Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 1

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

[edit] List Of Currently In-compatible PS2 Games - European

List Of Currently In-compatible PS2 Games - European (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Page is badly written, all content on this page will become outdated in a very short period of time. List is **VERY** incomplete. Up-to-date information can be found here, on the official website. - ARC Gritt^TALK 23:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - first of all, Wikipedia is not a software guide. Moreover this list is time-dependent, and in a trivial fashion; it will have to be constantly re-written, even if it were complete. Pointless. --Haemo 00:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for being a pointless list. If lists had a notability guideline, this wouldn't pass it. Someguy1221 04:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete NN Balloonman 16:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:13, 5 July 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. Sr13 03:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of 1990s artists with only two pop hits in the United States

List of 1990s artists with only two pop hits in the United States (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This list covers a non-notable subject, expands Wikipedia toward being an indiscriminate collection of information, and seems to have been created "just for the sake of having such a list" — in short, this list is listcruft. BassoProfundo 23:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. (or keep as a stunningly good bad example). I almost suspect WP:POINT. JJL 23:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT, purely trivial list. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete What's next List of 1980 Rock Stars who had #1 Albums that were Written Under the Influence of Drugs, but not Alcohol? Wildthing61476 23:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• GUYS AND GIRLS, IT WAS A JOKE! Please see my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 1990s artists with only one pop hit in the United States, nominated earlier today. Shalom ^Hello 23:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't see that one. Wildthing61476 00:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for the utter failure of wikilinking when mentioning the Great Pop Goddess Selena. Eddie.willers 23:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a useless and probably incomplete list--JForget 00:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Shalom's comment on the AFD was a joke. Will ^(talk) 03:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete this list-cruft. Hu 11:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete author wants it deletedBalloonman 16:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Technically, the proposer wants it deleted. The author (creator) has not yet chimed in here, I don't think. But I agree and have urged it's deletion already. Hu 20:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    • You're correct, I had thought that Shalom had created this as his joke per above, but he didn't create it... but this is a different category than 1 hit wonders---which is notable.Balloonman 20:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for arbitrary inclusion criteria. Doczilla 20:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nom., and all.--JayJasper 20:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:15, 5 July 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 03:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ernest Easton

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

Blatant hoax. A search for "Ernest Easton line dancing" comes up with 3 hits, one of which is this article RedRollerskate 23:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for being WP:Complete Bollocks-although very funny. Eddie.willers 23:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete G1 per above. Shalom ^Hello 23:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V.--JForget 00:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not hits on altavistaBalloonman 17:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete even though it is a very creative Urban legend. Bearian 19:11, 3 July 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. --Coredesat 03:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uzhavoor

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

No assertion of notability in this article of an Indian village. There's no references, and the style is very subjective Gilliam 23:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for utter failure to establish notability. Eddie.willers 23:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: all settlements are notable. The article should be trimmed down, not deleted. They have a minimal website. Pavel Vozenilek 00:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep aside from what Pavel says, it was (if the article isn't lying) the birthplace of a president of India. Nyttend 01:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If it was an American town where an American President was born, that alone would be enough to establish notability. There would be placards and signs saying, "Birthplace of" all over the place. Thus, this village has to be kept as it is the home of a head of state of a major country.Balloonman 17:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: For pity's sake, almost all "census-designated places" in the US have articles, and there are some in my densely populated home state with fewer than a thousand residents (cf. Millers Falls, Massachusetts). This isn't a terrificly well written article, but that isn't the point.  RGTraynor  20:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Villages are notable. Besides, this is an Assembly Constituency (one of the ten in the Kottayam district), and there are eight Gram panchayats in the Uzhavoor block[1]. Plus, this is birthplace of President of India[2]. utcursch | talk 15:25, 5 July 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 there is not sufficient consensus to delete JodyB _talk 19:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baby Be Mine

Baby Be Mine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Another Michael Jackson song that was an album track only. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or slight merge to Thriller.--JForget 00:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I am improving all of these disputed articles. Look at the "Just Good Friends article to see what I mean. I am adding references and expanding to save these. Please don't cut me short by a swift and brutal AFD which doesn't give me time to fix this. Give me a chance. I'm asking only for a little bit of time to do this.Paaerduag 04:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing particularly notable about this song. GassyGuy 16:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I had to think about this one, but it is a clear keep in my book. While there is no official policy on SONG notability, it does fit criteria 2 of the proposed criteria---released by a notable individual. This policy is consistent with other notability requirements on WP. A group is notable if it has or had a member who was independently famous. A composer is notable if they wrote the music for a notable group. Regardless of what we may think of him, Michael Jackson is one of the most influencial musicians of the 20th century. His songs are thus notable.Balloonman 18:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Er, no. It might be worth reading WP:MUSIC again. A group is notable if it has or had a notable member. An album is generally notable if released by a notable artist. Individual songs, however, are generally not notable unless they were charting singles or have some other claim of notability (this is quite rare, though). EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It's also worth considering that every track on Dark Side of the Moon and Abbey Road has an article. Superior1 20:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Er, yes. Look at the proposed criteria for songs number 2... which explicitly reads, "...is a released single by a notable artist, band or group." Few artist are as notable as Michael Jackson. While I would argue that criteria might not be strict enough, I do believe that M.J.'s songs are notable enough based on his name alone. But I would argue that any song on a Gold or Platinum album would be notable. This is one of the Jackson's most famous albums.Balloonman 21:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)NOTE: It was pointed out that this wasn't a single... but I still believe that any song on a multiplatinum album is by definition notable. It's relationship to the album makes it notable, even if its relationship to the singer doesn't.Balloonman 21:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Notability is not inherited. Being associated with a notable topic does not make another one notable. Rather than bandy about assertions of "I think it's notable," the best idea would be to prove it by finding multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, sources where the particular song is the primary topic. Otherwise the song is not notable by Wikipedia standards. GassyGuy 22:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
        • According to WP:MUSIC, notability is inherent and has IMHO fairly low threshold:

• Composers: Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that is notable
• Composers: Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who is notable.
• Composers: Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a notable artist.
• Group/band: Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable

These criteria are, IMHO, much less notable than being part of a platinum album---and each of them the notability is derived via relationship to something else that is notable! Plus, most songs on platinum albums are better documented/discussed than the composer who happened to write a song for a non-notable group.Balloonman 22:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Thriller. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:02, 6 July 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 03:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jid'ya

Jid'ya (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This has all the hallmarks of a bored student's hoax: no (on-topic) references, no Google hits, silly content. Sandstein 22:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• I like how he took the time to look up a real website the second time... haha. Anyway, I Googled the main terms and theories and nothing came up. The first reference link he posted was obviously made up in a hurry.Terukiyo 23:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Duh! Shalom ^Hello 23:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as yet more WP:Complete Bollocks...did'ya Jid'ya? Eddie.willers 23:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I used altavista to look up the theories and the terms... nadda... Balloonman 18:15, 2 July 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 03:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Savage (actor)

Michael Savage (actor) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

as an unsigned poster said on the article's talk page, this is the most poorly designed page they've seen. It borders on incoherent. I suspect it is written by the subject of the article, their publicist or mom - who else would say some of this stuff? Besides that, I suspect extreme nn here and they are compensating by trying to make this guy seem more important than he really is. Also, it has been orphaned for a while - if this guy was notable, someone would have linked him/mentioned him in an article on things he has acted in or said something like "Actor A appeared in film B with Michael Savage" but that hasn't happened. So, his roles in these productions must be too minor to be listed. Postcard Cathy 22:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

PS The article states that this guy's original name is Ron Jacobson. If you check the author's talk page, you will see that the he wrote an article on someone named Ron Jacobson and it was deleted. He wrote this article the same day that article was speedy deleted. Want to take bets that it is the same guy?  :) :) :) Postcard Cathy 22:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

PPS It is an autobiography. The author's name is SirTony13 which also the domain name of the actor's personal website.

• Delete I agree that is is one of the worst-looking articles ever. It should be deleted due to conflict of interest. Useight 00:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Actor does not appear to meet WP:NOTE. This can't have been put up by a publicist - what publicist would create a page so incoherent and so amateur-looking that it makes his client look bad? --Charlene 01:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Horribly written page about nn person. Edward321 01:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete under patent nonsense and WP:SNOW, since not only is it unreadable to high heaven, the guy depicted here is clearly non-notable. Good God what an eyesore of an article. TheLetterM 16:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete [3] reads "Michael Salvage aka SirTony" in other words---this is clearly and autobio. Doesn't meet notability.Balloonman 18:35, 2 July 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, technically speedily as the nomination was withdrawn and there are no arguments to delete. --Coredesat 03:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of entomology journals

List of entomology journals (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. The article is simply a list of links to largely non-existent articles - it's impossible to learn anything from it or use it for further research. The article has been in existence for over two years but still has almost no usable content, so there's no reason to think it can or will be improved. "Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of internal links" (especially redlinks!) andy 22:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn - the article has been significantly improved with further improvements to follow. andy 07:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments / Request for further details

"list of links to largely non-existent articles."

The fact that the articles don't (yet) exist shouldn't be a reason to delete the list, it should instead be a reason to create those articles, where they are appropriate. If some entries do not deserve an article, then they should be trimmed from the list.

"Article has been in existence for over two years but still has almost no usable content"

What usable content you would expect a list like this to contain that it does not contain? Addition of that info would be an alternative to deletion, but we need to know what you have in mind.

"It's impossible to learn anything from it or use it for further research."

To say something is impossible requires an enormously high standard of proof ... is that really what you meant to say?

SP-KP 18:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. This is well covered at WP:NOT. The essential question for any encyclopedia article is what useful information it conveys. This article lists the names of many journals but gives no information whatsoever about them, not even how to find them. Does this article actually tell anyone anything useful? If the name of one of these journals was replaced with The Beano would it alter the information content of the article? Compare with List of scientific journals in chemistry which has a ranked list of external links together with references to analyses of citations. andy 22:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anything at WP:NOT which suggests that this kind of list is deletionworthy - which specific section do you mean? You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:List guideline which gives more specific guidelines on lists. It contains links to lists which do not differ greatly in character from this one. It appears that the authors of the entomology articles have chosen to add websites directly to the article pages, rather than to this list, so readers can find them, with one extra mouse click. There's no reason why they couldn't be added here too though. If that was done, would that be enough to retain the article? If not, what else would you like to see? SP-KP 23:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'd be happy to withdraw my nomination if the items in the list were verifiable (an issue raised at Wikipedia:List_guideline#Lists_content). In practise the best way to do this is to provide external links where there is no WP article, and this would also enable the article to be used as a research tool. The recent comment about classification on the article's Talk page would make it even more useful. List of chess periodicals, mentioned below, is an excellent example. But right now, if I was to add a totally spurious journal to the list or move some of the entries to different countries there would be no proper basis to challenge my edit because there are no verifiable references. My word against yours. Give me one good reason backed up by references why The Beano should not be included in the list! This is a basic requirement of all WP articles. andy 10:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• KeepThis is a less developed article than chemistry, there being probably more chemists around here. The science people in general are writing articles about important journals as fast as they can, but there are many hundreds to go. The list provides more than title information--it contains the dates and the name changes and the country of publication. All 3 of these are very important and necessary parts of information about journals, and will be in the future articles as well. Lists give information about what the journals are--its the articles that need to give information about them. DGG 23:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I just disagree with the nominator; it's hard to say it any other way. I believe that lists of subject-specific journals are useful, and if some of the journals are notable than the list is notable. That's why I wrote List of chess periodicals, which is more informative but essentially similar in style and scope. Shalom ^Hello 23:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• The difference with List of chess periodicals is precisely that it is informative. It's properly sourced and properly linked. andy 10:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Useful list. I just learnt that it has many local entomology works, applied journals and annual reviews missed ! Needs more work but is potentially just as encyclopaedic as List of scientific journals in chemistry which nom as pointed out as encylopaedic. Shyamal 01:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. If kept, the redlinks in this article should be severed. It makes it look bad to have such a sea of red. They can be re-wikilinked as articles about each publication are created. Also, it would be nice to have some sources confirming that these publications actually exist, so we don't have any non-existent entomology publications such as The Beano in this list. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 02:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep WP:LIST explicitly encourages the use of lists for purposes of development. It is the third criteria. Also, this is explicitly one of the goals of WP:MISSING. The fact that nobody has developed parts of this region of wikipedia yet is not valid grounds for deletion. If you can't verify the existence of specific journals on the list, that's a matter for the article talk page, but not a valid reason to delete the entire list. Further setting a precedent for deleting lists of academic journals seems to me like a poor idea. This is definitely an area that needs improvement, and definitely an area that should not be abandoned. The future credibility of wikipedia depends on better coverage of academia perhaps as much as anything else! --JayHenry 22:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I hate to be awkward but while WP:LIST does indeed encourage the use of lists for purposes of development it states very clearly that "as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list of red link articles needed) should be in project or user space not the main space." What could be more clear? So what's the problem - someone who wants to keep it should fix the article! andy 23:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• That's a fair point Andy and perhaps I should've been clearer. This list still is an informational list as well, which is criteria #1. This is an accurate list of entomology journals and someone looking for the name of entomology journals, or entomology journals by country or when journals were started would be well-served by the list. It's not just a random list of red links. And the fact that it contains many redlinks is not, by itself, a valid reason for deletion. There's a big difference between links that are red because there should not be an article (i.e. List of Jefferson Elementary School Principals) and links that are red because a well-needed and perfectly valid article has not yet been written. --JayHenry 02:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Andy, the list doesn't exist "primarily for development or maintenance purposes". SP-KP 07:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That was JayHenry's view, not mine. Yet it clearly isn't fully developed, is it? Have a look at the edits I just made to the UK section of the article - isn't that an improvement? andy 08:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a difficult one - I'm not sure of my opinion as I feel the changes are an improvement in some respects, but not in others. But ... if the references were in one of the standard formats at WP:CITE I would definitely agree that this section is better. SP-KP 17:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no strong views on the format of the references - it's the existence of the references that's essential in a hypertext such as Wikipedia, and indeed in any academic text. JayHenry's recent edits are probably better than mine because they leave open the option for articles on each journal as well as external references. Whatever - anything is better than nothing. andy 20:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've standardised the referencing format for both the US and UK sections (or what should be sections ... we need to convert those bold text pretend headings to real section headings). I've also added external refs for those that only had internal wikilinks. Just the remaining countries to go - that should keep someone busy!! SP-KP 22:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:19, 5 July 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, or at least insufficient consensus to delete. NawlinWiki 23:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meow Wars

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

This did somehow manage to survive a previous AfD, mainly, it seems, on the strength of ILIKEIT, IREMEMBERIT, ITSFUNNY, and similar (non)arguments to keep. Unfortunately, while the article is amusing, there's no reliable source material available about this. "Sources" cited include a Google Groups search, alt.tv.beavis-n-butthead (you can't make that one up!), more Google Groups searches, and some personal-recollection essays not published or fact-checked by any reputable publication. I remember this whole thing too. Yes, it was funny, yes it fires up the nostalgia factor a bit, yes, I got a chuckle out of reading it. But it belongs on a net nostalgia website, not Wikipedia, because we're effectively putting together an article completely out of synthesis and interpretation of primary sources here. That's original research and publication of original thought. Since there are no secondary sources, this problem is unfixable, and the article should be deleted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• weak keep I think for items like this, respected bloggers are usable sources, if its known that they are regarded as reliable. DGG 23:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable for Usenet despite lack of major press coverage; clearly verifiable (at DejaNews). JJL 23:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, USENET nostalgia notwithstanding, as I remember a little of this but it surely doesn't seem important by itself even in terms of USENET history. There are no reliable sources -- nothing at Google Books or Google News Archive. (Even alt.fan.karl-malden.nose is mentioned only a couple of times in passing, and not in relation to this.) Perhaps some of the material could be merged into newsgroup spam or (less targeted) troll (internet). --Dhartung | Talk 04:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per User:JJL. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 19:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Even a USENET archive can be a reliable source on matters of USENET history. And I'm sure secondary sources for this could be found, possibly college newspapers from the schools where this was going on, or I.T.-related journals, even if they're only available in print. Also disagree with the interpretation of OR, this article merely brings together several sources without promoting an opinion or deducing any new facts. Squidfryerchef 11:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Verifiable ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable sources here folks. Whispering 11:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I was looking around in ODP, and the GWU.edu page this article uses as a source is one of only ten pages in the "Usenet History" section. I'd say that being one of only ten chosen articles on a historical subject speaks well of it as a source. Also I'd like to point out the term has entered the net lexicon, ex. Net Abuse Jargon File which means that it's notable and it's not just an argument in a Beavis fan group 12 years ago. Squidfryerchef 14:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment According to the "guide to deletion" page: "Anyone acting in good faith can contribute to the discussion. The author of the article can make his/her case like everyone else. As discussed above, relevant facts and evidence are welcome from anyone but the opinions of anonymous and/or suspiciously new users may be discounted by the closing admin. Please bear in mind that administrators will discount any obviously bad faith contributions to the discussion when closing the discussion. On the other hand, a user who makes a well-argued, fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy and does so in a civil manner may well sway the discussion despite being anonymous."
• Keep — a worthy, verifiable article ➥the Epopt 15:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect the important details to a subsection of newsgroup spam, as an example/case-study of that phenomenon. Per Dhartung and mergism. --Quiddity 01:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as per notable and veriable. -- Kai ^talk 09:44, 9 July 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. ck lostsword•T•C 17:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OpenDBA

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

Orphan, no explanation of why this software product is notable, no reliable third-party sources are given that refer to this product. —Bkell (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Does not meet criteria for notability. No significant coverage of the product, no sources (independent or otherwise) given (therefore no reliable sources). Tdmg 02:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete orphaned, nn ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:05, 6 July 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 03:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ladybirds Can Fly

Ladybirds Can Fly (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Band's notability is in question. Dudesleeper · Talk 21:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete fails wp:musicBalloonman 18:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't meet any of the criteria listed here, despite what is being claimed on the article's talk page. - Dudesleeper · Talk 21:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete This band isn't notable in any way and the talk page shows bad-faith editing.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:34, 5 July 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 03:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicolas Dansereau

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

Non Notable indy wrestler. Darrenhusted 21:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions.
• Delete no non-wiki clone hits. Even if there were, doesn't meet Notability.Balloonman 18:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, agreed. Not notable. Plus, it contains no references as of this posting. Nikki311 23:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• He is notable.. He wrestles in Canada and the United States, don't delete this!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.47.192 (talk • contribs) — 74.101.47.192 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Please review criteria for entertainers/athletes--- he doesn't fulfill them.Balloonman 00:11, 5 July 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 03:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Halo DS

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

Wikipedia is not acrystal ball. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 20:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I fixed the ref in this so it shows. Could this be merged with Halo: Combat Evolved? I ask not knowing the particulars. I was putting in a merge template when I edit-conflicted with the AfD. Thanks. --EarthPerson 20:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; rumor and hearsay. This source says it was cancelled entirely, but there's next to no information to go on. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Useight 22:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Useight.--JForget 00:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete rumorBalloonman 18:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete... Info Next Week? Considering this was almost three weeks ago... obvious crystal ballery, fails WP:RS, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of unsubstantiated rumors. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:35, 5 July 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 and clean up ck lostsword•T•C 10:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vasily Gryaznov

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

Incoherent translated article about a marginal individual. Speedy tag was declined by admin Wafulz. Shalom ^Hello 19:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: this is about a local saint recognized in 1999 (the monastery needs something to attract visitors). The version on ru: is equally lousy as the one here, it originally comes (with permission) from another website (warning: that website may be infected, it was trying to break into my computer).

