and the Falsity of Euler's Conjecture, Canadian Journal of Mathematics, vol. 12 (1960), pp. 189-203. Illustrates the game form of Latin Squares and how it relates to Magic Squares, Numbers Place, Sudoku

• (2) COI: Article is written from a neutral perspective to directly describe and articulate what JUXTAPONO means and what the Juxtapono Board Game is. This article is no more Advertisement form than the articles on Sorry, Scrabble, Chess, Risk, etc.
• (3) Every effort has been made to author and submit the Juxtapono board game article as a representation of facts to describe a unique form of SUDOKU puzzle game and to describe the coined word Juxtapono as a new word in the English language with roots in Latin. Juxtapono 03:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP per WP:NOT, All principles of the neutral point of view (NPOV),Wikipedia policies and Article standards have been followed. If you disagree with this statement, please be more specific in your objections and constructive with your comments to include How to fix and What to change examples. Juxtapono 03:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You seem to be missing the point about citing references. Please read WP:ATT for a more full discussion on the topic, but the problem is that Juxtapono is not mentioned once in a single one of those references. None of them are about the subject, and it remains wholly unattributed. Arkyan • ^(talk) 06:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Hey Juxtapono, see my comments on the points you raise on your talk page.--killing sparrows 16:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks, I'll take our discussion off-line to the your talk page to discuss your response in detail.Juxtapono 05:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. -- Longhair\^talk 12:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Impressions (Australian band)

The Impressions (Australian band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This was a minor high-school band that was probably on here as a joke. Dan broders 05:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Non Notable. Prester John 07:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Valley2city^₪‽ 08:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 12:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO. Hornandsoccer^Talk 16:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, but it does appear they are doing good, and I would like to encourage them. Abeg92contribs 17:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I don't know that you could describe their releases as "hits". Seems to fail WP:MUSIC at the moment. Lankiveil 12:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Griffith University Student Representative Council

Griffith University Student Representative Council (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced and non-notable ➪HiDrNick! 06:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT Hornandsoccer^Talk 18:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 21:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, can't say it better than the nom. Noroton 21:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - student unions have no inherent notability and none is sourced here. TerriersFan 22:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. WP:ALLORNOTHING is not a reason for keeping an article, and the keep argument fails to assume good faith. --Coredesat 03:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rose Stein Elementary School

Rose Stein Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

no assertion of notability Chris 07:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Also at Stein Elementary School —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kintetsubuffalo (talk • contribs) 08:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

• Delete per nom, no assertion of notability. TJ Spyke 08:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 21:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete BOTH no sense even in merging this unsourced material. Noroton 21:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's a school so it's notable. Do you people just want to delete every article on Wikipedia or what? Xanucia 22:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Just so you know, that argument doesn't work. There are NO guidelines or policies that say schools are notable, schools have to pass policies like WP:N just like every other article on WP. As for you question, yes, we delete non-notable articles. TJ Spyke 22:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, personally I want to delete every article on Wikipedia. Noroton 16:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - What a shame that WP:SCHOOL failed the policy shift, as it would prevent us from having procedural deletions like these. And please WP:AGF and don't resort to WP:ALLORNOTHING.--WaltCip 16:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom / WP:N. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Farm Animal Reform Movement

Farm Animal Reform Movement (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable campaigning organisation. The creator appears to be a member of it, so at creation it was an advert; after clean-up it was changed back to an advert and after clean-up again it became an advert again. I've tried to talk to the creator but she's unresponsive, sadly, as she'd be the only person who could point out any notability or sources (other than the organisation itself) for the organisation. Rather than continue this strange low-level edit war where she writes an advert, I stub it down and ask for notability, she writes another advert, I stub it down and so on, I think this should go.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  08:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and salt. It's an advert and it appears to be the work of a single purpose account. If it isn't salted it will most likely continue to reappear. BTLizard 09:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom - having plowed through the edit history & revisions, it's clear this is going to keep being recreated. Although I'll mourn the loss to Wikipedia of the sentence "we lift the scales to glimpse the horrors on your plates". - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as POV and spam. I will preserve the quote on my userpage. Yet another reason to not support United Way. --killing sparrows 12:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Note that article has been reverted back to an advert, without comment, yet again. I'm not bothering to re-revert again, although I've tried again to contact the author... this time with a warning template, sadly.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  17:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• weak keep I understand the problem, and I suppose the way to go is to eventually ban her from the article. DGG 02:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sagewood Middle School

Sagewood Middle School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

save from rating, no assertion of notability Chris 08:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete NN school. I would say speedy delete, but there is a minor assertion of notability. TJ Spyke 08:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Of ten schools in the area, 8 received 'high' ratings (as did this one), 2 received 'excellent' ratings. This school is not the best even in its geographic area, thus non-notable. --killing sparrows 13:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 21:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:N/nothing special/per-nom Ttttrrrreeeeyyyyyy 01:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sierra Middle School, Parker, Colorado

Sierra Middle School, Parker, Colorado (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

no assertion of notability Chris 08:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No assertion of notability, it's not even a directory. TJ Spyke 08:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• DeleteNo assertion of notability, no references. The burden is on the creator, not the reader. --killing sparrows 13:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:N. -Seinfreak37 17:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 21:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:A. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. No assertion of notability at all. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ralph E. Maurer

Ralph E. Maurer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Military and civilian physician with no particular notability. Dhartung | Talk 09:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Copyvio from Lubbock Online - so tagged. This is another of User:Billy Hathorn's cut & paste obituaries. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete if that is the case.--JyriL ^talk 17:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I won't say speedy because it does look like an attempt was made to re-write the obit, rather than just a pure copy and paste. Nonetheless, the subject is not notable, and despite Billy Hathorn's stubborn insistence on using them, biographies from people's funeral programs and obituaries of non-public figures are not acceptable as sources for estabilshing notability, since anyone can have them, and are also not acceptable as sources for any significant or challengeable article content, since they say pretty much anything the family wants them to say, without being thoroughly fact-checked. Mwelch 22:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete as failing WP:N. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Further clarification on decision to delete: The article included no reliable sources (the Town Talk link was invalid, this link had nothing to do with the subject of the article, and the RootsWeb link is a generic link to nothing in particular. Being the last (of a total of three, apparently) streets and parks commissioner in a medium-sized city does not in and of itself make someone notable. Nothing else in the article provided any indication of why Mr. Hebert was any more notable than any other streets and parks commisioner in the thousands of other cities that size. Basically, the article failed to satisfy WP:BIO (and by extension, WP:N), WP:V, and WP:RS. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malcolm P. Hebert