Both the monastery and the saint are IMHO notable. Whether anything from the current text is salvageable is a question. Pavel Vozenilek 23:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. It's a badly written article, but saints are in my opinion always notable. He's mentioned on many Church sites ([4] and [5], for instance) so verifiability is not a problem. Note: I moved an apology off the main page onto the talk page - such things shouldn't be on the main page. --Charlene 01:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  The problem is that there's nothing in the article to start from. Some information about the person is on the page of the town Pavlovsky Posad. Pavel Vozenilek 11:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and start over, as it appears unsalvageable and as noted above, contains infected text. Bearian 19:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and stubify - The subject is notable, and as a saint, I'd expect reliable sources could be found. The article contents, as they stand, are completely incoherent, and so removing it all and turing it into a stub would be appropriate. -- Whpq 16:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - subject also appears to have been the subject of a 1924 film Elder Vasily Gryaznov as per the page at http://www.inter-film.org/pdf/Databank_Ron_Hollway.pdf. Article clearly needs cleanup and referencing, though. John Carter 21:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I had a go at changing a bit to make it more readable, but there's still heaps missing Guycalledryan 08:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Seems better. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --MaNeMeBasat 09:09, 8 July 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 ck lostsword•T•C 00:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agiletext

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

Possible conflict of interest by author on a product of questionable notability. I don't have a strong opinion because I didn't actually read the article (sorry, folks.) Shalom ^Hello 19:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Recent product, unverified claims of high typing rate, no information about the notability commercially. Someone mistook WP for a marketing tool. Pavel Vozenilek 00:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete as its sources can not be verified immediately, obvious conflict of interest (compare names of creating editor & article), no web sources. I would tag and wait 5 days. Bearian 20:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computers-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete COI ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Non admin closure. Qst 14:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jersey All Pro Wrestling

Jersey All Pro Wrestling (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Small time indy fed, seems to fail company for a start. Not enough third party credible refs. Darrenhusted 19:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Darrenhusted 19:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable indy company, with stars who are more then notable, such as AJ Styles, Low-Ki, etc. Kris 21:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above; has also cross-promoted with Ring of Honor in the past. --MarcK 03:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep per above, also has been a launching ground for some top talent in the independent scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishhead2100 (talk • contribs)
• Strong Keep JAPW is one of the top indy promotions in the nation, and probably the top on the east coast next to RoH. CMAngle33 22:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:40, 5 July 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 ck lostsword•T•C 12:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nitrogen deposition in California

Looks like someone dumped their research paper onto us. No pages link here and I'm not sure it's a reasonable encyclopedic topic. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete It has the feel of a textbook and am wondering if it could be a copy/vio, though I couldn't find it on google. I am not sure it's an encyclopedic topic either.--Sandahl 20:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Found it. Speedy Delete as a copyvio of [6] (you'll need to roll your mouse over the left-hand side of the page to view the article). EliminatorJR ^Talk 22:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh - hang on, that's not a Wikipedia mirror, is it? I've removed the CSD tag. EliminatorJR ^Talk 22:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopedic ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:13, 6 July 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. --Coredesat 03:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Satyagraha (quarterly)

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

Non-notable publication of the Ghandi Information Center (recently deleted along with a bio of the author). Can find no significant and notable mentions of the publication online and given the failed effort to find notability for the publishing organization and author, I believe this article should also be deleted. SiobhanHansa 19:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This will be absolutely alright from my side, Siobhan Hansa, this article can be deleted at once (actually it was not my idea), because our members' information is not for the public (so not a "publication"), with two exceptions from the rule according to special permission (that is why you find the two issues on the internet). Do not worry! Chrbartolf 1 July 2007

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - the original author, Chrbartolf is supporting the deletion. -- Whpq 16:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Non admin closure. Qst 14:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eddie Kingston

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

Non notable wrestler. Darrenhusted 18:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Darrenhusted 18:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Extremely major player in CZW and Chikara, which are more then notable. He is also a former CZW Champion. Kris 21:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Eddy Kingston is a well known indy wrestler. He's wrestled all over the world, but mostly on the east coast. CMAngle33 22:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Note (no !vote), although this user has only made two edits both of which are to AfD's (including this one) consensus is still in favour of keep. Closing as non admin. Qst 14:56, 6 July 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 03:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of films about school

List of films about school (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - arbitrary indiscriminate list, also a directory of loosely associated topics and a repository of internal links. There is no objective standard as to how much of the film needs to involve "students" or "teachers" or "classrooms" or "school" to be "about school." The list tells us nothing about teachers, students, school, education, how these topics are addressed in film or the real world. Otto4711 18:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - yes it has organizational problems, but I don't see that as a reason for throwing it out. It can be a useful list. StudierMalMarburg 18:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• WP:USEFUL is not a compelling argument. Otto4711 19:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Just stating WP:USEFUL is not compelling either. See: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussionsStudierMalMarburg 19:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I believe that's where WP:USEFUL is drawn from. The point still remains, to spell it out, that the possibility that an article is "useful" or, as you say, "can be useful" does not excuse this or any other article from meeting Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Simply saying that the list is or might possibly be useful does not counter the arguments presented in the nomination, which is that the list is arbitrary, indiscriminate, subjective and vague. Otto4711 19:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, this isn't so much an article as a list -- something like a table, which, as WP:USEFUL points out, justifies its existence by being useful, not by being encyclopedic.Noroton 23:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The reason for deletion is WP:NOT#DIR, #1, "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". Thse films have in common only that they refer to school or education in some way; but "film about school" is not an encyclopedic topic, at least the list does not give any hint why it should be. --B. Wolterding 19:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Because it fails to include the classic that is Carry On Teacher. Lugnuts 20:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per my usual spiel regarding "films about" lists: OR, POV, subjective, and how "about" school does it have to be? The introductory paragraph does nothing to narrow the scope or address these concerns but does lead to such an overinclusiveness that these things have little in common. Carlossuarez46 18:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NOT#DIR; most of these "Films about..." lists should be deleted for the same reasons. Masaruemoto 02:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete List of loosely associated terms, fails WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 04:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Purpose probably already covered by the coming-of-age film category. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 04:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and ors. It's a loose list and doesn't meet the relevant criteria. Thewinchester ^(talk) 22:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep because I find the argument in WP:USEFUL quite compelling in justifying the existence of a list such as this because it's useful. Noroton 23:41, 5 July 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 03:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gordon Kit Thorne

Gordon Kit Thorne (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

An unencyclopedic article on a subject who fails WP:BIO. Entirely unverifiable, the only references provided are unpublished interviews with the subject's son, the owner of the the subject's copyrights, a geneologist and "Gordon Kit Thorne's Diaries" (also unpublished). Victoriagirl 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. NN (165 Google hits, nothing in Google Books, 1 hit in News Archives) plus nearly zero proper sourcing (a short paragraph on a site selling his works isn't enough). Gordonofcartoon 01:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. I add that "ARCA (Associate Royal Canadian Artist)", said to be one of Thorne's titles, appears not to exist outside this article. In fact, the only trace of this distinction on the web is found within a current ebay listing which quotes this very article. Victoriagirl 04:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment There's the Royal Canadian Academy, but no "Royal Canadian Artists" that I can find. I checked the RCA database to be sure; no Gordon Kit Thorne listed since 1880. Freshacconci 14:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Totally NN Johnbod 14:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unrelevant, wiki-illiterate. --Attilios 16:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but improve greatly. --140.254.225.30 20:28, 5 July 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. Anas ^talk? 20:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dead wrestlers

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

Nom - previously speedied and restored. Partially redundant to Category:Wrestler Deaths by Unnatural Causes. Rklawton 18:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - There seems little point in having this page. Paul20070 18:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete isn't this a recreation of a previously deleted page? Lugnuts 18:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and salt - we've deleted articles, lists and categories numerous times for dead wrestlers. Wikipedia is not a memorial or a tribute site or an indiscriminate collection of information or a directory. Eventually all wrestlers will be dead wrestlers. Otto4711 18:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete and Salt It. Not needed. Darrenhusted 18:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There is no provision for this article to be speedily deleted, since it hasn't been through AfD before, nor does it meet any of the other criteria. That said, it's an arbitrary list that's better covered by a category. —C.Fred (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead Playboy Playmates. Shalom ^Hello 20:09, 1 July 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 03:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whiteness and the creation of the united states

Whiteness and the creation of the united states (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced essay Gilliam 17:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete WP:NOR Rackabello 17:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Kill it now. Original research, unsalvagable. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. As noted above, it is laden with original research. The title also is a bit of a stretch of synthesis. —C.Fred (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• No thanks, delete this original (bad) research Bigdaddy1981 21:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• I think this is a 100 level political science paper cut and paste into wikipedia. Interesting, but doesn't belong here. delete. Kripto 01:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not TurnItIn.com. TheLetterM 16:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• redirect as suggested on the page. The content is origional research, but the redirect makes sense.--Sefringle^Talk 06:02, 4 July 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 03:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Gremlins Adventure

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

Contested prod. This is a non-notable amusement park ride. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator Rackabello 17:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The article fails verifiability, as no reliable sources are provided. —C.Fred (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Many amusement park rides have Wikipedia pages, but the good ones have references. --Alvestrand 05:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:54, 5 July 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. --Coredesat 03:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stuart Semple

Stuart Semple (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)This WP entry reads like pure sockpuppetry. Semple has had only a couple of gallery shows, and his importance as a living artist is negligible. Apparently his only claims to fame were the notoriety of being associated with Uri Geller (itself hardly a notable thing) and of having stolen some materials from the Momart fire, which he "recontextualized" into "artworks". The fact that this WP entry was created from an anonymous IP address in Britain, and that same anonymous user has only contributed to this WP entry and the entry on the Momart fire, suggests that Semple himself created it. WP isn't a vanity press. I move for deletion on the grounds of him not being a notable living person.Bricology 17:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

And if I might add, to refresh ones memory, the WP "Criteria for the Notability of People (Artists): the person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors; the person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique; the person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, 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; the person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries." A 26 year-old with just one verified solo Gallery show has definitely not met the WP:Notability criteria as a living artist. Bricology 19:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Tyrenius 22:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Per WP:BIO he has been "the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." There are two specific events which gained national media coverage in the UK. The first was a project concerning the Momart fire.(Daily Telegraph) The other was an art intervention in the Saatchi Gallery.(BBC, Daily Telegraph, The Times) He continues to receive media coverage in numerous outlets (go to stuartsemple.com and click "press"). The nom has rather misunderstood sockpuppets, of which there is no evidence or relevance here. Even if Semple created it (and we have no evidence of that), it is not a reason for deletion. Nor do we penalise anon editors per se. It was created in December 2004 and has been edited by a number of different users since (including myself). This easily meets the criteria for inclusion. Tyrenius 22:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite disappointed with what you consider logic in this case, but perhaps your involvement with editing Semple's entry is telling. Semple's alleged noteworthiness for his WP entry is as an artist, not as a provocateur (to wit -- "Stuart Semple (born 1980) is an English artist"). If merely being the subject of two incidents of notoriety in the press (only one of which is a live link, BTW) counts as "notability" by WP's standards, then surely there are thousands of amateur and mediocre artists who might as well do something (get arrested, whatever) that gets them mentioned in the media, and thus their own WP entry. Do any of the published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" actually speak to Semple's relative merits as an artist? Not a one. They merely say that he sneaked a painting into one of Saatchi's shows (a stunt done many times before by other artists), and that he stole some debris from the Momart fire site and repackaged it into his own "artwork". The fact that this work wasn't exhibited in any gallery or museum makes the notoriety all the more minor. And the fact that Uri Geller calls Semple his "protoge" ought to make it clear that Semple's main goal is publicity, rather than stature as an artist. Sad to see WP become party to that goal. Bricology 23:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

My editing of it is indeed telling, because it means I have already assessed it as worth keeping. I trust you are not implying anything other. All the links given are "live". There is one in The Times where the full article doesn't appear, which I think is one of the many glitches in the redesign of the paper's web site: I have emailed them about it. There is a fallacy in your reasoning, where you are concerned with "Semple's relative merits as an artist". Wikipedia has no interest in this whatsoever. We only care about his relative merits for notability, namely whether or not he has been the subject of reliable secondary sources, which he clearly has. Nor is it in the slightest relevant, in this respect, what his goal is, or whether he is "amateur and mediocre" - an implication which is anyway forbidden by WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, unless you have appropriate sources to substantiate it: Wikipedia is not a platform for personal opinion on matters. I realise you are a relatively new editor, and you may not be familiar with all of these policies; and I am sure that you have acted with the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind. Tyrenius 00:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Am I implying anything? Only that you, a fellow Britain, who has edited Semple’s WP entry are the the only person saying "strong keep", which wouldn’t exactly dispel suspicions of a conflict of interest in a court of law. Indeed, I believe I am acting with the best interests of WP in mind, to try to help prevent it from becoming turned into a PR vanity outlet on the level of MySpace. The fact that you assessed Semple’s entry as worth keeping has not convinced me one whit that it is worth keeping, merely that you believe it to be. Of course, I have no idea what qualifications you have to make that judgment, but I can tell you this -- as an artist who has had over a dozen solo shows in 4 different countries, been in many group shows in museums and other contemporary art events, been written up favorably in national art magazines (not merely websites or web-news), and sold many works, I’m perhaps in a better position to assess Semple’s merit as an artist than you. As for “amateur or mediocre” -- the burden of proof lies upon those making the claim otherwise. Does Semple make his living from his artwork? If not, then he’s an “amateur” by definition. Is his work praised by a considerable number of acknowledged experts as being of a high standard of quality? Then it may well be “mediocre”. And even though I would certainly more qualify by your criteria for my own WP entry, I don’t believe that I warrant one! If the issue is, as you claim, notability, then are you actually claiming that two mentions on web-news sites qualifies anyone as “notable” for ones own WP entry?! If so, millions of otherwise unknown people mentioned in two news or opinion articles should get in line, ready to dilute the whole idea of any “encyclopedia”. No, the fact is that Semple’s entire WP entry specifically deals with him AS AN ARTIST, not as merely some individual who appeared in two web news stories. You're trying to have it both ways: a WP entry about an artist, predicated upon non-artistic merit. Again, I draw your attention to WP’s "Criteria for the Notability of People (Artists):The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors; the person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique; the person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, 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; the person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries." Semple has not met even ONE of those criteria. Semple is an artist, he has a WP entry that deals 100% with him AS AN ARTIST, but he fails WP:Notability Living People (artists). QED. Finally, you claim that “all the links (on Semple’s entry) are live”. Apparently you didn’t bother to click on the second of his three links (to The Telegraph's story), which is quite dead .Bricology 02:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Link mended. Gordonofcartoon 03:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I presume you mean "Briton", as I am not a country. However, it is prohibited on wikipedia to make negative personal comments on other editors, including their (presumed) nationality. See WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Please comment on issues, not editors. You have not understood wiki's criteria: valuations of artistic worth such as "mediocre" or "amateur" are irrelevant, as I've already pointed out. You are also confusing the notability guidelines. There is a general guideline as in WP:N and the top of WP:BIO. The specific profession guidelines do not supercede this, but can also be considered. These are all guidelines and not set in stone (see WP:LAWYER). Wikipedia has more space than paper encyclopedias and a lower threshold. What you say about yourself would seem to be enough to meet wikipedia's standards. I was referring to links in my post above, not the ones in the article, though I've now put them in the article anyway. The mentions are not mere "web-news sites". They are the online versions of UK national papers: i.e. the same stories that have appeared in print. The stories also deal specifically with events that he has undertaken as an artist. Tyrenius 06:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Tyrenius. meets WP:BIO Johnbod 22:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but wikify it, good grief!! --Attilios 23:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - NewsBank finds more than enough independent press coverage to rate him as notable. Gordonofcartoon 01:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per above as stated, can use some help, Modernist 11:43, 2 July 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 03:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Rhys-Jones

Mary Rhys-Jones (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is the mother of Sophie, The Countess of Wessex, daughter-in-law of the Queen. There is no indication of any notability of this person beyond her daughter being a member of the Royal family. NoSeptember 17:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for being utter, non-notable fatuousness. Eddie.willers 00:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• delete - or else run the risk of having everybody's parents get an entry. Kripto 01:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Remain - as the mother of the daughter-in-law of Queen Elizabeth II and grandmother to the 8th and 9th (later in the year) persons in line to the throne, she is of great importance to genealogists. Providing valuable correct information is my understood purpose of Wikipedia. ShadowOZ 15:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)— ShadowOZ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete per nom; nn person. Carlossuarez46 18:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Article is of some interest: she shared a grandchild with The Queen. But the article should remain short; it should not go into any biographical detail. Viewfinder 05:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable and provides no references that assert that she is. Tdmg 02:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:59, 5 July 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 03:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of famous smokers