Malcolm P. Hebert (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Local politician, highest elected post, streets and parks commissioner (which apparently is ex officio part of the city council of a modest city). This falls short of WP:BIO. Dhartung | Talk 09:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - The highest office he attained was Streets Commissioner for a small (pop 50000) town. Plus, in light of the creator's history this is probably a copyvio from somewhere. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if adequately sourced. Article claims he received attention from national publications for an innovative water and sewer pipe design. That (unlike a great many of the author's other subjects) sounds notable. As mentioned in the author's other articles, there is a problem with "lazy" sourcing, though, so this assertion is not currently adequately sourced. Nonetheless, I'm not inclined to believe it's just made up. Keep the article and improve the sourcing. Mwelch 22:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The following passage from the article is telling: "Hebert received recognition in three national publications for his groundbreaking design of a cost effective and practical solution to re-lining water and sewer pipes in Monroe." What are these three citations? If added, even one of them might be sufficient to satisfy the minimum notability criteria as described at WP:BIO. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. "Hebert received recognition in three national publications for his groundbreaking design of a cost effective and practical solution to re-lining water and sewer pipes in Monroe." Did he? What national publications - Time, or Sewer Engineers Quarterly? No citations. The rest of the article is way, way too much information about this unnotable person. If he really did invent a better way of relining pipes, a very short article stating just that and little more would be appropriate. Also, he kept monkeys in his house, and I don't think we want to encourage that sort of thing. Herostratus 04:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete per WP:BIO and lack of reliable sources. Also, the main author of the page is citing his own work, which violates WP:OR. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James H. Boyce

James H. Boyce (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Local politico, highest office attained state party chairman. This is not considered passing the bar for WP:BIO which starts at the state legislature level. Dhartung | Talk 09:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply.Guidelines say "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office . . . "

This could easily be interpreted to include state party chairmen, who are elected, or even county chairmen, who are also elected in many situations.

Here is another state chairman on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Watson

Billy Hathorn 16:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no indication of notability. In light of the creator's history, quite likely a copyvio from somewhere as well. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply.Not a copyright violation. Is it a copyright violation to give credit where the material comes from? And Mr. Boyce is self-evidently notable in state politics and as a philanthropist.

User:Billy Hathorn|Billy Hathorn]] 15:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and if this is a third blatant copyvio by said user, dip him in chocolat and leave for Easter bunnies to eat. That stuff really pisses me off. Not the legality, the laziness!--killing sparrows 13:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - More like the 300th - have a skim through his edit history and the laundry-list of warnings that constitutes his talk page. There comes a point where you can only WP:AGF so far. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep.State party chairman is a major position in any state. The individual is elected by the elected members of the state party executive committee. Mr. Boyce served four years in the position during the Watergate period. He had successes and failures in the post. He was also a philanthropist in Baton Rouge. Billy Hathorn 20:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or reduce to a stub. I can see the argument for the notability of a state party chair. But right now there is almost zero content in this article that is attributed to something other than original research (Billy Hathorn's master's thesis). There probably are some decent, citable sources out there about the guy. Per killing sparrows, it's fairly lazy to settle for "Oh, I'll just cite my own master's thesis", especially given that if it's a thesis for a bloody Master's degree, you'd think it would be scholarly enough that it would, itself, cite those other, better sources. So, it's not like you have to do a lot of new research to find them. Mwelch 22:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarification.M Welch, Mr. Boyce died in 1990; he was out of active politics in 1976. He is largely a pre-Internet person. There are few Internet links directly to him. Most Internet links are since 1996 or 1997.

Billy Hathorn 01:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment. So what? Is there a reason that pre-Internet sources cannot be cited? The world of research does not end with Google. If you wrote a master's thesis in 1980, you have to be familiar with citing non-Internet sources . . . right? Mwelch 06:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Notable in my opinion and I don't care what WP:BIO says as it's just a guideline and most guidelines are created by a very small minority of Wiki users with no input from the masses. Xanucia 22:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep.Look at the state of Michigan under Saul Anuzis. He was the state party chair and has a full page along with other chairs from the state's history. This should be kept. User:tommyduva

• delete Not for copyvio--the source is quite apparently the eds. masters thesis, because where else would this sort of thing be published, and I think we can presume he has copyright in it. But almost every one of the entire set of articles he has been adding violates the general idea of an encyclopedia, that articles are proportional to the importance of the subject. By some oversight, we seem to have guidelines that permit people of the most restricted importance as long as they have been elected once to the state legislature, and its probably time we changed that, because nobody would have conceived they could be used this way. But certainly we should not go any further--no party chairman, no city magistrates, no road superintendents, no local grocers, no community physicians. (all real examples.)

This doesn't mean someone in those groups could not be N; Anuzis may be N because of his individual work without that canonizing the position. Most of these articles are OR in another sense than just citing an unpublished thesis--they rely on citing government contract awards, prison records, tombstones, oral history collections,--these are the sort of primary sources used by historian to write history. They are not the sort of material used for an encyclopedia.

It might be reasonable to make an exception for brief notices--print encyclopedias normally have short articles of a paragraph or so for the people who just make it in. But this ed. is writing every article as if the subject were FDR. If these articles are held N, then they are good candidates for appropriate editing. About three sentences: paragraph. When he was born, when he was elected to the job that this ed. thinks made him notable, and one for when he lost it. And a 4th if he's dead. That might be the temporary solution to state assemblymen as well. There's no point doing it to this article now on the small possibility that it might be kept.

But its not as if dealing with this article and the other existing ones will end the problem. There was a new article today on Eugene S. Eason, who filled the remaining 9 months of someone's term in the state legislature and never won an election on his own. The article is filled with the detailed statistics of what every candidate received at each election which Eason tried.

As I said in an earlier AfD, Billy should turn the thesis into a book; it will probably have to be privately printed, so we won't be able to cite it here, but all the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of everyone named will buy a copy. DGG 03:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

A related point, this article is a good example of Hathorn's penchant for irrelevant asides. He sat on many civic boards, including ... the National Alliance of Business, a creation of the administration of U.S. President Richard M. Nixon, whom Boyce supported for the White House. What on Earth his support for Nixon has to do with his volunteer work, I don't know. Or Voter registrars often advised new registrants to remain within the Democratic fold or be unable to vote in competitive races except for U.S. president, constitutional amendment elections, or tax referenda. Therefore, the Democratic registration as late as 1960 was often in excess of 98 or 99 percent. Yes, a fine point to be made ... in an article on the politics of Louisiana. (This being a hypertext encyclopedia, and that's what the little blue letters do.) And Goldwater was at first reluctant to take on the challenge but nevertheless declared his candidacy early in 1964, when the Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson had been president for only two months and the favorite for a full term of his own. Again, material for Goldwater's article. I suspect this is in here to beef up what would look thin. It certainly isn't about Boyce. Then there's the buried lede: The Louisiana GOP made no headway in statewide campaigns under Boyce's tutelage. Ah. Well if his tenure as state party chairman was so unnotable, why is he here?

Hathorn is skilled at using Wikipedia tools and knows a bit about house style. And it's great that we can have holes filled like Lieutenant Governors and State Senate Majority Leaders. If only we could get these skills turned toward helping the encyclopedia in a way that is acceptable to the community, this would not be as sour a process. --Dhartung | Talk 04:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have just re--read the article, trying for a fresh view, and it seems fairly clear that he never actually accomplished anything. He was busy, he was much involved, but he neither attained any notability of his own nor was of key importance in notable political events. This make him nonetheless a fine subject for historical purrposes: non-notable people can be useful scaffolds for discussions. But it makes him unsuitable for an encyclopedia--WP or any other. DGG 08:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

DGG wrote: ". . . it seems fairly clear that he never actually accomplished anything. . . . "

Rebuttal.DGG, are you really saying that this individual accomplishing nothing? The article says that he presided over a state party at a difficult time, had trouble finding a Senate candidate, but was in the chairmanship when his party gained its first two U.S. House seats. Perhaps, he deserves no credit for that success, but he was in office when it happened. Should we be saying that such individuals "accomplished nothing." And also, "accomplishing nothing" would not exclude one from consideration. It is a very subjective concept to say that one "accomplished nothing".

Billy Hathorn 00:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

He accomplished nothing that is notable for WP purposes. His intrinsic notability is a matter for history, not for settling here. Actual documented accomplishments are necessary, not vague statements like the above. It is your job to show that he accomplished something discrete and demonstrable. Your personal opinion of his role as a party leader is irrelevant. DGG 07:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Anetode. MER-C 02:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Emoticons

My Emoticons (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable website Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 09:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 09:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 11:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Derby Dragons

Derby Dragons (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable football team (5-a-side Sunday League) - creator removed a PROD tag shortly after creation and it hasn't got any better since. Bencherlite 09:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete you can't get much more non-notable than Division 9 of a sports centre Sunday league --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 09:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 10:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete wholly non-notable team, no reliable sources, the listing of names of team members as references shows (as if it couldn't have been guessed anyway) that this is all original research ChrisTheDude 10:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Cyrus Andiron 17:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non notable Sunday league team, doesn't even come close to being notable. Tangerines 17:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non notable team Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 23:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Bryson

Jim Bryson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Music act, works with touring band (which is essentially session work), no independent sources. Guy (Help!) 09:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. As to notability: Jim Bryson has toured solo internationally, including playing the South by Southwest festival. His albums are reviewed by critics in major Canadian newspapers. His music is in rotation on CBC Radio 3. I have just added some of that information to the article, with a list of references. --Paul Erik 11:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Has multiple non-trivial reviews. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Killing sparrows (talk • contribs) 13:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
• Meets WP:MUSIC criteria #3 (national/international touring), #10 (CBC Radio 3) and #11 (Fuse); extensively written about in Canadian media. Keep. Bearcat 17:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep He's notable. Xanucia 22:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 11:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portsmouth Pirates FC

Portsmouth Pirates FC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Another non-notable 5-a-side football team - notability tag added last month, no improvement since or likely. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derby Dragons) Bencherlite 10:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 10:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete wholly non-notable team, no reliable sources found (or likely to be found), almost certainly wholly original research ChrisTheDude 10:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete what a load of rubbish. even if it was notable (which it isnt) its poorly written with jargon a reader with no prior knowledge can udnerstand. For example their greatest win was against The Firm. Which Firm? The Scottish football club whos name I cant remember? --PrincessBrat 11:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non notable five a side team. (The Old Firm in Scottish football isn't a club, it is the rivalry between two clubs.) Tangerines 22:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable team Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 23:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 11:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Labrats

The Labrats (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

There are two groups galled Labrast on AMG (actually a Lab Rats and a Lanrats, plus Labratz and Labrat, but I digress). This does not match the years active for either of the top two. Neither of them has a profile anyway, only a one or two disc discography. This article lacks sources to verify the content. An image was uploaded which looked awfully like a group of teenagers standing in a muddy field. Guy (Help!) 10:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom: fails WP:ATT by a mile, no sources, little assertion of encyclopedic notability, no indication they pass WP:MUSIC or WP:N. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 12:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, sorry, band does not pass WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil 12:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC).
• Delete. Notability not established.--ZayZayEM 06:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. thewinchester 16:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, repost per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Og. Issues at previous AfD not addressed. Guy (Help!) 11:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Óg

Gary Óg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD) Wikify, the merge with Éire Óg. Gary Óg page already deleted at least once for non-notability; remains non-notable; recreated without authorization, most likely without knowledge of prior page history by user whose edits are all (save one) about Gary Óg and Éire Óg (last time I checked) Jill Teed 11:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Also: Whatever amount of encyclopaedic and relevant info. that's gleanable can be easily merged with Éire Óg. All info for Gary Óg's current page comes from Óg's own self-serving website. Jill Teed 11:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep due to increased sourcing. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Earth jurisprudence