List of famous smokers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a list page. Some lists are "interesting" or "encyclopedic" but I do not believe that this specific list is any good. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information. The majority of the entries are unsourced, which also leads to possible WP:BLP violations. Many of those with sources are rather unreliable. Unclear what constitutes a smoker - e.g., Bill Clinton is listed because he 'tried it but "never inhaled"'! (By that logic, I'm a smoker, however I would object strongly to being labelled a smoker.) Mdwh 16:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Also see overwhelming consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of self-harmers (yes, I appreciate I opposed deletion there, but that was based on existing lists such as this one; I think the response in that debate makes it clear that we need to start cleaning up "List of people" type articles, and this article has far more unsourced/dubious entries). Also suggested was that we can't take claims by the person in question as a reliable source, and a large number of the sources for this article fall into this category. Mdwh 16:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Also we have the issue of fictional smokers. Possibly see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_fictional_characters_with_phobias, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_fictional_characters_missing_an_appendage, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional self-harmers (although I appreciate that smoking may be more well-defined, only slightly I think - e.g., does a single puff count?) Mdwh 16:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Smoke it (i.e. DELETE) - First of all, this article, like many "List of famous X" articles, has the issue of the fact that "fame" is subjective. Also, the page contradicts itself; it says at the top that the people on this list all have smoking as part of their public image somehow (i.e. Groucho's cigar, FDR's cigarette holder, Sherlock's pipe, etc.), and yet the list has pretty much every celebrity who has ever smoked anything. Furthermore, we've got serious WP:BLP issues here, especially since this article includes "cannabis smokers." --Hnsampat 17:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Indiscriminate, unmaintainable list. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - this is a directory of loosely associated topics with a vague and arbitrary standard of inclusion. Otto4711 18:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I voted in the 2nd nomination, and I still think this is an indiscriminate list whose time has come. Shalom ^Hello 20:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of smokers which begat Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of iconic smokers resulting in latest 3 AfDs. Pavel Vozenilek 21:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Pardon the pun, but I see some Merit in this one. The title sucks, practically a magnet for deletion, but it's well-reasearched; and it's a good example of how attitudes towards smoking have changed over the years, from the era when celebrities took pride in what brand they smoked, to now, when smoking is considered, once again, a nasty habit. The additional information about which of these icons developed lung cancer, emphysema, etc. is useful (yeah, I know folks here hate "useful") as a deterrent to smokers. This will probably get crushed out on its second go-round, but I urge the author(s) to light another one. Mandsford 21:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Slight chance it could work as "List of iconic smokers", which would include Churchill, Groucho, Sherlock Holmes and maybe Audrey Hepburn, but right now it is just an indiscriminate list of famous people who also happen to smoke. Clarityfiend 21:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Attempts following the first AfD to keep the list reasonably pruned were resisted. Watching this page, it appears to be a dumping ground for a random collection of individuals, some famous, some not so famous, who smoke or smoked (as who among us has not) and who it occurs to someone to add. For instance: someone decided to add all the members of The Donnas. If the criteria is to be "as famous as the bass player for The Donnas", (and "smokes or smoked"), the list could be expanded to hundreds of thousands of entries. Herostratus 01:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not useful information, not deserving of its own page. There are millions of smokers around the world and to create a list that everyday grows and shrinks even if they are "famous" does not seem relevant. If anything this list could be used for propaganda purposes which is not the intent of the wiki project.--70.179.173.149 05:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom., and above comments in agreement.--JayJasper 12:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:59, 5 July 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 ck lostsword•T•C 12:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ando Tammik

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

An anon tagged it for speedy deletion, but he worked on a lot of movies and there are some external links so A7 does not really apply. However, I can find no evidence that he is notable, just a few sites (Yahoo, New York Times, IMDB) that give lists of movies he worked on. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 16:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Provides no references to establish notability in his field. As for WP:BIO for creative professionals: not a significant figure, did not innovate, played no significant role (only a minor one) in a major production, is not critically acclaimed. Tdmg 02:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment May be notable ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Apparently nn. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Being one of a handful of animators on two or three popular movies doesn't make you notable--Ispy1981 21:48, 7 July 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, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki 23:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Velvet D’Amour

Velvet D’Amour (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This was originally speedy-deleted as an A7. DRV overturned finding a claim to notability in the modeling work and film role. Weak delete, pending other opinions, given uncertainty over notability. Xoloz 15:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, I just can't find anything of substance about her. Most sources which mention her do so only incidentally or in passing, and are substantially about something else (a fashion show, a movie). The vast majority of material is also on blogs or otherwise unreliable. I just don't see that there's enough information out there to write a biography. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It seems that lots of newspapers wrote about her. Yes we are struggling to get info to write a full biography-but that is no reason to delete. According to this [7] there were multiple newspapers writing about her. I think she is notable by wikipedia definition. Obina 16:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep due to title role in Avida. --Groggy Dice T | C 23:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, within the topic of plus-size models' she is very notable, and given the very real and widespread international media attention this woman continues to receive after her catwalk appearances she definitely has merit. Respondants to this AfD who do not regularly monitor fashion media will likely discount her impact on the fashion industry but it cannot be denied; D'Amour is the largest woman to have ever appeared during a Paris fashion showing, and this at the height of the 'model health debate'. Prevalence of blogs talking about this woman and reposting existing media interviews and television appearances implies that she has high impact in current popular culture AntiVanity 23:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• weak delete - insufficient reliable sources. I suspect she may gain notability in the future if her career continues, but not right now. -- Whpq 16:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Seems to be notable.

¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Not yet notable. 209.247.22.130 02:21, 8 July 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. Sr13 03:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of morris dance sides

List of morris dance sides (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I speedied this as A3, then changed my mind. It's got a very long edit history, can anything be done with it? EliminatorJR ^Talk 15:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia articles are not collections of external links. Otto4711 15:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Very useful. Some one should put this on a web site. But not here. This is an encylopedia not a web directory.Obina 16:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOT a web directory, and it looks like all this info is on the morris dance wiki linked to at the top of the list page. --Allen 16:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into morris dancing. Don't know what that is, apparently popular for some, but I agree with Obina and Amobride. Did the author mean "sites"?
  • Oddly enough the article was moved from "sites" to "sides" last December. EliminatorJR ^Talk 22:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    • According to Morris dancing, "side" means "team". --Allen 22:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. If most of these Morris dancing sides (Yes, they are called sides) were notable enough to have an article on them, a list as well as category might be valuable. This is clearly not the case. Morris dance sides are not notable, so the list is not encyclopedic. I think the list is too long to merge into morris dancing. --Bduke 00:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Articles with virtually just links are unnecessary as stated by Otto. Maybe the links (or some of them) can go to the parent article.--JForget 00:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:02, 5 July 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 Speedied. --Golbez 20:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mrazon Republic

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

This is most likely a hoax, or somebody's private joke. No Google hits, and the article even claims it is an imaginary country. Depending on what exactly it is, it probably violates WP:HOAX, WP:OR, and/or WP:NOTABILITY, at least. J. Spencer 15:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I know the guy who made this. He actually meant that to be a serious page, because he believes that it is a real country. It isn't a hoax and it really doesn't deserve to be put in WP:BJAODN. Just speedy deletion like last time. This page has been made before.
• Delete - A terribly sad bit of fun. Deliberate vandalism of Wikipedia. Get rid of it as QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. However, I know the guy who made this page, and can guess at whoever added part to it, and I agree fully with the facts section :)
• Delete - clearly a hoax. The republic "only has a population of one - one of the world's saddest people." --Javits2000 16:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: as it appears to be hoax, a good one though and perhaps qualifies for WP:BJAODN. It is also a sad commentary on our processes. --Bhadani (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Of course this is a hoax, no need to debate about it. Pretty funny though so sending it over to WP:BJAODN may not be a bad idea.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, needless to say, but bravo to Lord Mrazon for all of his hard work in creating something that will only stay up for a few days. Maybe you'll find a Lady Mrazon. You've got a future in advertising... Mandsford 21:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• BJAODN, pretty well done hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V, WP:OR and WP:HOAX.--JForget 00:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I have seen much better hoaxes here. Pavel Vozenilek 12:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not an especially convincing hoax. Carlossuarez46 18:32, 2 July 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. Sr13 06:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ISaiah Moore

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

This article does not meet the notability guidelines at WP:MUSIC. Evil1987 15:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No charting singles, no album (yet), fails WP:MUSIC definitely. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 15:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Only possible notability (signing with DefJam) is unreferenced. Tdmg 01:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:02, 5 July 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 ck lostsword•T•C 12:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HD DASH DANCE2

HD DASH DANCE2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable radio station. Fails to assert reasons for notability, reads like an advert. the only refernce is its own website. Greatestrowerever 15:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:HOLE - not a mainstream radio station. Shalom ^Hello 20:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• unreferenced undefined ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unreferenced ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:18, 6 July 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 03:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ra'virr

Ra'virr (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a minor character in a notable video game. It was recommended for a merge to that video game, but the name (or its variants) are not even mentioned in that article, which is featured, so I doubt that it's notable enough even for a passing mention. Shalom ^Hello 15:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable to the extreme. It's a shopkeeper NPC in an eye-wateringly large RPG game with umpteen named characters who populate the world but really don't need coverage. Consists of a couple of lines of text such as a heading titled Appearance with this (er.. inspiring?) nugget of info: "Ra'virr is a male Khajiit, and thus looks like one". There's nothing to merge. QuagmireDog 17:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. QuagmireDog 17:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (and would probably be a speedy if A7 applied to fictional characters). No need to merge this anywhere, as the game has a massive number of characters and this one isn't among the more notable of those. JavaTenor 22:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I invite the original editor to expand on the Ra'Virr article present at the Elder Scrolls wiki. Marasmusine 13:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and possibly merge if necessary. Andre (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - as much as I loved Morrowind, this guy is just a shopkeeper. -- Whpq 16:45, 5 July 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 04:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Electrobeat Crew

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

Fails WP:BAND easily. Author bulldozed the PROD tag. :) Shalom ^Hello 14:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. It might meet #6 under Criteria for musicians and ensembles because Ice T is said to have been a member, but his article doesn't mention it and there are no sources on this article to back that up. --Geniac 13:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As per above, no references that assert notability. Tdmg 01:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:03, 5 July 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 04:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disarm (band)

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

Some claim of notability through touring and supporting other bands, but no album yet, so I doubt if they pass WP:MUSIC. EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Numerous fellow bands in the unsigned circuit have pages on wikipedia, namely King Lizard and Jack Viper, and neither have full releases either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glyn y2k3 (talk • contribs)
• Well then, let's delete them too. Also, don't forget to sign your posts. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 15:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Band probably wouldn't pass WP:MUSIC (I say probably because there are no references to verify anything). Band has not charted, had cultural impact, or are notable musically. References do not support notability. Tdmg 01:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:04, 5 July 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 Proctology. NawlinWiki 18:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rectology

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

I am unable to confirm that 'rectology' is a legitimate scientific term; my googling reveals the word used only in a slang sense. Prod removed without comment. FisherQueen (Talk) 14:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• The medical specialty is called Proctology, to which Rectology should be redirected. —AldeBaer (c) 14:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Aldebaer. Shalom ^Hello 14:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Delete unless legitimate medical usage of the term can be shown; no need for a redirect. I've removed two paragraphs of copyvio from the article, so there's not much left. Deor 15:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That works for me. I "merged" the image into Proctology, and the text is redundant. Shalom ^Hello 16:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• What the sh*t? Thank you for saving the image of the rectum.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge any usable content and redirect. Not a medical word to my knowledge -- no hits on Medline & no entry in Mosby's Medical Dictionary tend to support that view. However, if it is a slang usage, a simple redirect to proctology wouldn't seem unreasonable. Espresso Addict 08:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect Only 275 Google hits so it's not widely used even as slang, but it's just about possible that someone who doesn't know the correct medical term might search for it anyway. Iain99 20:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect misspelling ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:18, 6 July 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 04:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Faust manifesto

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

Listed as a work by Vladislav Boskonovitch Karimov, which looks like a hoax to me. Amir E. Aharoni 14:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Almost certainly a hoax. Tevildo 14:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non encyclopedic content in any case--just a reprint of the supposed piece of writing.DGG 23:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:04, 5 July 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 04:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vladislav Boskonovitch Karimov

Vladislav Boskonovitch Karimov (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Looks like a hoax. It doesn't sound like a Belarusian name: Karimov is Central Asian last name and Boskonovitch is a name of a Tekken character. Can't find him on Google. Prose looks suspiciously like something from the Postmodernism Generator. Amir E. Aharoni 14:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Borderline G1? Obvious hoax, anyway. Tevildo 14:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Karimov is also Slavic surname. Delete the Faust manifesto leaf too. Pavel Vozenilek 21:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Ah, hoaxes, some clever, some not. But considering how much real stuff gets thrown out of Wikipedia, who can blame people if they start making things up? Mandsford 21:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:06, 5 July 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 04:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manny Elefthriou

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

Non notable wrestler, poorly written article with no refs. Darrenhusted 14:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Darrenhusted 14:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:N, and currently, WP:V. Bmg916^Speak 14:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete does not have any references, so there is no evidence of their notability. Keep only if verifiable references can be given. Tdmg 01:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:06, 5 July 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 04:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Arsenal

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

Non notable wrestler working for non notable fed. Darrenhusted 14:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Darrenhusted 14:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:N, and currently WP:V. Bmg916^Speak 14:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. If this is deleted, it should be a redirect to Arsenal F.C. as that is a nickname for that club. Capitalistroadster 02:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails N. Daniel ⁵¹²⁷ 02:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:06, 5 July 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. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm O.K - A Murder Simulator

I'm O.K - A Murder Simulator (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article gives no indication of notability with multiple independent reliable sources. Whispering 13:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Much better I'm withdrawing my nom due to the great work of Brighterorange feel free to close the AfD. Whispering 16:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom. No notabiltiy, no references. /Blaxthos 13:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep The story about the video game's creation is cute, but the game itself is otherwise not notable. Shalom ^Hello 16:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge relevant information into Jack Thompson (attorney) Will ^(talk) 17:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. QuagmireDog 17:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Had a whole page to itself in the UK version of PC Zone last year as their 'Free web game of the month.' DarkSaber2k 08:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep there's actually a lot more about this, it's not the subject's fault no one's fixed it. There was a pile of stuff involving Penny Arcade also covering the $10k that I can find, and Child's Play came about as a result of it, too. It needs citing, not deletion; I'll work on it after I get my signpost article done. --Thespian 08:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Needs the sources to establish the notability, but I'm pretty certain those can be found if one goes looking. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep; notable in the computer gaming community. *Dan T.* 12:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• strong keep Could use more of this integrated into the article, but there is loads of media coverage surrounding this game (naturally, since it is a media stunt) and plenty of real world context to fill an encyclopedia entry. — brighterorange (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This is notable, and there have been many mentions in magazines, etc. Andre (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment On sources added to the article, the first two are from blogs and the third only gives passing mention to the game. We need better sources than that is there anyway to get a scan or a webpage for the UK PC Zone? Whispering 10:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I added a couple that I found on Lexis-Nexis. Of course we don't need the sources to be online for them to be reliable (although it makes them more useful, naturally)... — brighterorange (talk) 15:05, 7 July 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 JodyB _talk 02:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Highwire Daze

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

Magazine that apparently fails WP:CORP. No secondary sources given; article created in an obvious COI by User:Highwiredaze; large parts of the text violate WP:NOT#DIR. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 13:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Per nom., notability concerns. /Blaxthos 13:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and fix. The magazine appears to have some history in the Los Angeles music scene, and its reviews/opinions seem to be cited fairly widely. The tone needs some neutralizing, non-notable content like the issue list must go, and it probably needs attention by someone more familiar with the context, but i think there's article potential. --Piet Delport 04:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Does not assert notability. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:22, 6 July 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 JodyB _talk 02:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Older Parthenon

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

This article, originally created by me as a sub-section on the Parthenon article, is a redundant split from that article. It was created without consensus or discussion and defeats the purpose of my original work, which was to give historical context to the building of the Parthenon. The sub-section has now been restored, this article should be deleted. Twospoonfuls 13:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This should be a sub-article of Parthenon, in accordance with summary style. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note Arguably, if the nominator is factually correct, the article qualifies under CSD G6. However, I agree with Akhilleus that we have a valid content fork here. Shalom ^Hello 16:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Parthenon. The original article is not so huge as to require splitting off this amount of information. Otto4711 16:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If Parthenon is properly written, it will be much larger and this article will need to be split off again. As the article is now, I don't really think that the (old) dispute between Dorpfeld and Dinsmoor whether there were one or two proto-Parthenons belongs in the main article anyway--a full reporting of this dispute, going up to present theories about the proto/pre/Older Parthenon(s) and its/their influence on the building we see now will be far more detailed than the present "Older Parthenon" article. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Keep. The subject is clearly notable, and even if the content is redundant, it can serve as a kernel of a more thorough discussion. --Javits2000 16:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't dispute for a monent that there is considerably more to be said about the pre-Parthenon(s). However, my understanding is that Dorpfeld is the consensus view amongst archaeologists and Dinsmoor is the heterodox opinion, but it is not an "old" dispute in the sense of having been definitively decided. As always in classical archaeology there is a modest tray of evidence and a substantial slagheap of conjecture, so to suggest, as the truncated main article sub-section does, that the issue is settled would be actively misleading. Context is essential here, which is why I tried to sketch the main physical evidence for the thing and the principal theories about it. For this reason I cannot agree to abbreviating the sub-section, and if the sub-section remains as I wrote it what is the point of this daughter page? Now if anyone were willing to do some research into the subject and significantly expand this page (I am not) then I'd agree I would be worth keeping. Twospoonfuls 18:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg 23:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I cannot be objective as the creator of this article per WP:SS (based on the work of Twospoonfuls), but I do believe that it is a notable encyclopedic topic that can easily support a separate article.--Yannismarou 13:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:23, 6 July 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, default to Keep. Walton^One 14:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Foster (candidate for Congress)