Earth jurisprudence (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

There is some evidence that the term "earth jurisprudence" or "earth justice" is used, but not widely. This article is largely speculative and original research, for example listing the attributes that a putative earth justice model might include for some societies. Nothing firm to go on here, of course, becxause no such system actually exists. Overall it looks to me as if the concept is too new and thus far too poorly defined to permit of a verifiably neutral article. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per well-reasoned nom. No reason for us to think this is anything more than a little-used neologism that it would be highly difficult to write a decent article about: certainly current version fails minor matters such as WP:ATT and WP:NOR. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep With conferences going back to 2001 and the involvement of respected institutes of higher learning, this seems possibly notable. --killing sparrows 15:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'm changing my vote here. The article is undergoing significant changes and is now much better sourced. (added sig) --killing sparrows 09:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete Only 1 of the 15 references using the name in the title. No evidence for general use of term. DGG 04:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete per DGG, WP:SYNT, almost a neologism. Perhaps there is a better title? Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• One of the inherent problems with Earth jurisprudence is that it is a relatively new field and that is why there are not a lot of references to date. However, the concepts are now being taught at some of the world’s leading universities (the book Wild Law by Cormac Cullinan being a text book on many environmental law courses) and senior academics and politicians have been directly addressing Earth jurisprudence in conferences and talks since 2001 (see History section in this article). The concept of Earth jurisprudence is also now guiding and inspiring a number of legal departments in different parts of the world, from Ethiopia and Ghana, to the United States. --Lesley Fairbairn 15:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Because the concept is new, it is difficult not to use what Wikipedia call buzz words. However, you can find a growing use of these descriptives, for example, see this month’s Guardian newspaper article, 'Earthly rights'. --Lesley Fairbairn 15:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• There is a very large body of published works - books and papers - on the subject of Earth jurisprudence. See the Literature section within the article, which is by no means exhaustive. --Lesley Fairbairn 15:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Could you help me identify an editor to assist us in writing the article in a more encyclopaedic style? --Lesley Fairbairn 15:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I offered to do this on the creator's talk page but have heard nothing back. I think a merge and redirect to Environmental law a more feasible alternative but would be willing to discuss it with you here. (added sig)--killing sparrows 16:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Earth Jurisprudence

• Thank you for your pointers. We can easily provide all the evidence you suggest (names of respected legal scholars who have written about the topic, non-trivial mention in legal publications, classes being taught in law schools. (Please also see the recent additions to the History, with the many names of significant and respected independent academics, politicians and leading thinkers involved in the development of Earth jurisprudence since 2001.) I will consult with my colleagues and get back to you with further specific evidence. In the meantime, while I gather evidence, I refer you to two recent leading newspaper articles - Stephen Harding, 'Earthly rights', The Guardian newspaper, London, April 2007; and Simon Boyle, 'On thin ice', The Guardian newspaper, London, November 2006. --Lesley Fairbairn 00:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Merging with the Environmental law article is not an option as the concept of Earth jurisprudence is not a branch of law but a radically new and separate branch of thinking which requires a reform in the present legal system. I will consult with my legal colleagues and articulate this more clearly. --Lesley Fairbairn 00:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. There appear to be sufficient reliable sources for the subject, for an article to eventually be well-attributed, without indications of OR. MURGH ^disc. 09:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, regarding nominators concern for NPOV. I have found one scholarly article with critique of the EJ model and will add a criticism section to the article for balance. --killing sparrows 09:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete as failing WP:BIO and WP:RS. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Éire Óg (band)

Éire Óg (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This band is argued by a few fans to be notable, but there is no independent evidence to support that. It is easy to confuse support for the band's politics (their music is political in nature) with their actual notability as a band. It is stated that they mainly played pubs and clubs, which is certainly consistent. Some political pub singers become significant (Billy Bragg, for example) but most do not break out of a small closed world. Gary Óg has just been deleted as a repost per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Og Guy (Help!) 11:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom: ghits are plentiful but seem mostly unrelated, and as matters currently stand the article fails WP:ATT and WP:RS: no reliable non-trivial independant sources, no article. Little assertion of notability. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

*Support delete nomination: Sorry I didn't think of it myself; too bad I made Éire Óg (band) the redirect page for Gary Óg, but that's fixable.Jill Teed 11:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and improve - has someone deleted material out of this article there used to be a lot more in it (I am sure of it). The band may not have chart success but they are not that type of band. Given a chance I am sure an editor could produce a lot of material for this article. I for one have two of their "reedorded live" albums.--Vintagekits 13:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Guinnog 15:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, can I just point out that the Eire Og band support Irish republicanism and Celtic FC and that there maybe me a number of Scottish/Loyalist/Unionist or Rangers supporters who may come on here and vote to delete on a WP:IDONTLIKEIT basis.--Vintagekits 15:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, can I just point out that the Eire Og band support Irish republicanism and Celtic FC and that there maybe me a number of Irish/Republican or Celtic supporters who may come on here and vote to keep on a WP:ILIKEIT basis. *Sigh*, some good faith wouldn't go amiss.-- Rockpocket 20:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment As I already pointed out to Vk on his talk page, my "delete" was based more on WP:BAND than on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Hats off to Vk for the improvements, but it still looks way non-notable to me. --Guinnog 20:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I genuinely dont care if the article is deleted but I have now outlined below the sections of WP:BAND which they do satisfy. I defy Gunniog or Rocket to state that the band were not well known to them before this AfD.--Vintagekits 10:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Never heard of them before this AfD. Rockpocket 16:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, interesting comment - I thought you were a Celtic supporter - have you even been down the Barras?--Vintagekits 16:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kungfuadam (talk • contribs) 15:13, 5 April 2007
• Comment - I wasnt listed before but is the previous AfD I have also now added some references and detail for it should conform now.--Vintagekits 15:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Éire Óg may not have a large Internet presence, but they are well known within the trad and rebel music scene throughout Ireland and Scotland. -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 16:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Great - so add the sources that prove it. Guy (Help!) 17:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't appear to meet WP:BAND. Rockpocket 17:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - not sure in that is true - they seem to satisfy #3 and #6 under Criteria for musicians and ensembles and #3 and #4 under Other within WP:BAND no?!?--Vintagekits 10:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. No. I see no reliable sources that supports any of these claims. Fanzines, listings and Pro-republican websites do not satisfy WP:RS. Rockpocket 16:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as per Pauric comment above.--padraig3uk 17:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep after improvements from Vintagekits, meets criterion 6 from WP:BAND. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  Comment. "...the most prominent representative of a notable style"? Any sources for that? Because other than listings pages and fanzines, all I see is an anonymous (and extremely amateurish) CD review on a website promoting Irish music, much of which has been lifted to provide the information in the article. Some reliable sources would be nice to verify such a claim. Rockpocket 20:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  That is an indication that a group may be notable, the primary notability criterion is multiple non-trivial sources independent of the subject - in this case we have at most one such source, most are either directories or blatantly unreliable. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep - They were pretty ubiquitous (their posters used to be plastered on every flat surface in north London) on the Kilburn/Glasgow/Belfast up-the-provos scene (torrent of abuse to the usual place on my talk page, please) but at the moment the article's hopelessly biased. All credit to the writer for keeping the albums on a single page instead of insisting on a separate page for every release, though. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

*Keep as per Pauric. Dwain 21:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barry Dawson