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

This article seems to be a about a fellow who intends to run in his local Democratic primary for the party's nomination for his district. It is supported by a news report in a local newspaper, and the content of our article seems to be primarily some kind of promotional piece--the kind of flier that a candidate might be expected to hand out to prospective voters. I suggest that this isn't really what Wikipedia is for--specifically it isn't a soap box. Let's cover this chap if he ever makes it to the House of Representatives, certainly, but then there will be something to write about him. --Tony Sidaway 13:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be userfied in case he is successful. --Tony Sidaway 13:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral. Clearly would fail WP:BIO if his candidacy were the only matter, but he may be notable as a physicist. The man won the Rossi Prize, although he won it as part of a group and I'm not sure if it's notable. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of his work could advise as to whether he is considered notable by his peers. --Charlene 13:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that it should be deleted presently, and then if he is successful; re-create the page. Just my opinion. Meldshal42_{Comments and Suggestions}^{My Contributions} 13:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that being a candidate does not make one notable, but running for office doesn't actually take away from notability either. If someone's otherwise notable, a run for Congress doesn't make that person non-notable. I don't know whether his accomplishments as a scientist are notable enough, but I have a suspicion they might be. --Charlene 13:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete -- As it stands now, the article doesn't primarily address notability of the subject as a physicist. Until that notabiltiy is established, the article shouldn't exist as a campaigning stump. /Blaxthos 14:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but cleanup: assuming that all information in the article is correct, it should be kept for his actions as a physicist. Nyttend 14:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename, as well, since being the candidate isn't the reason for notability. Nyttend 14:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep actually for that company of his. Kwsn^(Ni!) 15:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete It's obvious from the title that this is not about his achievements as a physicist or a businessman, and it never was. Tony Sidaway is right on point. This is blatant advertising. If he gets elected, I'm sure his press secretary will write a very nice article. Nice that he's starting early, what with the Democratic primary just 11 months away. Mandsford 21:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep rewritten as an article on the obviously notable scientist. --with a small paragraph about his political ambitions, along with other hobbies--unless it develops further. I dont want to change the title during the AfD, but it should be "Bill Foster (physicist)"

  I'm all for keeping articles on physicists, but do we have anything verifiable on this chap as a physicist? I see that he worked at Fermilab and was associated with nice stuff, but it's really all very vague about what he actually did. On the other hand his company has a good article and perhaps it might be a good idea to redirect this article to the article on that company. --Tony Sidaway 23:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure & won't be until it gets worked on--it is very difficult to deal with those whose career is in government or industrial labs; academia is a good deal more open.DGG 23:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I did some work: it turns out he is G. William Foster, but at Fermilab he uses it interchangeably with Bill and William. I have enough references now that I've figured out the name. He is primarily a scientific administrator, not a scientist, but he led several of their largest development groups. I think it is sufficiently shown by the awards mentioned in the first section (though some of them were shared) & head of some major projects--but I of course there must be independent verification since I do not trust a campaign biography, especially one that never mentions his full name. Tony, what way should we go: I suggest an article on G. William Foster, with a redirect for Bill Foster, until his political career overshadows his scientific career. should I simply start over again at the correct name?DGG 00:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I would suggest the G. William Foster article, if indeed he is notable. I would redirect from this article after it is renamed without the political line. JodyB _talk 02:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• delete - this is the second 2008 state senate election candidiate bio I've seen, and this is only the slow trickle before the flood. Kripto 01:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete his company is not notable by WP standards - if 500 employees sets the bar, then many a busy restaurant, hotel, grocery store location would fit the bill - we are in the process of deleting Hyatt Regency Phoenix and Hyatt Regency Birmingham, and, gosh, not one editor has mentioned that these places may have the magical 500 employees needed to establish inherent notability and save the articles. Carlossuarez46 18:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the business. His company made electronic theater controls, as was the 2nd largest in the country. That's not much a compared to , say, GE, but its one of the two major ones in the industry.DGG 07:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the business is important one. We already have an article on the business, so really we're asking whether this fellow should in addition have his own article. --Tony Sidaway 10:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable as scientist ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If the administrators are still debating about whether to keep this advertisement on here, it's worth pointing out that Bill Foster was "D-FENS", the troubled character portrayed by Michael Douglas in the 1993 film Falling Down, and also the name of American Communist Party Secretary William Z. Foster. "Vote for Bill... the candidate who cares enough to use Wikipedia." Mandsford 16:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as scientist. Delete parliamentary cruft for now Giggy _U^CP 04:30, 10 July 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 Withdrawn by nominator after 5 days, and no other "delete" opinions. --Tony Sidaway 13:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Shannon

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

This article was created in one draft on 11 June, but had no further content edits by a human being until I saw it on June 24. The article was tagged as "Uncategorized people" and moved from "Bill shannon" to "Bill Shannon". That's it.

The article is orphaned and unsourced. I tagged it for proposed deletion on 24th. There were no further edits until June 30th when someone removed the tag with the edit summary "(I dunno; seems arguably notable; take this to WP:AFD if you wish".

The concern here is not "notability", but verifiability. Unless this article is sourced in the next few days, I suggest that we delete it as a violation of our core Verifiability policy. Those who think it can be made verifiable, please do so. --Tony Sidaway 12:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Based on the Google hits, it looks like we can fulfill Tony's request for sources. I'm in no rush to do it right now, but that's why AFDs are given five days. Shalom ^Hello 13:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Based on the awards and grants listed, he is clearly notable, Just needs some refs. DGG 23:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. There may well be sources, but the article as currently written appears to be a copyright violation of this≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 03:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as copyright problem with no prejudice against creating a new article if can meet the inclusion criteria. Jay32183 04:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Copyright problems gone. Jay32183 06:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, copyvio fixed; lead sentence now sourced. John Vandenberg 04:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Your edit summary says keep, but you just wrote delete here. Your reasoning also seems to suggest keep. I'm pretty sure the "Delete" is a typo. Jay32183 06:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing that out. John Vandenberg 08:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:27, 6 July 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 as an expired prod. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 04:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blinky Bill's Extraodinary Balloon Adventure

Blinky Bill's Extraodinary Balloon Adventure (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Hoax template already up for 5 days; and not notable article Gammondog 12:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. It's not a hoax, just a non-notable TV series. Just google, it's even on IMDB. The main Blinky Bill article does not have any of his TV series listed though, and considering this article is mostly unsalvagable, delete with no merge. --Breno ^talk 13:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Second thoughts possibly redirect to The Adventures of Blinky Bill. --Breno ^talk 13:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:12, 2 July 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. NawlinWiki 18:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tribe of Mic-O-Say (2nd nomination)

Tribe of Mic-O-Say (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Second nomination. This article appears to fail the verifiability criteria in its current form. Interestingly, an ISBN search suggests that cited references seem not to exist in the ISBN database under those ISBN numbers, suggesting that some or all of this article may be a hoax.

Although the previous AfD voted "keep", this was entirely based on voting by respondents to the AfD, rather than by providing sources.

Suggest deletion unless mainstream sources can be provided.

Please note: Since this AfD nomination regards the verifiability criteria, please provide verifiable third party sources, rather than just voting "keep". Karada 12:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete -- Unverifiable, dubious sources, and non-notable. This is coming from an Eagle Scout and OA member. /Blaxthos 14:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, plus: the article seems to be an attack page against OA. Nyttend 14:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article you are wanting to delete is one that has been badly vandalized by an anon user, who had been warned earlier at User talk:24.41.62.216 on June 5 about edits to this article. This accounts for the attack stuff about the BSA. I have reverted all the edits of July 1 back to the version 12:17, 26 June 2007 by Canjth. Please use that to determine notability. If I missed something valuable added by User:Marmotboy666, I apologise. Please add it back. --Bduke 00:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• weak keep - article needs more references, but Mic-O-Say is mildly notable as it is a major aspect in a several councils of the BSA as an alternative to the Order of the Arrow. I personally don't agree with it, but that doesn't make it non-encyclopedic. Justinm1978 00:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• weak keep per justinm1978 Rlevse 01:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per BDuke. --evrik ^(talk) 02:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• strong keep-this is a historically notable, recognized component of the BSA program, and recent vandalisms should not make it worthy of deletion. Chris 05:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• comment - historically notable, yes, but not a recognized component of the "BSA program". It is a recognized component of the Boy Scout program in a few councils, but is vastly unknown in the rest of the Boy Scout program. The AfD nomination isn't about the notability though, it's about the verifiability. It's very tough to find anything that isn't self-published regarding the subject, and that's what needs to be addressed to avoid deletion, I think. Justinm1978 02:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup the non vandalized article - too much peripheral info like who attended the 75th anniversary... --Trödel 14:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - I won't argue or discuss the existence of the cited reference books. However, I strongly disagree with the statements about the article being "an elaborate hoax". Try doing a Google search on "Mic-O-Say". There are lots of web sites referencing it. Plus, for verifiability, try going to the camp. It is quite easy to see that it is real. I started in the program almost 40 years ago, and I can attest to the accuracy of the bulk of the article. While there are flaws and mistakes within any article in Wikipedia, this one seems very accurate. RSStockdale 03:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - This article NEEDS to be kept. Tons of people, including me, still use it. It's just like any other important article. 642Mystery 15:46, 9 July 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. For future reference, please note that arguments based solely in notability by association have no basis in policy and may be (in this case, were) discounted. Though the nomination saw participation from relatively few editors, I do not believe that relisting will help to achieve a consensus, particularly given the length and depth of the discussion. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cliff Warner and Nina Cortlandt

Cliff Warner and Nina Cortlandt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - WIkipedia articles are not plot summaries and, as with the recently deleted Quint and Nola article, this is a character-specific plot summary for this so-called "supercouple." Otto4711 12:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Maybe redirect back to supercouple or All My Children to preserve the incoming links. Shalom ^Hello 13:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I am currently working on improving all of the soap couple articles. I need time. This isn't a so-called supercouple. This is a supercouple. I don't see how plot summaries are that big of an issue, when articles such as Anakin Skywalker exist.

I have stated this three times now...two of those times were with both the Nicholas Newman and Sharon Collins article...and the Victor Newman and Nikki Reed article, both in which were judged keep, because they are now re-written and now provide real-world impact from reliable sources. I was going to get around to improving this article, had this funny feeling that I should check on it, and, well, it's now nominated for deletion before I have even got around to fixing it up. While I, of course, understand the fact that articles on Wikipedia shouldn't only provide plot summaries, all of these soap opera couple articles will be worked on and formatted to fit Wikipedia policy, which is why Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas exists, and is why I ask other editors to hold off on nominating these soap opera couple articles for deletion. As for the Quint and Nola article, I was disappointed to see that deleted, because I could have fixed that article up before it was deleted. And while I'm not a fan of most of these soap opera supercouples, I may re-create that article and fix it up anyway. Going around and deleting these soap opera popular and or supercouple articles is not the answer. Clean-up is. Flyer22 02:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• This article has been updated

• I have updated this article, to where the plot summary is now re-worded in present tense, it's been cut down in length, and a Cultural impact section is now provided in this article, with real-world impact, and reliable sources.

I must point out that not too many soap opera couples are noted by Chicago Sun-Times, and this couple is. This couple is also noted as a supercouple by the soap opera media, the first telling factor of a soap opera supercouple. I ask that the closing administrator take all of this into account when closing this deletion debate, which I'm certain that the closing administrator of this debate will. This is truly a notable supercouple in soap opera history. And this article is in accordance with what Wikipedia:WikiProject_Soap_Operas#Notable_couples states of supercouples or other notable couples being featured on Wikipedia. Flyer22 14:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• The one-sentence mention in the Sun-Times is trivial. The one-sentence mention in Soap Opera Digest is trivial. Soapdom.com is an "official" soap opera site so it's not an independent source and its mentions of the couple are trivial. The Victory Gardens Theatre website does not mention Taylor Miller in the context of the couple, only a brief mention of her character Nina and nothing about Cliff. The biography of American Speakers Bureau speaker Peter Bergman at the American Speakers Bureau website is not an independent source. These trivial and non-independent sources do not establish the notability of the couple nor do they establish that the couple has had any lasting cultural impact. The article remains a plot summary of the couple's history with some trivia tacked on in the hopes that people will confuse them with substance and give the article a pass. Otto4711 22:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for now, because article looks good and editor(s) are attempting to improve it. Give 'em a chance to do so! --140.254.225.30 00:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Otto4711, I greatly disagree with your opinion of this article. No mention in Chicago Sun-Times is trivial, especially if it's a soap opera couple. A fact is that Chicago Sun-Times pointed out that Cliff and Nina are a notable couple, and by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Soap_Operas#Notable_couples, that is notability. Heck, by any standards, that is notability when it comes to a soap opera supercouple. The mention of Cliff and Nina being a supercouple by Soap Opera Digest is also not trivial. Soap Opera Digest doesn't just call any soap opera couple a supercouple. A couple has to be a supercouple first. And Soap Opera Digest calls Cliff and Nina a supercouple on more than one occasion. Soapdom.com is just more proof that Cliff and Nina are a highly notable couple, just as Bennifer once were, and they still are, because of the impact that they had. So are Cliff and Nina, because of the impact that they had as one of the world's most popular soap opera supercouples.

Victory Gardens Theatre not mentioning Taylor Miller in the context of the couple? The whole reason that Taylor Miller's character of Nina is even considered popular, and the bigger reason that people stop her on a street, screaming in giddy anticipation about meeting her is because of her character's romance with Cliff Warner. I see no such trivial matters in this couple obviously being notable, and I don't see how it can be disputed that this couple is a notable soap opera couple, a supercouple, in fact. And as for what you stated with this sentence..."The article remains a plot summary of the couple's history with some trivia tacked on in the hopes that people will confuse them with substance and give the article a pass"... People here are obviously smart enough to make up their own minds and won't be confused by any sort of manipulation that I am doing, because there is no manipulation on my part to confuse them. This article is not trivial; it's not a trivia section, and fans and the soap opera media determine which couples are supercouples. They determined that Cliff Warner and Nina Cortlandt are a supercouple, and Chicago Sun-Times took notice of this couple's popularity, even if it is just one sentence. This couple was also pointed out as being notable by Hollywood.com, which is an independent source. There is nothing huge in being wrong with this article's plot summary any longer, since it's the length or close to the length of some good articles in which have storyline plots on Wikipedia. There isn't much more to add to an article about a soap opera couple, but plot and Cultural impact, and a History section before the Storyline section, in which the History section discusses the creation of the characters, what the producers were going for upon creating the characters or romance, or both, and if I find such details from great sites in which discuss this, I'll make sure to add them to this article. Flyer22 02:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Noatability guidelines require that an article topic be the subject of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." A single sentence within an article that mentions the couple is in no way "significant coverage" even if the article is in the Sun-Times. Programs for regional theatre companies that mention one character but not the other or the couple do not constitute "significant coverage." An article on a decade in soap operas that mentions the couple does not constitute "significant coverage." Fans declaring a couple to be a "supercouple" does not constitute "significant coverage." The article remains a plot summary despite your attempts to tack on insignificant mentions as reliable sources. Come up with some sources which are specifically about the couple and their supposed cultural impact, otherwise this is plot plus trivia. Otto4711 03:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• I know what Noatability guidelines states, which is clearly why this article...Victor Newman and Nikki Reed...was judged a keep, and isn't classified as just plot, plus trivia, they are a significant couple. I also know what Wikipedia:WikiProject_Soap_Operas#Notable_couples states, and the Cliff Warner and Nina Cortlandt article fits what they ask. This is a soap opera couple, and being so-called reported by multiple outside sources such as CNN News is usually not going to happen with a soap opera couple or soap opera supercouple, unless that couple is Luke and Laura, but that doesn't make them any less notable. A single sentence within an article that mentions the couple is significant coverage...when that couple is a soap opera couple being mentioned in Chicago Sun-Times. Fans declaring a couple to being a "supercouple" does constitute "significant coverage" when Soap Opera Digest also notes the couple's popularity and states that the couple is a supercouple, multiple times. Regardless, this couple is mentioned as a supercouple in more than one article, whether we state which article as reliable or not, but with mention of this couple being notable by Chicago Sun-Times, Hollywood.com (both independent sources), plus Soap Opera Digest proves this couple's notability, and it proves that this couple is not some ordinary soap opera couple, whether you feel that their Cultural impact section is trivia or not, which I state that it isn't. Flyer22 04:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• No, sorry, a single sentence out of a larger article is not "significant coverage." Fans calling a couple a supercouple does not constitute "significant coverage." A soap opera magazine mentioning the couple in passing, even if they mention the couple in passing more than once, does not constitute "significant coverage." The Wiki soap opera project may have its own internal criteria but those criteria do not trump Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Otto4711 06:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• No, I'm sorry, but when it comes to a soap opera couple being mentioned in two independent sources, both outside of soap opera, Chicago Sun-Times and Hollywood.com, that is notability when it comes to a soap opera couple. Wiki Soap Opera Project has a certain criteria because it's only logical that soap opera characters aren't going to be featured in some heavy news article or celebrity magazine that often, if at all for most of them, thus when a couple is, it is certainly notable, which is why not all soap opera couples can have their own articles on Wikipedia.

Victor Newman and Nikki Reed didn't have to have extensive and or significant coverage on their love story in the mentions that were given to them by more than one independent reliable source. Just the fact that they were mentioned in more than one outside reliable source, The News & Advance, EW.com, Variety Magazine (and I'm sure many more), in what you call "in passsing" was enough to prove that couple's notability, thus I certainly don't see any extensive and or "significant coverage" needed as to having an article discussing that couple in its entirety.

In any case, Soap Opera Digest doesn't just mention Cliff and Nina in passing. They discuss the couple in more detail regardless.

Trivia sections mainly mention silly things, such as "This fictional character's favorite color is red"... Cultural impact sections more so cover a person, thing, character or couple's real-world impact, fictional or real, and that's what this article does. And if it's kept, it will certainly be improved further, at least with attempts. If's it's deleted, I can always re-create it later, and better improve it then.

Anyway, I need to go and fix up other soap opera couple articles, and some soap opera character articles, some of which like I did with the Bianca Montgomery character, which now provides a lot of real-world impact within her article, and will be further worked on as I edit articles here at Wikipedia. The Josh Madden article as well, both of these are certainly two highly notable characters, and I will have fun editing their articles for quite a while. It was/is interesting debating with you, Otto4711. Flyer22 07:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Look, I realize that you're trying desperately to save this article, but your desperation doesn't change the simple fact that the mere appearance of the names of the couple in an article does not constitute significant coverage, even if that article is in the Sun-Times. It may very well be that the Sun-Times doesn't mention soap opera characters very often, but that does mean that simply putting their names in a sentence means that the S-T has devoted significant coverage to them. I've been mentioned in articles in the Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune and any number of other papers. But I wasn't the subject of the articles in which I was mentioned and my being mentioned in them does not make them significant coverage of me or serve to establish me as notable by Wikipedia standards. The passing mentions in non-reliable sources don't constitute "cultural impact" no matter how hard you try to manufacture it. The Soap Opera Digest devotes one sentence to the couple out of a longer profile of the actor and doesn't even mention their last names. The soap opera project's standards do not under any circumstances supercede Wikipedia's so continuing to cite them is meaningless. And threatening to disrupt Wikipedia by recreating deleted content is very inappropriate. Otto4711 21:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Supercouple ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Otto4711, I'm not desperate to save any article as of now, and your accusation that I'm threatening to disrupt Wikipedia by re-creating deleted material is totally off, almost if I were to accuse you of having a serious need to delete any and every soap opera article on Wikipedia, when most can be improved. Don't treat me as though I'm some vandal. I'm not. And Wikipedia editors are allowed to re-create deleted articles, if they better format the deleted articles upon re-creation. That's not a threat or disruption of any kind to Wikipedia. And your opinion that this couple is not notable, even though they've been cited by reliable outside sources, such as Chicago Sun-Times and Hollywood.com, even if it is in what you call as "passing" is something I obviously disagree with. A person being mentioned in passing in one of those sources is quite different than a soap opera couple being mentioned in one of those sources. And Soap Opera Digest doesn't have to have an entire article on a couple to mention that that couple is a supercouple. The fact remains that Soap Opera Digest calls them a supercouple, and Soap Opera Digest only calls soap opera couples who are supercouples...supercouples. But I certainly can provide a reference from Soap Opera Digest where they have an article on this couple. Either way, we don't agree on this article, as it is now, and I see no reason to keep debating this issue with you. Flyer22 22:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Um, you're the one who said "If's it's deleted, I can always re-create it later". Your words. And it's clear you're completely missing the point. The point is not whether or not Soap Opera Digest refers to them as a supercouple. The point is that the article is nothing more than a plot summary which is in violation of Wikipedia policy. The sources you cite do not establish the notability of the subject of the article. They do not establish any supposed "cultural impact" of the subject. Try actually reading WP:N and WP:RS. Notability requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources. A single sentence out of an article does not constitute "significant coverage." The website of a speakers bureau that the actor works for is not "independent." This honestly is not that complicated of a concept. Not sure why you're having so much trouble with it. Otto4711 23:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Um, my exact words, were "If it's deleted, I can always re-create it later, and better improve it then"... And that is not a threat of any kind, and is also no different than well-respected Wikipedian editors stating such a statement in deletion debates that maybe they will re-create an article later in the hopes of improving it then or that the article can be re-created later by another editor, hopefully better. As for your comment of ..."The website of a speakers bureau that the actor works for is not independent. This honestly is not that complicated of a concept. Not sure why you're having so much trouble with it"...don't talk down to me in a condescending way. I NEVER called the speakers bureau in which Peter Bergman works for independent. If we're going to condescend, I honestly don't know why you can't grasp the fact that a soap opera couple being mentioned in Chicago Sun-Times or Hollywood.com is most certainly notable for a soap opera couple.

Honestly, what you claim as needing to be "significant coverage" for a soap opera couple was not brought up by two excellent Wikipedian editors in the Victor Newman and Nikki Reed deletion debate, in which the fact was/is that Victor and Nikki were cited as a highly notable couple by extremely valid independent sources outside of the soap opera media, with none of those sources referenced in their article having provided an entire article on the couple. And I'm positive that those editors in that deletion debate knew what they were doing. Your solution to deleting an article because it has plot summary is off in my opinion. Wikipedia has nothing against plot summaries, it states that an article shouldn't just be about plot; that's what it's against. And this article isn't just about plot. And this article can always be improved. Again, we don't agree on this article as of now, and if you want to continue this back-and-forth between you and I, then so be it, but I'd rather not. Flyer22 00:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Honestly, it doesn't really matter whether some other article exists or whether someone brought up any particular point in some other AFD. It is this article under discussion and the point has been brought up in this AFD. And, again, as much as you might wish it, the passing mentions of one or the other of the actors or of the couple do not establish notability. One sentence in a newspaper article is not notability. Two sentences on a website is not notability. Sorry if you feel like you're being talked down to here, but clearly no matter how it's explained to you you're not getting that passing mentions do not make notability. Notability requires that the source be about the subject, not that it just mention the subject. Again, notability requires that sources be about the subject. Absent the unsupported and frankly phony "cultural impact" section that is fabricated out of whole cloth, the article is plot, plot and more plot. Otto4711 03:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop pointing me to policies such as other stuff exists. I'm quite aware of that policy. And it does matter whether someone brought up any particular point in some other AFD, because your "point" is off, Victor Newman and Nikki Reed were cited in more than one independent reliable source, and as User: EliminatorJR pointed out in that deletion debate upon his nomination of that article...."I'm certainly not saying every article in this category is unencyclopedic, but a huge amount of them are just plot summaries. If the unencyclopedic content can be cut right back, and the article sourced with real-world notability, then I'm quite happy to say keep - after all, AfD is for improvement, not just deletion"...that was the point, Victor and Nikki were proven notable, outside of the soap opera media even, and no article addressing the couple in its entirety is needed. In the same way that when an editor makes a statement such as Katie Holmes' favorite color is red, they have to find a reliable citation to validate that claim, not an entire article on Katie Holmes' favorite color being red.

Sorry, but it's not just a feeling that you were being condescending in this debate. You were and are being condescending in this so-called deletion debate. And if an article is about the impact soap opera couples had on the world, or about storylines in which had an impact on the world, and a couple is noted in that article, such as Victor Newman and Nikki Reed, then that is an article about that couple, that's what you're not geting. "Notability requires that the source be 'about' the couple"...and, yes, when an article is discussing storylines that changed the world and it mentions that fictional couple, then that is that article being about that fictional couple. Seriously, I don't need to debate this issue with you any longer. I don't need to be told that I'm not getting something or told to believe something in which you believe is what notability is, or pointed to some policy that I'm aware of, whether you believe that I'm aware of it or not. This debate between you and I is no longer as civil as it's supposed to be, and I do not wish to continue this tiresome round-whatever. Flyer22 11:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• You keep saying that you don't feel the need to continue this, yet here you continue to be, letting fly paragraph after paragraph. Once again, it does not matter what anyone said about Victor and Nikki or any other couple. Victor and Nikki are not under discussion here. They're not, They're just not. And once again, a sentence in an article that mentions X does not make the article about X. It just doesn't. I agree that if this article were sourced to show real-world notability then it should stay, but it is not so sourced. Otto4711 14:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• It is sourced, just not extensively, which can always be further improved. And I keep showing up here because you keep responding. A sentence in an article that mentions X does make that article about X if that article is discussing storylines that impacted the world or soap opera coupes that impacted the world, which can be added to this article. And telling me what is not sourced, or not notable, from checking your edit history, it seems that you were pointed to the same policy as to an article deemed not notable by most Wikipedian editors. Of course, not that that is the point of this article, as you'd point out, but obviously pointing me to policies when you yourself are pointed out as not taking them into account on occasion, is fruitless in my opinion, even more so because regardless of your opinion of this article, they are mentioned in three independent reliable sources as notable, passing or not. Again, we disagree as to this article as of now. Obviously. Flyer22 14:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)\

No it doesn't. A single sentence in an article does not and can not and never will make the article about that subject. A one sentence mention in an article is trivial. It is a passing mention. If even a single one of these had a section that discussed the couple that would be a different issue but none of these discuss the couple. Mentioning the couple is not the same as discussing the couple and it can only be your painfully obvious bias that prevents you from acknowledging that. This article is not sourced. It does not have a single source in it that meets WP:RS and that is about the subject of the couple, let alone three. The words "Cliff and Nina" in an article don't make the article about Cliff and Nina. An article about "storylines that impacted the world" (which none of the links in this article are, by the way) does not suddenly become about every storyline listed off in it. Otto4711 16:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Did I say that the mentions of this couple by Chicago Sun-Times, and Hollywood.com, and Associated Content were an article about this couple? No. Although, the Associated Content article referenced in this article is specifically about the rise and fall of supercouples in soap opera, and notes Cliff and Nina, which makes that article about Cliff and Nina as well. And, yes, Associated Content, the second source in this article, has been cited as a reliable independent source in many great articles on Wikipedia. A single sentence in an article does, and can, and will make that article about that couple, if it's a topic of storylines that impacted the world or couples that impacted the world, and mentions that couple, which I was speaking of the Victor Newman and Nikki Reed article. I stated that the Cliff and Nina article could be improved. I have no painfully obvious bias that is preventing me from acknowledging anything that you claim. This is not some favorite and or even slightly favorite couple of mine. I'm 24 years old, and was not at all interested in the soap opera "All My Children" as a very young child. Not until at least age 10, with the villainous character of Todd Manning, did I become interested in soap operas, as I didn't even consider him just a soap opera character, and that character was definitely created some time after the Cliff and Nina mania. I could easily state that your bias of soap opera articles is what brought you to nominate this article for deletion, besides plot, and especially when it's obvious that regardless of what you think, this couple is a supercouple.

Anyway, I try to maintain good faith in what you claim as to this article, and we just are not on the same side when it comes to this article. No need for us to linger on our thoughts as to this article. Flyer22 16:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• You have yet to provide a source that indicates that this storyline "impacted the world." And no, as hard as you might wish it, mentioning a thing in passing is not enough to make a source about that thing. Notability requires non-trivial coverage, and the mere mention of the couple's names is trivial. Otto4711 12:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have provided more than one source that proves that this couple is notable. And, as hard as you might wish that this couple is not notable, they are. The mere mention of this couple's name in a matter such as the rise and fall of supercouples in soap opera is not trivial. It proves that this couple is a supercouple. In fact, just this couple being called a supercouple in more than one instance proves that this couple is a supercouple, regardless of what you consider trivial or not. Not every soap opera couple is called a supercouple by the soap opera media, or is noted outside of it just for the heck of it. In the same way that the mere mention of Angelina Jolie's name on more than one top ten most beautiful women and or people in the world lists proves that she is notable as one of the most beautiful women and or people in the world, besides her other notable aspects. Flyer22 18:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Angelina Jolie may very well be a notably beautiful woman but her name on a published list of beautiful women does not in and of itself establish her notability. Sources have to provide substantial coverage to establish notability. Again, sources have to provide substantial coverage to establish notability. Once again, sources have to provide substantial coverage to establish notability. "Passing mentions" does not equal "substantial coverage." A source which mentions this couple in one sentence is not substantial coverage. Otto4711 19:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Stop twisting my words, Otto4711. I didn't state that Angelina Jolie's name on published lists of beautiful women in and of itself establishes her notability (although I feel that does, beside her other notable aspects). I stated that it establishes her notability as one of the world's most beautiful women and or beautiful people.

And, all sources on Wikipedia do not have to provide substantial coverage, and plenty of sources on Wikipedia in great articles do not. A source which mentions this couple in one sentence may not be substantial coverage, but it is notable when they are mentioned as a supercouple or important storyline in more than one independent reliable source. In the same way that Angelina Jolie being mentioned in more than one most beautiful women and or people lists establishes her notability as one of the world's most beautiful women and or people, Cliff and Nina being listed as a supercouple and or important storyline in more than one independent reliable source establishes that this couple is a supercouple. Also, the characters Cliff and Nina were merged into this article, thus deleting this article would be doing away with two notable characters as well, apart from being a part of this couple, in the show All My Children. Although, an editor here at Wikipedia could always re-create an article on the Cliff Warner character, as well as an article on the Nina Cortlandt character, it's a bit redundant, considering that most of their character history revolves around each other. Flyer22 20:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• That you think a single source listing off beautiful women establishes notability of every single woman on the list merely further demonstrates your utter lack of understanding of notability guidelines. Otto4711 22:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Again twisting my words. I never stated that a source listing off beautiful women establishes notability of every single woman on that list. I stated that a woman (Angelina Jolie) being listed on several lists as a beautiful woman establishes her notability as a beautiful woman and or person. And the fact of being listed on so many lists as a beautiful woman and or person is quite notable of that person. The fact that you keep twisting my words proves your lack of understanding of how not to twist words. Flyer22 22:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• No, we don't need to circle in this tiresome debate any longer. We don't need to condescend to each other. We've basically stated everything that we can state, more than once. That is just over, basically, at this point, even if this debate is still open at this very moment. You've stated your feelings, I've stated mine. We really don't have any reason to state the same things over and over again, whether it's a condescending remark of how the other doesn't understand a Wikipedia guideline and that we want that other one to know it or not. I suggest we stop this back-and-forth between you and I in this debate. We know where each other stand. Flyer22 23:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep appeared in a notable program, thus are notable Giggy _U^CP 04:29, 10 July 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. There was no consensus to delete JodyB _talk 02:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Norse mythology in popular culture

Norse mythology in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Yet another unsourced "article" consisting of mere trivia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of unsourced trivia. Ample precedent for deletion exists, see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural references to 2001: A Space Odyssey, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight Club in popular culture and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Strangelove in popular culture. MER-C 12:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - as a directory of loosely associated topics. Otto4711 12:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Not indiscriminate, not mere trivia, and more than just a vanilla list. This is good information for anyone looking into Norse mythology. There could be a lot more info here (especially the language section, I may add to that myself), and for some things independent sources need to be referenced, but overall the article is valuable and appropriate. Capmango 15:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A potentially good article with some good content, but poorly arranged and in need of purging. Items like "such-and-such was inspired by Norse mythology" without particular examples vitiate the usefulness of the page. Still, deletion seems like overkill. RandomCritic 20:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Named precedents describe the influence on popular culture of single pieces of art; how the cultural heritage of an entire civilisation impacts popular culture is another matter entirely. That being said, this article needs some serious overhaul, because as a long list, it isn't that useful. More article, less list. But deletion is overkill. Cayafas 21:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A problem with ___IPC articles is that the authors want to include everything. If it had been limited to the days of the week, a few references to Thor and... whoever the other Norse gods were, it might have been passable. However, this inclusion is illustrative: "In the 20th episode of the first season of the show Metalocalypse, Skwisgaar Skwigelf referred to the name of Odin with the sentence 'What in the fucking names of Odin?!'. Skwigelf also references Valhalla in the sentence 'I will sees you in Valhalska.'" For that, I say, let's get rid of this Frigg-in' article. Mandsford 22:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete List of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 22:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Article simply needs work. :bloodofox: 23:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per many similar other noms with maybe some info to be transferred into the parent article.--JForget 01:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Capmango and Cayafas... Ranma9617 04:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep this is a closer call than most. There is more here than a list of cross-references; there seems to be some claim as to how the mythology was "reintroduced" - I've heard other versions mostly in the context of LOTR, but nothing pinned to WP:RSes. So I'm inclined to accept the topic as encyclopedic. However, what are needed are WP:RSes to back the facts. The standard for deletion based on lack of sources is that after some search, sources cannot be found. This AfD is the clarion call to the editors, find sources! Carlossuarez46 18:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Entirely unsourced and violates WP:NOT#INFO. Every small mention of any Norse god, myth, or story is indiscriminate as well as unencyclopedic. I think it is also important to point out that many of the keep reasonings above utilize WP:USEFUL. There is no reason to keep this article based on Wikipedia policy and/or guideline. María (críticame) 18:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Take it away, take it away, the awful thing. Entirely unsourced. It consists only of current advertising ephemera in list format. There are no unifying themes. This is not the yellow pages here. The articles should cover the mythology and if anyone sees a passing reference in a game or comic book they can look up the mythology. There must be hundreds of thousands of passing references. I don't know why these few were selected out for inclusion. Advertising opportunity?Dave 19:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There is already a category for this topic, which itself needs to be cleaned up. This list provides nothing that the category cannot do better. CaveatLector^Talk 10:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep not indiscriminate ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Notable subject which covers a large part of popular culture ranging from Tolkien to Marvel comics. I'd really like the nominator to explain more in detail how he reasons in this case.--Berig 13:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but trim down the modern stuff. It's just a laundry list -- only the first two sections, which resemble an actual article, save this in my mind. --Haemo 01:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Like most "X in popular culture" articles, it's recentist and contains horrid trivia lists, but a legitimate article can be written on this topic. I'd be very surprised if there aren't academic books on the topic. But cut most of the "modern popular culture" section, and consider renaming something like Reception of Norse mythology. EALacey 14:45, 9 July 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 04:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Valkyries in popular culture