Barry Dawson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A character in an advertisement is not notable. Contested prod. MER-C 11:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - no evidence of notability. The external links do not appear to be independent reliable sources (one is the Fosters website itself, another is a MySpace page), hence no evidence that the subject of the article meets WP:N. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 12:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Tidy and keep, in case someone looks in Wikipedia to find who Barry Dawson is. I have tidied it. I have put in a redirect from Cougar Arts. Anthony Appleyard 15:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Most of the content discusses the non-notable fictional world of the advertisement. Fictional people in advertisements is stretching things too far. DGG 04:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete However when somebody actually creates a page for Cougar Bourbon then a couple of lines on this character in the marketing section wouldn't got amiss. Without an article for the product that this character advertises, however, the character has no context on the wikipedia. A1octopus 23:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Arkyan • ^(talk) 20:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Barnsley

Mark Barnsley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete: Non-notable Jill Teed 11:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Poorly researched AfD nomination based on stalking. Barnsley's case was championed by people such as Julian Cope and the MOJO organisation set up by a member of the Birmingham Six - [10] [11]. Also see [12], [13], [14] and [15]. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There does appear to be some evidence that Mark Barnsley was, as the article puts it, a cause célèbre for at least some people in Britain. [16] Pop Secret 12:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  There is no case of stalking - I originally tried to simply wikify and improve grammatically and syntactically the Barnsley page, which is in awful shape, but User:One Night In Hackney reverted those edits and I left it alone, all of which can be verified in the edit history for that page. I finally realized the page is not worth keeping. Something is not worth keeping on Wikipedia because it is a "cause célèbre for at least some people in Britain". It is simply that User:One Night In Hackney, one of the cadre of supporters of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (such as User:Vintagekits, User:Pauric, User:GiollaUidir, User:Domer48, et al) on Wikipedia, knows that the "anarchists" in Britain are often Provo fellow travelers and he is simply looking out for his own. In light of User:One Night In Hackney's affiliations (see his talk page) WP:AFG cannot be assumed. Jill Teed 12:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I suggest you strike through that personal attack. Perhaps we should also make mention of your cadre of sockpuppets used to push an anti-Irish republican point of view? You didn't make a single grammatical improvement to the page as the edit shows. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The edit history does not support user Jill Teed's contentions of either attempted edits or wrongful reversions on the part of user One Night in Hackney. Regardless, the subject matter of the article seems to have sufficient notability for inclusion, whatever one's feelings about Irish republicanism. Pop Secret 13:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Mark Barnsley is well known in anarchist circles not just in Britain, (see e.g. [17] and[18]). The article is relevant for anyone interested in the anarchist movement in the UK and beyond. Stammer 15:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - the article needs to be exapanded but I believe the subject does meet the notability requirements. My suggestion would be to include more references. There are many out there judging by the number of google hits. --Cyrus Andiron 15:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep and I don't see what his support (or not) for the provos has to do with it. Are you suggesting we shouldn't have pages on anyone you don't agree with? Looking through the edit history I can't see any attempt, other than by his opponents, to push a non-NPOV. And where do you get "the anarchists in Britain are often Provo fellow travelers" from? I'm a paid-up hard-leftist and I work for the police, for god's sake. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep He seems notable based on the outcry from his case. I added some sources and external links to flesh it out some more. IrishGuy ^talk 00:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of recordings of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach

List of recordings of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

As has been noted on the talk page, the idea of a single page of a list of recordings by Bach is quite hopeless. There have been thousands made, and there is no way to rank them by notability. Also, there is a website www.jsbach.org that have a database system for Bach recordings which is incidentally linked from the main wikipedia Bach page. Clavecin 12:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This appears to be just an indiscriminate list of recordings. What is the puropose of the page? Why does it matter where, when, or how the music was recorded? It does not even fall into this category. A pointless article. --Cyrus Andiron 14:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete We do not generally delete articles because they subject is also covered in an outside web site. The point of having an encyclopedia is to be more reliable and stable--otherwise every last one of the movie articles could go,since they're in IMDB. But since only a small part of Bach's work is included , the material would be much better as discographies for the individual compositions. DGG 04:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - This article is not needed. There are perhaps hundreds, if not thousands of recordings of Bach's works, and listing them all would be utterly meaningless and pointless, for they all are variations of the same music. I deem this article unnecessary. - XX55XX 19:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete JS Bach was one of the most prolific composers in history, and probably the most recorded. Every single classical record label has many tens, often hundreds and in some cases thousands of Bach recordings in their catalogues. Truly notable Bach recordings, such as Glenn Gould's Goldberg Variations, Wendy Carlos' Well Tempered Synthesizer or the John Eliot Gardiner cycle, can go in a category, as and when they have articles. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete; if someone wants to create the article for the handball player, go right ahead. Daniel Bryant 11:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ivica Kankaraš

Ivica Kankaraš (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Google search result showing he is a handball player, or poorly sourced football player. Matthew_hk tc 12:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Matthew_hk tc 12:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete can't find any citation for notabilty, therefore I believe him to be non-notable footballer, or as nom said a handball player. Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 23:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nothing on google at all other than the handball player. Tangerines 23:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment professional handball player may notable, but need extensive rewrite. Matthew_hk tc 07:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Punkmorten 13:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete all. --Coredesat 03:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Faded Spades

The Faded Spades (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

In my opinion, is too much for a CSD A7 candidate, however I believe the notability and COI issues warrant this articles' deletion. Input would be much appreciated. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 12:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Going to the same high school as a recognized artist + never-released album + "on hiatus" != notability, I'm afraid. I note some of the personnel also have recently created articles of their own on Wikipedia (see [19]). Pop Secret 12:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are contemporaneously created band personnel articles.