Valkyries in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Yet another insufficiently sourced "article" consisting of mere trivia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of unsourced trivia. Ample precedent for deletion exists, see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural references to 2001: A Space Odyssey, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight Club in popular culture and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Strangelove in popular culture. MER-C 12:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - another directory of loosely associated topics seeking to capture every reference to Valkyrie or things that resemble Valkyrie or things that are just named "Valkyrie." Otto4711 12:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- WP:NOT. /Blaxthos 14:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- There are about 5 items in this list that are actually useful, and they should be merged into Norse mythology in popular culture (which should be kept). The rest of this article can be deleted, it's almost all cruft Capmango 15:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Just a list of loosely associated terms, fails WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 22:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per others. Punkmorten 23:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 18:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT and trend against indiscriminate info, as mentioned in nom. María (críticame) 18:27, 3 July 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 04:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ride of the Valkyries in popular culture

Ride of the Valkyries in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Yet another unsourced "article" consisting of mere trivia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of unsourced trivia. Ample precedent for deletion exists, see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural references to 2001: A Space Odyssey, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight Club in popular culture and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Strangelove in popular culture. MER-C 12:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - as a directory of loosely associated topics. Otto4711 12:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- WP:NOT. /Blaxthos 14:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Ride of the Valkyries. Certainly doesn't need its own article, but it does give insight into the influence this piece of music has had. Capmango 15:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete List of loosely associated terms, fails WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 22:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete with some merge to the parent article as stated in Afd above.--JForget 01:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 18:48, 2 July 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, no prejudice to recreation by users independent of the subject. --Coredesat 04:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A A Baig & Co., Chartered Accountants

A A Baig & Co., Chartered Accountants (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article has a bit of history. It used to be a user page (User:Aabaig) I speedy deleted. The deletion was contested by the user on his talk page, asserting his company did meet the WP:CORP criteria. Since we both disagreed, I moved the page to the article space and I am bringing it to AfD. My opinion is that despite the fact that this company is on a list of accredited companies (with ~30 other companies from Pakistan), it does not make it notable, and its small size (30 employees) doesn't help. Delete -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Note - Article is also under discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#WP:COI_http:.2F.2Fspam.aabaig.com

• Delete per nominator; non-notable. Riana (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. multi article linkspaming for aabaig.com by 124.29.203.33 also presents a problem. see WikiProject Spam case --Hu12 13:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Request not to be Deleted. You guys may rather advise me to make necessary changes within the article to make it more appropriate and acceptable as per your regulations. I would also appreciate if you consider the following facts: a) This firm has around 100 employees if you include the employees which are hired by the firm but outsourced to various local and multinational organizations all over the country. The concept is known as Staff Leasing or HR Outsourcing. Since, such employees are hired purely for specific clients and are used there dedicatedly for long periods, such employees are not included by the firm in its manpower strength. b) Pakistan has more than 500 Accountancy Practicing Firms all working under license from the profession's regulatory body - the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan, however, only around 90 odd firms have satisfactory Quality Control Ratings. This firm is one of them. c) This firm was one of the first few professional firms / companies to have been given the status of ACCA Accredited Employer by ACCA even before companies such as Unilever Pakistan, Proctor & Gamble Pakistan, etc were given the same status. d) This firm's IS/IT Division's main clientele is UK based and the IS/IT Division's offices are also located in Leicestershire as well as in Newcastle - UK. Having offshore offices is a rarity among Accountancy / Consulting Firms in Pakistan. e)The firm's growth rate during the last financial year has been more than 100%. f)Keeping in view the fact that in Pakistan, there are only 5004 Chartered Accountants with 20% of them (around 1000) overseas, so from the point of view of Pakistanis and several other South Asians, this firm might justify a place at Wikipedia. g)You must note that Pakistan's economy is a growing one with one of the highest GDP growth rates in the world during the last consecutive three financial years. The economy is booming and so are professional service providers. This firm has grown from a relatively small sole practice into a medium size practice within a very short span of time (within five years). This too is an achievement for this firm. h)If you look at this firm's clientele, you will see that there are several top financial institutions which shows this firm's credibility. i) I will also appreciate if you look at the following wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzzacott "Buzzacott is a mid-sized London Accountancy firm based in a single office in the City. Buzzacott Lillywhite began trading in the City of London in 1919, by the late 1960’s the firm was working for a number of religious and charitable clients. Indeed, not-for-profit remains one of the firm's seven specialist teams together with corporate, private client, expatriate, VAT, IT & consulting and financial services. Buzzacott is a growing firm with around 200 employees and 18 partners and was ranked 30th in 2007 (with an income of £15m) in the Accountancy Age list of the top 50 accountancy firms." My reservation is that if a single office, single city firm which comes at number '30' in UK can justify a space at wikipedia, why cannot a multi office international firm like AAB justify a space at wikipedia. You may also visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergroup and you will understand my point more clearly. Please reconsider. Thankyou --Ahson Tariq— Ahson Tariq (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Neutral Response: Maybe if you were to have put that information in the article, rather than your list of services, representative clients and alliances, this wouldn't be so quick to be deleted. I'm well aware that firms such as yours pay of listings in directories, just as law firms list such information in "Martindale-Hubbell". I'll concede that articles like the one on accounting giant [PricewaterhouseCoopers]] have a list of their clientele, which may be considered "informational", but Wikipedia should NOT be advertising. A small firm that is striving to become a larger one is, essentially, advertising. If you want to see an example of a professional firm description that lists its offices, see Greenberg Traurig. Bear in mind, however, that the large firms built their notability before there was a World Wide Web. Mandsford 22:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- Spammy goodness (SPA/COI diatribe not withstanding). /Blaxthos 14:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Spamming Unintentional, not SPA and COI not relevant The spamming was not intentional and Hu cleared it to me earlier and I understood and noted his point. The issue of COI is not relevant here since the same info may be posted by tens of thousands of other people who know of this firm and they would more or less post the same facts about the firm. Lastly, the issue of SPA. Since this account has been created just today, you cannot classify it as SPA and you should wait for a while to see what range of topics is the particular user interested in.Ahson Tariq (talk • contribs
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP. Ashon, thank you for bringing Buzzacott and Intergroup to our attention - they should be deleted as well, and the appropriate procedures have been started. Tevildo 14:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• WP:CORP I have read WP:CORP and I do not see how the article under discussion violates any of the regulations / requirements mentioned in WP:CORP. It would be more fruitful if you explain the specific area where this article is in conflict. Maybe your'e right and that particular conflict can be removed from this article instead of deleting it altogether.Ahson Tariq (talk • contribs
  • From WP:CORP - "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." The only secondary sources currently listed on the page are the various professional regulatory bodies and associations that your firm is a member of, none of which count as non-trivial. We'll need an article that's specifically about your firm, not just its inclusion in a list of similar, non-notable, firms. Tevildo 14:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Ref | WP:CORP - ACCA is the world's largest accountancy body and has been around for over a hundred (yes over 100) years and has members in over 170 countries - Calling such an organization "TRIVIAL" is an absurdity. Moreover, we are not just a member of this International Accountancy Body, we are its "Accredited Employers" and there are not many in Pakistan who have this status. Coming to the second Accountancy Regulatory Body - Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan - then again, we are not only just a member of this Regulatory Body, we are one of the few firms in Pakistan who have satisfactory Quality Control Ratings. In my 'professional' opinion, comparison of a newspaper or magazine article, especially from those of local Pakistani print media WITH listing on the official websites of these prominent Accountancy Bodies is not appropriate. Nonetheless, here's an independent source from where you can check about our firm on the web media http://www.accountancy.com.pk/newsprac.asp?newsid=658 . Feel free to make further queries. Ahson Tariq (talk • contribs
    • Ref | WP:CORP - One more thing. Here's the wiki link of Ford Rhodes Sidat Hyder which is without a doubt one of the top most Accountancy Firms in Pakistan and represents Ernst & Young (Big 4) in the country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Rhodes_Sidat_Hyder As you will see, its entry is also not supported by any 'article that's specifically about the firm', even though it is indeed one of the top firms of the country. Still its entry is there at Wikipedia. Why do the rules not apply to everyone? I can give u several other entries here which although are not backed by news articles but still the organizations are such that they merit a place at Wikipedia. I will appreciate if after looking at the independent link http://www.accountancy.com.pk/newsprac.asp?newsid=658 , this article is not subjected to further open scrutiny for deletion. Regards and thanks.Ahson Tariq (talk • contribs
      • The rules do indeed apply to everyone. Ford Rhodes Sidat Hyder is equally unreferenced, and equally at risk. The proverb "If you're in a hole, stop digging" comes to mind... :) Tevildo 15:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
        • You asked me to provide you with an "article that's specifically about the firm and not just some listing" and I provided you with the same. So,.... Now what.....? Ahson Tariq(talk • contribs}
          • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or don't exist. See also Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Lets keep the focus on A A Baig & Co., Chartered Accountants.--Hu12 16:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
          • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I agree with you that giving examples of other articles is not the right approach. So let's shelf it. Let us come to the Notability Issue: I have comprehensively replied to that above. Let us come to the independent article request: I have provided the same. So, I ask now, what else do you require? Ahson Tariq(talk • contribs)
          • The new link is a press release from the firm themselves, and is therefore not an admissible secondary source. Tevildo 16:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
          • That new link is "not" a press release at all. Mufti Hassaan Kaleem is a prominent Scholar not only in Pakistan but in several other countries and when the news of his joining AAB went out, we were approached by several business newspaper reporters as well as the owner of this accountancy portal namely, Mr. Mairaj Ghous. He asked specific questions and reported the same on his website. Hence, this is not a press release, but an independent reporting. Secondly, you may also visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Chartered_Certified_Accountants#.28D..29Pakistan and click on Aureole Training link. Here you may visit the ACCA section of this Institute's website and you will see that some of the partners / directors of this firm are part of the lead faculty of this Institute as well. Moreover, in the following online documents, you will find details about Mufti Hassaan Kaleem who is a director in the firm. http://www.1stethical.com/News_5.pdf http://www.iifm.net/confhome/Brochure.pdf Here are more links about the firm's director Mr. Kaleem http://www.alhudacibe.com/newsletter/jan-07/emerging_market_4.html http://www.cie.com.pk/consultancy.htm http://www.pktcl.com/en/ShariahBoardAdvisory.aspx Lastly, but not the least, visit http://www.timelenders.com/services.htm here you will note that Time Lenders Inc. which is incorporated in Chicago as well as in Boston and Karachi has AAB as its strategic alliance / partner. Check their clientele and please tell me if such a distinguished International firm has AAB as its strategic partner, is the firm AAB not notable enough. Are all these "secondary" sources not admissible too?Ahson Tariq(talk • contribs)
• Guys, I think this discussion can go on and on forever, so I'll throw in the towel. You guys do what you feel is appropriate. However, I must commend the moderation team here who are very vigilant. Lastly, I propose that you guys may consider waiting a bit and see whether any visitor (apart from moderating team) has any objection to this article. If it is reported, then the moderating team can consider deleting the article, while in the meantime, it may consider ending this deliberation on removing the article and remove the box on the top of the article for the time being which says that the article's deletion is being considered. Regards and thanks. Ahson Tariq(talk • contribs)
• Delete per nomination as well as the fact that the article is mostly made up of external links. (consider me outside the "moderation team", although one doesn't really exist...) Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 17:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Damned if you do, Damned if you don't. The external links were for authenticity. Moreover, The article could have contained thousands of words, but it was deliberately kept the way it is to ensure that it served an information purpose rather than commercial purpose. And the endless debate goes on..... Ahson Tariq(talk • contribs)

• We all are missing one important point here. Accountancy Firms are grooming / training grounds for Finance Professionals all over the world. Tens of thousands (if not in hundreds of thousands) of Students of ACCA, CA, CIMA, et al look for recruitment in Accountancy Firms all the time. Do a random search of the web and you'll see that information regarding Accountancy Firms is easily available for US/UK/Canada/Australian Accountancy Firms. But when it comes to Accountancy Firms in Asia, there is no organized information available for these students. Wikipedia's Accountancy Firms page can help fill that gap with country-wise information about various Accountancy Firms. However, the theme should be informative rather than commercial. Ahson Tariq(talk • contribs)

• Keep, because of references and client list in article shows notability. Add more description/history kind of stuff, maybe images, though, but in summary, keep and improve, seems notable enough for such a large encyclopedia. --24.154.173.243 00:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination -- not notable per WP:CORP. --A. B. ^(talk) 02:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination (but allow for independent recreation). Article contains no information whatsoever, let alone its assertion as notable. Please put the article on WP:RA. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Not notable. Narson 21:23, 4 July 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 deleted by Coredesat non admin close. Whispering 11:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A A Baig & Co., Chartered Accountants

A A Baig & Co., Chartered Accountants (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This page doesn't seem to fit the notability guidelines and might be used as an advertisment. The images on the page are dead and most of it's content seems to be exteranal links. This article should be deleted. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 10:27, 7 July 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 The result was speedy delete per criterion G11. --Evilclown93_(talk) 12:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shou Records

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

NN label, spam, fails WP:CORP and the intro reads like some fanboy listing! Lugnuts 10:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as {{db-spam}}, nothing but vanispammycrap -- I can never spell that right. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 12:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• I should also point out, I've never seen {{infobox band}} used for a record label before... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 12:01, 1 July 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 need, since it was blanked it sould no longer be a problem. Try to bypass your cache (pressing Ctrl+F5 on any Wikipedia page, usually) if you still have problems.. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Aditya Kabir/monobook.js

User:Aditya Kabir/monobook.js (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Aditya Kabir 10:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: On preview, this page appears to import a script called twinkle.js. --Charlene 10:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Help, please. And, this twinkle is screwing up with my monobook. Damn. I hope my account isn't compromised yet. Aditya Kabir 11:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as {{db-author}}, seeing as page has been blanked; I'd tag this page but it's protected. Help us, o admins. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 11:57, 1 July 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 04:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neocommunism

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

This neologism can not possibly be identifyed and attributed to reliable sources, 'couse it has no tangible content. Carn 10:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: After searching around the internet, I see that this term is mostly used to describe the corrupt, autocratic post-Soviet régimes like that in Belarus, which rely heavily on the dismantling of basic freedoms and the establishment of a self-perpetuating personality cult. These staples of post-Soviet autocratic régimes are far removed from Communism in its ideological form. Although the subject is rather interesting, it might more faithfully described as being closer to a diluted form of second-wave Stalinism.. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 13:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of meaningful content without prejudice to recreation under a better style. Shalom ^Hello 13:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. The entire article: "Neocommunism can refer to any recent development in Communist or Marxist thought." I suppose it can. Mandsford 22:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless editors can expand this significantly with reliable sources, otherwise that will only go into the parent and appropriate articles.--JForget 01:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I suspect that it is a valid term...unfortunately it fails just about ... everything ... in its present form. (No assertion of notability, no reliable sources, etc.) --Tim4christ17 ^talk 11:54, 2 July 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 JodyB _talk 02:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sameh almadhon

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

No Google hits for either the spelling of the name in the article or the spelling in the title, other than those sourced directly or indirectly from this Wikipedia article. Unless verifiable evidence from third-party reliable sources can be provided for the existence of this person, the article should be deleted. Arthur Frayn 10:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep There are 300,000 Google hits for the Arabic spelling. I found that the standard English spelling is Samih Madhoun (standard vowelization and dropping the "al" prefix). That spelling has 12,500 Google hits, including this news story. Shalom ^Hello 16:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. A person doesn't qualify as "notable" if the reliable third-party coverage is short-lived. Since he's now dead, I suspect there will not be any further coverage. The claim to notability seems to be based on the fact that he was recently killed. I don't see how that makes him notable. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 03:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, sources found and article tidied up. John Vandenberg 05:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • What other claims to notability does he have, other than having been "a senior leader" in a militant terrorist organization, and that he was recently killed in a clash with a rival militant terrorist organization? ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 23:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:32, 6 July 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 04:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Generational secret

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

Contested prod... I think! Originally prodded as a neologism. An attempt to conflate different vernacular uses of the phrase in order to create a new concept. No references and no relevant ghits beyond everyday usage, nothing to support this as a distinct concept that's in general use. When I prodded it the author vandalised it and left a strange message implying she was done forever with WP. Not quite nonsensical enough for speedying, hence this AfD.

I am also nominating a related page from this author:

Tatee (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

It's an unreferenced dictionary definition, now transwikied to Wiktionary. The article has not been expanded beyond a dictionary definition and there's no evidence or assertion of notability (the article even says it's not a term in wide use). Again, when I prodded this the author vandalised it.

andy 09:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete both neologism/dictdef. /Blaxthos 14:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice for a different generational secret article. The term is used in counselling, but that's a different use than what appears in this strange article. Capmango 15:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Nom and Capmango -Flubeca^Talk 16:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Save

My dear learned ones. Yes my self deletion had some unusual content. There are items unwritten that you are of the blessed few, not to have experienced. I attended a family reunion last year of which upon introduction, I found my status."Oh I didn't know Claude Derrill had a son". The man mentioned was my father, I at one time was his son. Being "unique" to the point of becoming a Generational secret, made me aware of it's implications and the energy needed with in a family to keep such persons unknown. I suffered through electric shock, chemical shock and solitary confinement for 30 days at a time, just for being different. Now as I am becoming a most wonderful Transformed Woman, I find the need to remain in the shadows, sub notes, whispered entries a total waste of energy I may be speaking from another culture, that is unfamiliar to my judicial board, but am willing to dialog with any and all in my justification. For at one time was not the world considered flat, and all who believed otherwise burnt at the stake? I ask for even a subcategory of unexplored words, even if needed a category of undesirable word notation. I do appreciate being considered unique, if curiosity is of effect please to venture to my space countess_estelle. Thank you for consideration of my entries, and I do wish to have the option of self deletion, if that may be afforded.

Ms. Estelle Irene Kinkade Wilson II

• Delete - no reliable sources and no indication it can be extended beyond a dicdef. -- Whpq 14:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete especially the second one as a slightly expanded dicdef. theProject 03:04, 4 July 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 04:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mitch Modeleski

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

This is another of those hated WP:BLP messes. (We can thank Jimbo for starting a terrible precedent with Alan Dershowitz, but I'll leave that discussion for some other time.) The article used to look like this, but in the face of edit warring, an administrator was forced to protect the page and convert it into a stub. Now there's a debate at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Paul Andrew Mitchell (the same person), and someone said, take the article to AFD, it's only one sentence long anyway, and then the talk page will fall automatically. I thought, great idea! The only complication is that this wasn't always one sentence long. Regardless, I believe that keeping the BLP in any form may cause more trouble than it's worth.

To be clear: I make no judgment about the fellow's notability. I just think that with certain articles - the Bogdanov affair comes to mind - it may be better to have no article than a controversial article. I'm willing to get a "speedy keep" thrown at this if only to make sure it's been considered. Shalom ^Hello 09:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Looking back on the article's history, there don't appear to be any references that confirm the subject's notability. If all he's done is to file a frivolous lawsuit against AOL, I don't think that makes him notable. If he's done anything else to make him notable, the article should say what that is. Even if we revert to one of the non-stub versions, that information isn't there. Tevildo 11:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I think that the nominator (Shalom) should state explicitly whether or not they support deletion of this article; it's not clear from the nomination. Tevildo 11:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

  Response Great question, Tevildo. I Googled the fellow's name, and the first hit (ahead of Wikipedia!) was Wikitruth.info's archive of the "uncensored" version. Let's use that as a starting point if we decide to restore the article. I would want to rewrite the last two paragraphs to soften the tone. Looking at the references, it's clear that this fellow has earned an underground following, but just about everyone knows he's a crazy idiot. Here we enter the intersection of notability and neutral point of view. I think notability, as an independent baseline, is satisfied in the Wikitruth version - there are multiple, nontrivial sources, including a full article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, describing this fellow's activity. However, when you analyze what he is advocating, you realize that his theories are cultic conspiracy bollocks accepted by nobody with a brain inside his skull. So I'd suggest that the "undue weight" clause of WP:NPOV overrides the bare minimum of notability. In the sea of human knowledge, this guy barely qualifies as a twig of seaweed. Shalom ^Hello 13:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I checked that reference from our history; I'm still not convinced that it makes him notable (as opposed to his lawsuit being verifiable). There are many ways that self-published authors attempt to gain publicity - this may be one of the more original methods, but, unless it's propelled his book into regions where it can pass WP:BK, he doesn't deserve an article here. Tevildo 14:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This is a "weak" delete. I edit fairly heavily in the tax protester-related articles in Wikipedia. The subject of this article is indeed a promoter of Tax protester arguments, and I have been following his "career" (if you will) for some time. On balance, I would say he is somewhat notable, but arguably not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. That of course could always change later. Yours, Famspear 13:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Just to follow up, I opine that tax protesters are a dime a dozen. The main reason I categorize this fellow as not yet notable enough is that he has had, as far as I know, no criminal legal problems. Any fool can file frivolous civil lawsuits. My unofficial main criterion for judging the notability of a U.S. tax protester is: Has this person been prosecuted criminally? Very, very few people are actually prosecuted for Federal tax crimes in the United States. As far as we know, the subject of the article has not been prosecuted criminally. Yours, Famspear 14:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No assertion of notability; being described as a "tax protestor" is not sufficient grounds for inclusion per WP:BIO, as not all tax protestors are inherently notable. The article needs evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Walton^talk 15:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The edit which show at least something is [8] Except for the final sentence, I see no reason why the article in that form would violate BLP, provided a source were found for some of the legal resolutions; and I'm sure a source could be found saying something like that as well. DGG 23:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn person. Carlossuarez46 18:55, 2 July 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 Benjamin Nathaniel Smith. NawlinWiki 03:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Won-Joon Yoon

Won-Joon Yoon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable victim of a spree shooting Richard 08:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep I can't really explain why; I just don't think any one person is nonnotable in the context of a spree shooting. This problem has arisen in connection with the Virginia Tech Massacre and other incidents. Shalom ^Hello 09:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or possibly mege these 2 vic pages into a central (not yet created) 1999 Illinois shooting spree (etc). Most of the event's details are covered in the shooter's article Benjamin Nathaniel Smith. We've had a number VT and 9/11 victim articles come though AfD recently, and WP:MEMORIAL and WP:BLP1E make good points. --Breno ^talk 13:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Breno. I'd be careful, though, about extrapolating WP:BLP1E to dead people, since some dead people are notable for doing one thing - Benjamin Nathaniel Smith, for instance. --Charlene 13:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah I asked over on BLP if that was correct.. turns out BLP1E should not be used for the deceased. Still, MEMORIAL does apply. --Breno ^talk 19:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to the shooter's page. JJL 23:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to the shooter's page. - Agree with JJL. Redirect is probably the best approach. --Richard 00:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Benjamin Nathaniel Smith;, this article doesn't contain any biographical facts that cant be summarised on the shooters page. John Vandenberg 05:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• merge as per John. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:32, 6 July 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. Most of the arguments to keep aren't based in policy or guidelines; whether Wikipedia is or isn't becoming too restrictive isn't a reason to keep or delete an article. --Coredesat 04:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Themes and motifs in Harry Potter

Themes and motifs in Harry Potter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

It is largely unsourced and consists almost entirely of original research. It has been up for months and no serious action has been taken to revise it Serendipodous 08:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This is an excellent example to illustrate my opinion that an attributed article can contain original research. At best, this article falls under the synthesis clause. There is no way to write a neutral encyclopedic article under this title. Shalom ^Hello 13:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite: there have been enough books written on this subject that we surely could have an article that discusses various authors' views of these themes. Nyttend 14:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: To avoid being original research, and belong in an encyclopedia, this article would probably have to not only be completely rewritten, it would have to have a different title. I can see an article on critical reaction to Harry Potter being appropriate, but "Themes and Motifs" just feels more like something you'd find on a fansite. Skittle 15:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Article uses attributable facts to create new analysis, fails WP:NOR. Jay32183 22:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete origional research--Sefringle^Talk 05:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I personally don't have a problem with the article; we should just keep it... but that's just my opinion. DarthSidious 12:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious
• Keep The article may need to be revised, but with appropriate tags and warnings eventually someone will take an interest. The article does seem to be active, just no interest in cleaning up...yet. Libertycookies 14:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:SYNTH violation, unnecessary fork. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep & Rewrite - whereas the article as it currently stands seems to fail WP:SYNTH I'm not convinced that it should be removed. I think the idea of such an article is valid but it must be completely rewritten into an encyclopaedic tone and cite the many books dealing with literary analysis of the series as primary sources. However, I am hovering towards ambivalence on this one and will gladly welcome any attempts to convince me in either direction! Aula^TPN 18:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is an example of how not to write an article in Wikipedia. If the article is to be kept, it needs a complete deletion of all the text, removing all SYNTH and staying close to the sources. Better to delete and re-create, if someone has the inclination to do so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Which is basically what I suggested. ;-) Aula^TPN 13:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep -- The "powers that be" among wikipedians are becoming too restrictive in their judgements as to what should or should not be in wikipedia. Every other article is festooned with tags about references and originality and the like. Where did the spirit of anarchy go? If the article doesn't meet with your satisfaction, improve it, don't call for its elimination! Agricolaplenus 20:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It's original research. Elimination is the only way to deal with it. Jay32183 22:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per no original research. Whispering 13:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a synthesis of information forming original research. -- Whpq 16:49, 5 July 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, no consensus to delete. I personally think the title should be changed to Women in Iran, but I'll leave that for further discussion on the article talk page. NawlinWiki 03:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iranian women

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

Having grappled with this article from time to time, I have decided that the reason this article is difficult to work with is because it is not a real encyclopedia topic. Under the term ill-defined term "Iranian women" (notice that the definition itself lacks a source here) a wide variety of information pertaining to females from Iranian cultures, past and present, is arbitrarily selected to be added to this article. The association of these random facts under a supposed common term/phenomenon, "Iranian women," smells like a very strange form of OR by synthesis.

Material in articles have to be relevant to the topic, but if the topic itself has no certain definition, how can information be posted here as relevant? As this is not a real topic there can be no real content aside from synthesis relying upon the OR definition held by the editor. This kind of purposeless OR has no place on Wikipedia. The Behnam 08:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment A search on Wikipedia for Chinese women, Egyptian women etc. did not turn up any articles. At minimum we may need a name change. Shalom ^Hello 09:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that actual women's issues in Iran are already covered at articles with real topics such as Persian women's movement. While the latter article is also in pretty bad shape, it is possible that it has the benefit of possessing a concrete definition according to reliable sources, as any topic should have. The Behnam 10:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. None of the reasons mentioned above are convincing:

• It is difficult to write!: That's simply because you are not an expert and most of the sources are books written in Persian and they are not available online. The french version of the same article became Featured article. If you really want to write this article at the highest quality, you have to go to iran, buy books and read before writing this article.
• Under the term ill-defined term "Iranian women" : There is no problem with the definition. We have already pages on women in Muslim societies and so on. Such articles address the position of women in a particular cultural sphere. Iranian culture has also a very well defined definition.
• Material in articles have to be relevant to the topic: Well such an article has to cover the image of women in Iranian literature, art, paintings and also the contribution of ladies to the culture and society.
• OR is totally irrelevant. The topic has been addressed by numerous writers and researchers in Iran. There are journals and circles purely working on these topics in Iran.
• A search on Wikipedia for Chinese women, Egyptian women etc. did not turn up any articles. Not acceptible either. Wikipedia is not a finished project. There are articles like Women in Arab societies, History of women in the United States and more to come.
• I was also involved in writing both Iranian women and Iranian women's movement. The two articles are not equivalent. Iranian women's movement is a modern phenomenon and started in 19th century. Iran shrinked to its current size in modern time while it was bigger during Qajar era and before that. However I am not opposed to a "merge".

User:Behnam is a very valuable wikipedians. However some one who is not even able to read in Persian is probably not a right person for writing this article. And I think by smelling, he wont be able to make any reliable statement about the subject.

I vote for keep. Thanks. Sangak ^Talk 17:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. There is currently no other article that addreses the issue of women in Iran in its entirety. and such topics are essential, if not critical. e.g. similaer articles Women in Japan, women in India, etc.--Zereshk 19:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Persian women's movement covers the issue of women in Iran. But how is the topic "essential" or "critical" even as it lacks definition and scope? As for the others you mentioned, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The Behnam 22:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    • So tell me, how do topics like women's health in Iran, Iranian women's fashion, motherhood in Iran, Iranian women etiquette, and cultural issues of Iranian women relate to Persian women's movement? Or are they not "well defined" either?--Zereshk 05:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Right now I am not addressing the other articles as I know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is still a bad argument. Don't you? The Behnam 05:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
        • You still havent answered the question. How does Persian women's movement cover all those mentioned topics that Iranian women does (or is intended to)?--Zereshk 06:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
          • I'm not going to make recommendations about that other article here as here is not the place for it. However you bring up what I said about the article lacking definition and scope. Without a real definition it is hard to describe the scope of the article, a.k.a. what it is "intended to" cover. The Behnam 06:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
            • So you agree that Persian women's movement is not able to cover all issues of women in Iran, which Iranian women does by being a more general article. Lack of scope is hardly a reason for deletion. I dont buy that argument.--Zereshk 06:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
              • I didn't agree or disagree with anything. BTW, there is much more to my deletion than simply the "scope" aspect. I strongly encourage you to read this page, as knowing what else has been written can help you better express your own views on the deletion debate. Thanks. The Behnam 06:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but rename to "Women in Iran" and reorganize to be more focused on present day conditions. RandomCritic 20:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that the Iranian women's movement article covers present-day issues and there is no need to repeat them in the article for this pseudo-topic. The Behnam 22:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

*Keep - seems a perfectly valid topic although the article needs some work. Hard to say its not notable. Bigdaddy1981 21:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Please explain how this topic is "perfectly valid." For some time I've tried to see this supposed validity but found no real encyclopedic definition for the topic "Iranian women," as I have discussed in detail here. I feel like saying it is "perfectly valid" without responding to any of my concerns seems more like a "vote" and less like a debate. The Behnam 22:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, an article that presents information about the female persons of the region that is now modern-day Iran is valuable insofar as this information differs from that of the population as a whole - regardless of sex. This article purports to show that this is indeed the case. Thus, I consider it valuable. Information that cannot be sourced or that is OR should be excised, that doesnt mean; however, that the article itself is of no value. I apologise for not stating my reasons before due to laziness - I know its annoying to have people merely assert something is notable/encyclopedic without reason in these debates and shouldve known better. Bigdaddy1981 22:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, but the concern I have is about the existence of "Iranian women" as an encyclopedia topic, and I've yet to see how the definition that this article relies upon is anything but OR. I even had to recently remove what seemed to me an absurdity ([9]), but who are we to dictate the definition of this supposed topic? Per WP:OR we are not supposed to "define new terms," but that is exactly what this article does, and the collection of facts attached to it is based upon this assumed definition. The Behnam 22:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I can see some flaws in this article that may or may not be the ones you share. As far as I can see, the article defines Iranian women as those with an Iranian culture, speaking Farsi and living in the greater Iran region - I can see a problem arising as one can easily have women who are members of the first one or two groups that are not members of the second or third (for instance ethnically Persian women in the USA or UK who may not speak Farsi) - for that reason this definition may be a poor one. Additionally, the women described in the pre-Islamic section may well deviate from this definition. The author describes prehistoric burials without showing that these were of women of a Persian culture. I think I have to change my view to a relucatant (as I consider it would be valuable to have an article on the history of women of Persian culture) weak delete unless these problems can be fixed. Bigdaddy1981 23:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well. I think the definition is pretty clear. The two articles are covering "History of women in Persia/Iran". That's pretty clear. Iran is a multi-ethnic country. It size reduced over the last centuries. The word, Iran and Iranian in its modern usage only refers to nationals of current Iran. But for instance 200 years ago Iran was bigger. So we needed to explain that issue. We also needed to explain that Persian women means women of Persia (former name of Iran). The word Persian also refers to a particular ethnicity which accounts for the majority of people of Persian and Iran. But this article is not limited to those. In summary this article is the History of women in Persia/Greater Iran. The article Iranian women's movement was meant to cover the history of women in modern Iran (starting from Persian constitutional revolution). I think the definition is pretty clear. Please note that when we say German women (wome of Germany), we have to make it clear that they are not all ethnicly German. The same story is true for Turkish people and Turkey. There many Kurds who are nationals of Turkey. ... Thanks. Sangak ^Talk 13:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not so sure that the definition you offer above is the same as that of the article which defines Iranian women by stating "{t}he term refers to women who practice Iranian culture, speak Iranian languages and live mainly throughout the Iranian cultural continent." To me this clearly excludes non-culturally Persian natives of what is now modern day Iran (the pre-Islamic portion of the article) as well as any non Farsi-speaking or non-Persian women of Iran (Arabs, Azeris etc). Perhaps the article can be repaired along the lines that you suggect above? The topic - women of Iran - is an interesting and valuable one, however, the definition used is, imo, a problem. If steps could be taken to improve the definition I think a keep would be best for the wikipedia. Bigdaddy1981 16:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• @Sangak: Thanks for the extensive response. I'll response to each one:
  • It is difficult to write!: That's simply because you are not an expert and most of the sources are books written in Persian and they are not available online. The french version of the same article became Featured article. If you really want to write this article at the highest quality, you have to go to iran, buy books and read before writing this article. "
    • While I don't recall requiring expertise to work on Wikipedia, I'm not really questioning the individual facts stated in the article as much as I am questioning its basis for existence. I'm sure that an editor could add even more random facts somehow related to this concept "Iranian women" using Persian sources but this does not resolve the apparent lack of encyclopedic definition for the topic.
  • Under the term ill-defined term "Iranian women" : There is no problem with the definition. We have already pages on women in Muslim societies and so on. Such articles address the position of women in a particular cultural sphere. Iranian culture has also a very well defined definition.
    • How isn't there a problem with the definition? Throughout all of these months we have no RS defining this term, much less doing so in a manner that gives the article scope and direction to prevent it from being a collection of random facts that editors selected to associate to the topic. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good argument; in fact I'm thinking about nominating some of the other non-topic articles for deletion as well. I even thought about tacking Kurdish women to this deletion debate.
  • Material in articles have to be relevant to the topic: Well such an article has to cover the image of women in Iranian literature, art, paintings and also the contribution of ladies to the culture and society.
    • How do you determine relevance without a concrete and focused definition of the topic based upon reliable sources?
  • OR is totally irrelevant. The topic has been addressed by numerous writers and researchers in Iran. There are journals and circles purely working on these topics in Iran.
    • OR is definitely relevant. A "topic" lacking a concrete definition cannot be written about without using a definition and scope not rooted in reliable sources. The personal perception of the topic's definition & scope is combined with a raw fact taken from a source to advance an association, but as this association itself is unsupported by RS it is OR.
• In WP:OR, one of the examples of original research that should not be included in Wikipedia is anything that "defines new terms." The definition used in this article does not rely upon reliable sources and is essentially the opinion of an editor. As the article's definition and scope is OR, the article is fundamentally flawed.
  • A search on Wikipedia for Chinese women, Egyptian women etc. did not turn up any articles. Not acceptible either. Wikipedia is not a finished project. There are articles like Women in Arab societies, History of women in the United States and more to come.
    • While it wasn't my point (it was Shalom's), I think it should be clarified that Shalom seemed to be suggesting a name change at the minimum. Anyway, as I've said before, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't justify an article's existence; I am actively considering nominating others (such as Women in Arab societies) for deletion as well.
  • I was also involved in writing both Iranian women and Iranian women's movement. The two articles are not equivalent. Iranian women's movement is a modern phenomenon and started in 19th century. Iran shrinked to its current size in modern time while it was bigger during Qajar era and before that. However I am not opposed to a "merge".
    • I don't claim that they are equivalent and I think that Iranian women's movement probably has a concrete definition somewhere that provides direction and basis for the article. And while it isn't relevant, generally empires shrink as conquered lands break away or are taken by others. What article would you like to suggest for merge?
  • User:Behnam is a very valuable wikipedians. However some one who is not even able to read in Persian is probably not a right person for writing this article. And I think by smelling, he wont be able to make any reliable statement about the subject.
    • Again I'm not concerned about the sources for the facts (though I was back before cais-soas was blacklisted), but rather the source for the definition that should guide the entire article. And obviously I'm still not convinced that this is a real topic. BTW, "smelling" was not meant literally :)
• Anyway, thanks again for your extensive response as I appreciate real discussion of the article's merits (rather than simple voting). Hope to hear back from you. The Behnam 22:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Behnam! Thanks for your feedback. I think your major point is about the scope of the pages. Do you see any problem with "History of women in Persia/Iran"? When we are discussing women in old times we have no choice but discussing their appreance in literature, paintings and so on. "Iranian women's movement" is also very familiar to any Iranian. The persian translation is Jonbeshe Zanan e Iran. It was initiated in 19th century by a group of women who wanted to participate in politics, to have education for women, sport for women, music for women and so on. There are now several organizations and journals persuing those projects. Perhaps Iranian women were among pioneers of women activism in central Asia and western Asia.