Nick "Moxy" Mead (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Lightning Lee Hamilton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Pop Secret 12:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - yet another non notable band that does not require its own page. I wish more people would read this before creating an article. It would really save some time. --Cyrus Andiron 12:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT a directory of unsigned bands. Much as some editors seem to think we are. Guy (Help!) 13:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Perhaps someone should add "Wikipedia is not myspace" in big colourful flashing letters to MediaWiki:Newarticletext MER-C 13:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity page for a label-less band with no releases that doesn't even exist any more. Has noone heard of MySpace? - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO! The Wikipedia does not care about non notable bands. Fails WP:Music and WP:Vanity. A1octopus 23:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC. Bubba hotep 10:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- A good looking page with a good looking band. The site is new, we should give the page some time to establish proper credibility. Bolsillo 14:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC) — Bolsillo (talk • contribs) 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 POV and OR. --Coredesat 03:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religious conversion and terrorism

Religious conversion and terrorism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The topic of this entry is not notable in the least. As the entry title tells us, the topic is "religious conversion and terrorism", yet the page is filled with only anecdotal information about converts to Islam who have since conversion engaged in (or simply been suspected of engaging in) terrorism. No viable connection is made between the act of conversion and engagement in terrorism, yet by organizing the anecdotal information under such a heading the entry clearly engages in nascent WP:OR, by suggesting such a connection. This is especially problematic because the focus of the anecdotal information isn't "religion" but a religion--Islam. I have attempted to suggest that the entry could be moved, and/or that the entry be merged into Islamist terrorism. Very few (3 total) editors have engaged these suggestions, and the responses have been either that the topic is clearly notable, without ever justifying how or why this is the case, or that the page should simply be deleted. I suspect that a certain group of editors wants the entry to exist to further a political agenda that benefits from making the connection between Islam and terrorism as notable as possible, yet Wikipedia should not be here to further these types of agendas. Please prove me wrong if you oppose this AfD and explain how Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia benefits from its existence and why it can't just be merged. PelleSmith 12:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete primarily due to WP:OR concerns, lacking any reliable secondary sources, all the references are to examples of "terrorists" who were religious converts and none about the topic of "Religious conversion and terrorism". Furthermore this could be viewed as a narrowly disguised attack page on Islam, and certainly has POV issues with the fact that while the title seems to suggest it is religion-neutral, the discussion is about Islamic converts exclusively. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Pointless vague topic that would suggest that the conversion itself leads to terrorism, which doesn't seem to be the case. The Behnam 15:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Per nom, WP:OR, etc. Wrong on so many levels. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Arkyan.--JyriL ^talk 16:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, same reasoning as those above. — George Saliba ^[talk] 17:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: The article examins an aspect of religious conversion that is specially applicable to terrorism. There are examples of terrorists who have converted to other religions (Christinaity for example), however best known examples are those who have converted from Christianity or Hinduism to Islam. Overwhelming majority of converts are not involved in terrorism. However a significant fraction of the terrorists are known to be converts. That fact that most of such terrorists are converted to Islam, does not mean that this fact should not be discussed. Wikipedia needs to represent facts fairly in a neutral manner, but that does not mean that facts should be censored.

PelleSmith has deleted a number of citations, asking me to work on them, while proposing to delete the article. It is apparent that his mind has been made up, and he would like to see the article gone.--ISKapoor 17:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I PRODed it a month ago and now I've put it up for an AfD for reasons explained above. I think its obvious I don't think this entry should exist. Cheers.PelleSmith 21:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that having an article putting these two concepts together suggests that the article will talk about how the two are related. By this, it should talk about how the conversion itself is related to the terrorism, but this will obviously be OR or undue weight on a particular controversial viewpoint. The information is good but is best placed elsewhere The Behnam 19:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:OR. If I could come up with a list 12 people who engaged in X and subsequently engaged in terrorism, would Wikipedia accept an article called X and terrorism that darkly hints the two are linked? How about Premarital sex and terrorism? Illegal immigration and terrorism? or maybe Driving while black and terrorism? You get the idea. Anybody can come up with a dozen people who did almost anything someone wants to discredit and then subsequently engaged in terrorism or similar. I frankly don't see what makes this article any different from the (deliberately silly) ones I named. --Shirahadasha 20:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This article was obviously created to push a POV and should be deleted. Macduff 20:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. Hopelessly POV. Such articles, by nature, can never have a place in Wikipedia. metaspheres 20:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SOAP and WP:NOR.--Jersey Devil 01:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If there are some published studies on this topic then perhaps the studies themselves can have articles but at the moment the article looks like original research. Dalf | Talk 07:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Islamist terrorism. Religion is the driving force behind most terrorism (not premarital sex or illegal immigration) so a mention of terrorists who were converts is relevant in this case. --Candy-Panda 08:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, and do not merge or redirect. Religious conversion and terrorism does not deal solely with Islam. KazakhPol 05:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: This is a very interesting topic and should be expanded on. There does need to be a topic on this as its a well known phenomena. If not, then it should be merged.--Matt57 18:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Why? You've offered exactly no reasons for why this is supposedly the case. That is exactly the problem here. Same goes for the following two keep voters. Thanks, of course, to all of you for showing up and supporting the "anti-Islamic" perspective. This type of blind "POV ballancing" is always appreciated. The day that these types of entries aren't bullied by the two politicized factions on either side of the spectrum will be a day in which knowledge has finally won out here at Wikipedia. Any topic mildly related to Islam, will unfortunately remain, until that day, a forum for unintelligent political rhetoric, and bad OR, as is the case here.PelleSmith 02:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - ITs seems to be reliably sourced and notable.Bakaman 00:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per ISKapoor .--Shyamsunder 12:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete original research IP198 14:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Request to PeleSmith I urge PeleSmith to not delete the citations or parts of the article. --ISKapoor 21:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that your request is at all appropriate in this forum, however I will continue to delete bad references. If a reference is inappropriate or completely misrepresented then it doesn't belong. Don't try to put makeup on the entry so that people think it looks better on the surface. On top of this, as you can see from the many delete comments, none of your supposed references deal with the real issue here WP:OR. Anyone who deems both the request and this response inappropriate on this page please feel free to delete both. Cheers.PelleSmith 23:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete (or at least userfy). Violates WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and so many others. This article doesn't even have pith, it's just a POV, conjecture, and some anecdoatal bullet lists. Hello, "avoid lists" is in the WP:MOS too. Either delete, or userfy until the one lone single passionate author can write a more objective, responsibily cited article. Oh BTW, the author is canvassing editors via e-mail, another discouraged practice, if I recall. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 01:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per ISKapoor. It seems an interesting and a notable topic. Currently it suffering from lots of weaknesses thats true but it has long way to go. As I can see the refurbishing process should be start from WP:MOS. Mind everyone, Religious conversion and terrorism is better than this :-) Good luck, Kapoor. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 15:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No amount of "refurbishing" can get past the WP:OR issue. I tried originally to suggest a move--renaming the entry--or a merge into Islamist terrorism. If there were enough of these examples across religions of people who convert and then engage in terrorist activity then a merge into Religious terrorism maybe more appropriate. No one was very keen on any of these suggestions because it seems that the supporters of keeping the information in the entry are also adamant about engaging in OR to connect the act of conversion to terrorism. It is that adamancy which prevents any "productive" changes.PelleSmith 16:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep — This is an interesting topic. I agree it should not focus solely on muslim extremists. -- Geo Swan 18:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I question whether some of the people listed currently listed actually belong. But that is an issue for discussion on the article's talk page, not here. Geo Swan 18:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Remember POV is not grounds for deletion. POV is not grounds for deletion. A perceived POV should trigger attempts at a rewrite, or trigger discussion on the talk page. Talk of an article's topic being "hopelessly POV" disturbs me. It particularly disturbs me when those voicing the concern haven't made any effort to follow the guidelines in WP:DEL Geo Swan 18:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • When did original research become grounds for deletion? Whether the topic is worthy of preservation isn't really connected with whether the current revision contains original research. A couple of respondents describe the artilce as I added a couple of entries. I made sure that I cited articles called the peretrators "terrorists", or their acts "terrorism" — which I believe addresses the OR concern. Geo Swan 18:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Regarding PelleSmith's concern that "no amount of 'refurbishing' can get past the WP:OR issue." Well, PelleSmith's first reaction to the article was not a sincere attempt to try to help refurbish it, it was the {{prod}} mentioned above. A {{prod}} does not qualify one to claim attempts at improving the article failed. And the two concerns mentioned in the {{prod}} are not OR. They are notability, and a suggestion that the article is an attempt to "publicize" the study. Geo Swan 18:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Notability is, IMO, a feeble yardstick for determining the merit of articles, because, particularly on controversial topics, like those related to terrorism, it can become unconsciously tainted with POV, and with the inherent systemic bias arising from the wikipedia's membership base. Those who are basically happy with their government's reactions to terrorism, think all terrorists, and the issues arising from them are not notable. Those who think the wikipedia should serve as a tool for interested readers to make up their own minds, and reach their own conclusions about how to react to the threat of terrorism welcome expanded coverage of individual terrorisst, terrorist groups, and the work of authoritative commentators. Geo Swan 18:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
    • If a study is authoritative, no one needs to apologize for trying to write a well referenced, NPOV coverage of it on the wikipedia. Their attempts should not be criticized on the grounds of publicity. If the nominator thinks the current version falls short on the wp:rs or wpnpov fronts, they should address it on the talk page. Geo Swan 18:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I am afraid IsaKapoor is correct. The record shows the nominator has removed references from the article. It is hardly fair to criticize an article for being poorly referenced, when one is removing those references. 18:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete per original research concerns. Addhoc 19:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment — I asked on WP:AN/I, whether it was appropriate for PelleSmith to be editing the article, and removing references, when one of their criticisms was that the article was poorly referenced. As I said above, I think it is an interesting topic, but it should not be confined to terrorists, or alleged terrorist, who are muslim extremists. I introduced a couple of entries for alleged terroirst who were not muslim extremists, and I wonder whether some friend of PelleSmith should warn him or her that removing references when they have criticized the article for being poorly referenced may give the unfortunate appearance of bad-faith. -- Geo Swan 19:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding bad references does not solve the problem. A reference that does not verify, support or otherwise relate to that which it is referencing is simply a lie. I have provided detailed edit summaries that anyone who bothers to read would plainly understand (unlike others engaged in the entry I may add). What is bothersome is that someone has to waste time to read these references just to find out that they DO NOT actually reference argument made in the entry text they have been added to. If I tag an entry with the unreferenced tag and then someone adds a bunch of bogus references are you telling me that it is unethical for me to remove those references and then re-tag the entry? When that is the case I'll leave this project. I'll stand by my track record regarding this entry in entirety. I have made several efforts to fix the problem with this page and have argued the WP:OR issue from the very beginning. It was not mentioned in the PROD, but then again the PROD had a very vague reasoning to it. See my first response after the de-PRODing of the entry here. Anyway, like I said, I stand by my track record and anyone who finds it problematic for me to remove bad references ought to think about whether or not it is a problem for people voting "keep" here adding bad references.PelleSmith 19:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Detailed edit summaries" Edit summaries are not the appropriate place for a dialog. How can someone append their questions, or replies, to a "detailed edit summary"? Please put your concerns on the talk page. Not in your edit summaries. Geo Swan 20:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If I didn't know better I'd think you were trolling. Edit summaries are THE appropriate place to explain the nature of an edit. Of course anyone paying even the slightest bit of attention to the page history or the discussion page knows I've over engaged it if anything. Again concerns don't go in edit summaries, explanations do. A reference that doesn't reference anything in the text is a bad reference, and when editors don't bother even defending them but instead launching attacks on another editor's editing behavior that is the pretty much the most unwiki thing I can think of going on here.PelleSmith 02:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• As to whether those references were "bad" or not? That is purely your opinion. IMO, you should have turned to the talk page FIRST, and raised your concerns about the references, not simply deleted them. How does your approach give your correspondents a chance to reply, if they have an answer to your concerns? Aren't you concerned that your approach is an ongoing trigger to edit warring? Geo Swan 20:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

My opinion? I trigger edit warring? That's a very convenient way to look at it. Is it my opinion when a reference is not from a reliable source as defined by our own standards? Or when a reference to the "fact" that a certain individual makes video appearances says that the person in the video was "thought to be" that individual? Are those just opinions? I guess its better to just edit without edit summaries so that you can never be accused of having "opinions".PelleSmith 02:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Given that you are on record, calling the article irredeemable, I am very surprised that you think it is appropriate for you to editing it all right now. If I were the closing admin I would consider relisting the article, and request you refrain from editing it, at all, until after the second {{afd}} closes. Because I would think that the contributors who tried to make the article useful, conform more fully to wikipedia policies, and to address your previously stated concerns would have every right to think your edits damaged the article both prior to its nomination for deletion, and while its nomination for deletion was underway. And this robbed their efforts of the fair consideration they deserved. Geo Swan 20:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess you didn't care about the advice you got when you reported me on the incident noticeboard. Maybe you should at least take it into consideration. There is nothing unethical about my behavior in the least. I again stand by all my edits and I stand by the explanations I provided in the edit summaries. The reason why there just simply aren't any adequate references for this entry is because its WP:OR. Why hasn't anyone challanged my explanations? Why do you keep on harping on my intentions and my behavior? Is it because actually discussing the content would not get you anywhere?PelleSmith 02:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• We are all supposed to assume good faith. Well, IMO that imposes on you and I an obligation to conduct ourselves in a way that demonstrably -shows good faith-. Even if, for the safe of argument, you or I know, in our inner heart, that our intentions are good, if we behave in a way that appears to show a lack of respect for the views and efforts of other contributors, we are damaging the wikipedia, because everyone only has so much good-will. And, if we give the appearance of reckless disregard to the views or efforts of others, even if we know, in our innoer heart, that our intentions are good, we have unnecessarily drained others of good-will that should be available for disputes that weren't so easily avoidable.

Again I'm going to say that the edit history and discussion page speak for themselves. I have more than enough faith that rational editors can see I am not behaving in bad faith.PelleSmith 02:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• With regard to your implied accusation that you faced some kind of clique of POV-pushers... you do realize hat this is what you implied when you wrote: "I suspect that a certain group of editors wants the entry to exist to further a political agenda". I encourage you to reconsider whether that comment was appropriate, or fair to those who had contributed to the article prior to its nomination. For the record, I don't know you, other than from this current discussion, and from the article and its talk page. Neither do I remember ever coming across any of the contributions of any of the other contributors to this discussion. I am not a member of a conspiracy. I first came across this article when I read the {{afd}}. I thought it held promisee, and I made good faith attempts to do so. — I shouldn't have to say all that. But you expressed this suspicion about the motives of those who don't agree with you. -- Geo Swan 20:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Then clearly you don't belong to any such clique of editors. I do not go around tossing about conspiracy accusations nor do I think its a cabal, but there are several factions on either side of Islam related entries and some of the editors from one of these factions have made their appearance both here and on the entry in question. There is no secret here, and others familiar with these entries are well aware of what I speak, I just happen to find it exhaustingly unproductive--FROM BOTH SIDES.PelleSmith 02:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia is not the place for novel synthesis of facts. If you think that religious converts are more likely to be terrorists, by all means, go write your master's thesis on it, but it's not an encyclopedic topic. Considering that the article is primarilly about Islamic terrorism, it doesn't really have anything to offer anyway. There is also an article on Religious terrorism and at most, this topic is worth a sentence or two there. --Born2x 19:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, mostly OR and the rest is poorly ref'ed. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 19:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete blatant POV and OR. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Allotment (gardening) as the content has been merged there. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allotmenteering

Allotmenteering (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also, there is a great article on allotment already, making this irrelevant. Cyrus Andiron 12:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Allotment (gardening), where I have merged this page's contents into. Anthony Appleyard 15:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete pointless neologism —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iridescenti (talk • contribs) 20:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
• 'pointless neologism' in your opinion maybe! SpondonBongles 09:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result wasDelete while there has been some suggestions of notability in this discussion in the 2 weeks its been kept open none of this has born any fruit in the article. If someone wishes to do actual expansion of the article I'm happy to userfy the two lines of this article to enable that to happen. Gnangarra 16:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Huu Trinh

Huu Trinh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A stub for over a year with no other notability than being sentenced to death in Vietnam. Can't see how this fulfills WP:BIO Strangnet 11:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete Doesn't fulfill WP:BIO Gekedo 11:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep -- and expand. Perhaps not quite as well known as Schapelle Corby, however the article subject has been the subject of several secondary sources that are reliable as per the criterion at WP:BIO. See the Google News archive. A short article requires expansion, not deletion. -- Longhair\^talk 11:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Nine sources, some look duplicated, on Google News seems a bit low for the subject of several secondary sources. --Strangnet 11:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 11:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not enough source material to create an encyclopedic article, all the coverage is trivial. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Longhair - I'll do a Factiva search and see what I can come up with. Alexander Downer has mentioned him a fair bit in the past as a person convicted of a crime overseas: he's had better luck with the Vietnamese than the Singaporeans in having death sentences commuted, which means he hasn't got as much coverage as say Van Tuong Nguyen. The article is also part of the List of Australians in international prisons so it should be kept. JRG 13:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete I am not sure the crime is notable. I would strongly support the article if the matter were political.DGG 23:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep DXRAW 03:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I can see that you vote Keep to all AfD-nominations you cast a vote in. Should we consider this an april-fools-vote? --Strangnet 23:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Care to back up that statement with proof? I would say that you cant. DXRAW 01:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I just looked here and thought it looked a little strange. That with the notice on your talk page. Just a vote don't add to the argumentation. --Strangnet 10:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You still have failed to show where i have voted keep to All AFD as you have said. DXRAW 12:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Vietnamese citizen commits run of the mill crime in his country of birth and recieves the usual sentence. I thought we were not a directory, but there is nothing other than directory information so far (name, crime, sentence).Garrie 23:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - people getting strong sentences in Asian countries for drug running are routine. If this happened in Australia, then some person may just be sent to jail for 2 years with no further notice. This has not caused a diplomatic incident, and like the majority of similar sentences in Asia, are standard business. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Bryant 12:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This is a completely non notable case. His punishment was in line with what is to be expected in that country. While it may be appalling to people in different countries, that does not make it notable. --Cyrus Andiron 12:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Per nom, non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Again, WP:BIO is just a guideline and was not created with input by the vast majority of Wikipedia users. He's notable because he was sentenced to death and the controversy surrounding it. Xanucia 22:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, being sentenced to death row in a controversial fashion seems notable to me. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I've already asked to keep this article, but that was pending on a search of Factiva, which has uncovered some more information. Trinh's conviction in Vietnam was secured by information passed on by the Australian Federal Police, according to the articles I found on Factiva - it sparked a debate over the AFP's role in sending criminals overseas to countries where they could be executed (like what happened with the Bali Nine). Howard has also personally petitioned the Government for a commuting of his sentence - he is an Australian citizen, not a Vietnamese citizen as someone wrote above. I think this issue makes him notable - I'll add it to the article when I get time. (That's a Keep too if my comment above doesn't count). JRG 04:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, controversy? notability? where? Thoroughly non-notable drug smuggler. Lankiveil 12:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per JRG. I think the article can be expanded enough to be worthy of remaining. Lunus 16:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Per nom. thewinchester 17:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was close, since this was bundled into another AFD and deleted there. --Coredesat 03:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nick "Moxy" Mead

Nick "Moxy" Mead (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

• PLEASE NOTE I have bundled this nomination into the pending AfD for the band. Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Faded_Spades

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pop Secret (talk • contribs) 12:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC). Non-notable member of musical ensemble The Faded Spades, which has also been nominated for deletion Pop Secret 12:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - yet another non notable musician who does not require his own page. I wish more people would read this before creating an article. It would really save some time. --Cyrus Andiron 12:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Per nom, non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 13:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keegan O'Connor

Keegan O'Connor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

May well be a hoax. Claim of notability seems to throw up nothing on Google, and I can't find any other sources. Delete unless claims of notability can be sourced. J Milburn 12:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)