If there is any ambiguities, that's not in the nature of the subject. That's due to the ambiguities in the name Iran/Persia. The same problem exists when you want to talk about German nationals or Turkish nationals etc. When one says A is a Turkish parliament member, people may automatically consider him/her from Turkish ethnicity. But we know that one third of the population of Turkey are Kurds. I know that politicians do not care about terminology. But wikipedia is a democracy and for that reason we explained these issues at the begining of "Iranian woman" page. Please note that this ambiguity does not exist in Persian language where the name of the land has been always "Iran". In English language the name Iran, was not in use until 20th century.

I do think this article has the potential to become a great article in future and I do not see any reason for deletion of the article. As I mentioned above the French version has a high quality and it reached FA status in the past. There are master programs in several Iranian Universities on "Iranian women studies". So the subject is very well-established. Sangak ^Talk 14:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about Iran/Persia ambiguities here, nor do I doubt the existence of the Iranian women's movement or its appropriateness in an encyclopedia. My problem is that this article is written based on a definition made up by editors based upon their personal ideas about what comprises the encyclopedia topic "Iranian women." Until this problem is entirely resolved I support deletion. And don't worry about the other stuff - I am getting tired of artificial topics elsewhere on Wikipedia too; I'm not trying to pick on Iran or something like that. BTW Wikipedia is not a democracy though it sometimes acts like one :( The Behnam 19:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If you are unhappy with the content, you may want to post a translation request to French wikipedia and have the FA version translated into English. Or you may want to contact an expert to step in. Or perhaps you may want to search in the web and find sources like Women's live in ancient Persia and The Women's Movement in Iran and improve the article. Alternatively, one can think of merging the two articles. I think deletion does not make sense. Sangak ^Talk 11:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Citations to research, encyclopedic value, and the author handles the topics with objectivity. The objection appears to be to the title. The status of women around the world is of interest to more than 50% of the globe's population, not just to our "better half". Mandsford 22:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The objection is to the complete lack of definition and scope for this article. Some others have objected to the title but I object to the article itself as fundamentally flawed per WP:OR: "It defines new terms." The Behnam 22:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep" as an excellent effort at writing a NPOV article. The material is encyclopedic, and the editors can think about a better title. a good case has been made for other similar articles--saying they aren't there is not an argument against this one. DGG 23:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Please validate the article's topic. I've raised a number of concerns about the existence of this term as a topic and have pointed out the OR basis for this article. BTW, I've never used those other articles as a reason for this one to be deleted; I have only reminded others that the existence of those articles does not justify the existence of this article. Per WP:OR we are not supposed to "define new terms," but that is exactly what this article is doing, and the entirety of this article relies upon this OR definition. The Behnam 23:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not an article about a phrase. Its an article about a subject. The qy. of the best name for the subject is an editing question. It should be a neutral descriptive phrase. I myself cant think of anything much more neutral than this, but perhaps somebody will when the discussion returns to the article talk p.DGG 00:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It claims to define a certain encyclopedia, "Iranian women", and without basis associates a variety of different facts with this supposed idea. The definition provided in the article is and has always been OR. There may be a simple dictionary-type definition that can be accepted as obvious, such as "women from Iran," though you don't find this explicitly defined either. But to claim that there is a detailed definition, a topic with a specific and meaningful scope of relevance, is completely unfounded, and the article is not acceptable until this foundation can be established, and this established definition can redefine the content of the article. Right now it is just a collection of facts and pictures included because of the definition made-up in the lead or because of the personal notions of editors. This AFD has been disappointing from a debate perspective. So far I've mostly run into unsubstantiated claims (see the below "vote"), various distractions unrelated to my reasons for nomination (mostly along the lines of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), and begging the question (such as yours - "its an article about a subject", despite the fact that the existence of "Iranian women" as an encyclopedic subject is one of the very things that I am questioning in this AFD).

• Keep definently encyclopediac topic and material is encyclopediac. Also seems to be pretty well sourced.--Sefringle^Talk 05:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Should I just take your word for it? Your response doesn't address any of the problems I have brought up here. Dude, this is a debate. The Behnam 05:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep encyclopedic article on topic rarely found in an English language encyclopedia. Serves to strengthen Wikipedia by countering systemic bias. Promotes understanding of women's issues and contribution of women to Iranian culture in an objective manner. One editor argued that the article has a complete lack of definition and scope, but I disagree. IMHO once the title is changed to something like "Women in Iranian Society" the scope and definition are no longer an issue. --Chicaneo 01:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Strike through on --Chicaneo 02:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Upon further reflection, and after working on the article, I now tend to agree with Sangak regarding keeping the article's name. Sangak has made very strong arguments in support of the title, in spite of many suggestions to change it. The contents of this article are unique and do not fit in with existing articles. Sangak's argument that the word Persian also refers to a particular ethnicity is what convinced me. I think a good comparison would probably be Hispanic women. Hispanic is a term that encompasses people from many nationalities while describing a commonality of Spanish ancestry. --Chicaneo 02:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I’m not quite sure I understand the OR argument. WP:OR refers to unpublished facts, and unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that advances a position or historical interpretation that is novel. The article is well sourced so it obviously does not rely on unpublished facts, analysis or synthesis. So then those who are taking the OR position must be arguing that the authors of the article are trying to push a certain POV, novel idea, or novel historical perspective. Please clarify for me what is novel about the existence of Iranian women in Iran and their contributions to their own society? Also, the argument that this article "defines new terms." has really got me confused. What new terms are defined? Could you list them? Surely you don‘t mean “Iranian women”. I think that term has been around as long as there have been women in Iran. Now I’m no expert on Iran, but I believe that would be since about 3200 B.C.. So what’s new about that? It’s possible that I have misunderstood these two arguments. If so, could you please provide clarification. Thanks.--Chicaneo 02:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

An 'unpublished definition' is just as much OR as the other unpublished variants, and in fact could be considered more severe, as it is equivalent to "made up." The new definition is that used for the encyclopedia itself. Have you read the lead or looked at prior versions? The concept of this the article has no sourced definition & scope and as such there cannot possibly be an encyclopedic article about it. There is no anchor for the definition of the topic, and this definition determines the material included in the rest of the article. I don't think that most of the facts included are necessarily OR - they look good overall, though I haven't checked each of them. I won't say that there is a specific POV pushed as the article is just a jumble of facts tacked to a page; perhaps some of them try to 'make a point' but that is aside from the point. Perhaps the sourced information should simply be relegated/kept elsewhere instead of pooled under this artificial article topic. BTW 3,200 BC sounds a tad too early - by about 3000 years. The concept of "Iran" before Parthian (I think) & Sassanian times remains unattested (the expected form would be *Aryanam but as the asterisk indicates, this is unattested). The cultural ancestors discussed at Iran are listed as starting 3200 BC - perhaps the coverage there is misleading so as to portray the nation of Iran as existing that far back. I'll think about some possible adjustments there. The Behnam 05:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, prior versions are irrelevant. The AfD is to determine the fate of the article that is shown in real time. What I hear you saying is that the intro section needs work. So what? Is that a reason to delete the entire article? No. The solution is simple. Just fix the intro to match the article. You said the article “defines new terms”. Again, what new terms??? Can you please list them? Surely you don’t mean “Iranian Women”? Now that you’ve clarified the timeline for me, that term has been around since about 200BC. I hope the terms you list are newer than this. --Chicaneo 16:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Zereshk although rename Women in Iran if that is the naming precedent for these kinds of articles. -- Joshdboz 13:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It would be quite a stretch to keep "Iran" in any case as this assumes that really ancient stuff counts as Iran. Perhaps for some nationalists this is the case but in reality the national concept of "Iran" is not attested to in Achaemenian times. I've had to remove anything suggesting otherwise from the main article (Iran). This is part of the vagueness. Does the encyclopedia topic "Iranian women" include women from all Iranian groups or just the nation of Iran? How much history is considered relevant? What aspects are considered relevant? We can't just have random facts tacked onto a page. The definition used in the article is OR. It amazes me that despite all of these 'keep' votes nobody has even moved to help out the article to address any of these problems. The Behnam 06:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you? As fas as I see, all you ever do is go around unreasonably tagging articles, deleting or decimating articles, engaging in editorial combat with everyone involved and throwing accusations at them, and reporting them to admins. Tell me one Iranian related article you have fully created and authored? Even one?--Zereshk 23:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll take you up on your offer to help out. But since "these problems" are your problems really, it seems reasonable that you should bring them up on the talk page, if you haven't already, and then you should accept the consensus whatever that is. --Chicaneo 16:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• 'Keep RS'ed ,encyclopedic, objective and certainly noteable. Dman727 18:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and rename, it should probably be History of women in Iran so it's the same as History of women in the United States. The Persian women's movement is a specific subsection of this article. gren グレン 02:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Move to Women in Iran. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Perhaps the subject definition could use some sourcing. A need for sources does not mean an article should be deleted. I think the concept of women of Iran is a legitimate one, and valid for an article. Aleta 19:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment - This is supposed to be more than a Wiktionary article. Perhaps in Wiktionary you can define "Iranian women" as "women from Iran" without incident (though there is no source for that definition yet), but encyclopedia articles need to have focus, definition, scope rather than just being a collection of somewhat-related facts. And throughout this debate this hasn't happened. And I doubt it will happen even after this debate closes. Do know, however, that just as Zereshk so despises, I will relentlessly remove anything inappropriate from this article. I haven't much interest in 'creating' articles for this "encyclopedia," but rather removing crap from what exists already. Maybe after the crap is removed I'll try to make a full article on my own, but right I'm not interested. Zereshk's comment bringing up the question of my authorship of articles was inappropriate anyway. Like many Iran-related articles, this one also has issues. Considering that the problem is quite fundamental (with OR defining the topic & its scope), I suspected that this isn't a real encyclopedia topic (no, don't build the strawman that I don't believe Iranian women exist or similar BS misinterpretation of my arguments), and hence felt that deletion was best. However, since I failed to communicate my case against the article persuasively, it seems that this is heading for a "Keep," so I will simply cut the crap directly from the article upon the debate's closure.

Chicaneo, thanks for making some edits to the article, but as you don't seem to think that this article has any problems with definition & scope, can you please provide sources for the lead that explicitly back up every claim? Thanks in advance. The Behnam 19:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per above. --MaNeMeBasat 09:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and merge the decent content to somewhere appropriate, like the history of the Iranian women's movement. There's no reason why the women of Iran should be singled out in particular as far as I can see. The creation of articles for the women (and possibly the men?) of every country would be ridiculous. We don't have Scottish women, Spanish women, Nigerian women, Indian women, Japanese women, Russian women, Brazilian women or Australian women. The argument that other homologous subjects don't have articles is not valid generally as a reason for deletion but here it seems to apply.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep per above, specially Chicaneo. Where's the OR? What are the new terms being defined? 'Iranian women'? Article may need more work, but it definitely is encyclopedic. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 20:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Can you define the ideas in the lead and those ideas used in directing the article's development? So far there have been so many 'keep' votes and yet nobody has actually tried to address the fundamental issue here. All of the facts used in the page are loosely associated by pertaining to "Iranian women," but the definition of that term in the encyclopedic sense is not clear (and apparently nonexistent). Maybe, just maybe, you can try wiktionary for "Iranian women" but to present it as a unified subject suitable for an encyclopedia is preposterous. There just isn't anything to define what is relevant other than loose association to the undefined "Iranian women," and this is against WP:NOT (no loosely associated collections). The Behnam 22:47, 9 July 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. Peacent 09:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wombination

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

Do we really need to have this...? LamentIndex 08:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated this for speedy deletion as nonsense. Should work. :-) The Behnam 08:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete and redirect all to the school district article. --Coredesat 04:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amparo Gutierrez Elementary School

I'm also nominating the following schools because they're all elementary schools in the same school district.

Amparo Gutierrez Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Arndt Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Barbara Fasken Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Bonnie L. Garcia Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Borchers Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Centeno Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Clark Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Colonel Santos Benavides Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Cuellar Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

De Llano Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Finley Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Judith Zaffirini Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Juarez-Lincoln Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Kazen Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Kennedy-Zapata Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Malakoff Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Muller Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Newman Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nye Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Perez Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Prada Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Roosevelt Elementary School (Laredo, Texas) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ruiz Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Salinas Elementary School (Laredo, Texas) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Trautmann Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

United D.D. Hachar Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Amparo Gutierrez Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

1) Elementary schools are not inherently notable and 2) All these articles are clones of each other and there's no content in any of them. Delete and Redirect to the school district page Corpx 08:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: inherently non-notable duplicates... --It's-is-not-a-genitive 13:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all because they are hopelessly redundant. In addition, redirect all to the article about the local school district, and remove the link coding for those schools in the target article in order to discourage recreation. Shalom ^Hello 13:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all of them, failing WP:ORG. Some have actually been expanded from the template, e.g. Nye Elementary School, but notability is not established. This is something like "mass-schoolcruft". --B. Wolterding 20:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect/Merge all to the school district as Elementary school unless historical facts are generally nn.--JForget 01:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. —Tim4christ17 ^talk 11:59, 2 July 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 04:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hopeless romantics

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

This article has been here for months with nothing been done to make it into an encyclopedia article. I can't really see how it can ever be an encyclopedia article. Corvus cornix 07:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as above. Dazz(talk) 07:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. "In love with love" indeed... --Charlene 08:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete NOT WP:NOT#DICT. Moving the article to wikidictionary wouldnt be a good thing as this article more suited for urbandictionary etc.. Corpx 08:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above --It's-is-not-a-genitive 12:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC).
• Delete this foolishness. Bigdaddy1981 21:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; ah, but a hopeless romantic would know that this would happen, and would move on elsewhere... c'est la vie. Mandsford 22:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I'm not in love with this article. Cedars 04:44, 2 July 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 Thriller (album), without prejudice to recreating an article if someone can add content showing that the song in particular has notability (like, for example, Beat It). NawlinWiki 03:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Lady In My Life

The Lady In My Life (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Another non-notable Michael Jackson album track which User:Superior1 refuses to leave as a redirect to the album page. Corvus cornix 07:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Dazz(talk) 07:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete NOT WP:NOT#DICT. Moving the article to wikidictionary wouldnt be a good thing as this article more suited for urbandictionary etc.. Corpx 08:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Is this on the right article? I'm not sure that a Michael Jackson song belongs on Urban Dictionary. --Charlene 08:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep - I think that we should allow time for references to be added to this article. References are out there, and instead of mindlessly deleting articles we should strive to find them. Give it time. Paaerduag 12:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• What references would ever do anything to this article to make it more than a run of the mill non-notable album track? Corvus cornix 18:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable album track. GassyGuy 19:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect back to the album. It might be on one of the best-selling albums of all time, but it's still an album track. EliminatorJR ^Talk 22:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Does the same go for all the album tracks on the Beatles albums and stuff like The Dark Side of the Moon? Superior1 02:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, for The Wall, another Pink Floyd album with all of the album tracks having their own articles, six of the tracks were released as singles. Are you saying the other twenty should be merged? Superior1 02:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:POKEMON for reasons why these arguments, while they may be valid (I have not examined the articles in question to see if they are), do not impact the keeping or deletion of this particular article. GassyGuy 02:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I am in danger of repeating myself to the point of being a broken record, but I am asking for time. Look at what I've done to the Just Good Friends article for those of you who think I've simply been talking myself up and actually doing nothing. That is not an article worthy of deletion. A stub, maybe, but not worthy of deletion. I need time to do this. Just a little bit. But if all of these AFDs are concluded swiftly then you will cut me short, and that will be extremely unfair. Please give me just a bit of time. What's the harm in that? I ask you again, what is the harm in giving me a little bit of time to expand and add references to these articles? There is no harm.Paaerduag 04:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• The problem is that there's still no evidence of notability. To prove that this album track is notable, it needs to have non-trivial coverage in reliable sources in which it is the primary topic. It has coverage in user-submitted reviews on sputnikmusic and amazon.com, which are not reliable sources. It has trivial coverage in album reviews. It has been performed on tour, but that alone is not a notability criterion. The problem, therefore, is not with the sourcing of these articles, but that the subjects themselves are unfit. GassyGuy 16:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I believe that songs that are on platinum alblums should be notable by default. The alblum is a major oneBalloonman 21:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I have told Superior1 that I am not going to be expanding or referencing either of the Thriller songs because I simply do not have the time. I don't care what you do, but my keep vote remains simply because this is a notable song, and Rolling Stone, which you conveniently forgot to mention, is indeed a reliable source, as is sputnikmusic and amazon IMO.Paaerduag 00:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• The Amazon and Sputnikmusic reviews are user-submitted. That is the same as a forum post or blog review, and therefore are not reliable. The Rolling Stone review is about the album, which proves that the album is notable. The song is not the primary topic, which is why that source does not demonstrate the notability of the song per WP:NOTE. GassyGuy 00:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete WP:MUSIC establishes some guidlines on the notability of songs and this song doesnt meet any of the requirements there. The song itself is notcovered in sufficient independent works, it is not ranked on a national or significant music chart, it has not recognized by journalists, biographers, and/or other respected cultural critics as being significant to a noteworthy group's repertoire, it has not won a significant award or honor (all per the article). I couldnt find out whether this one was released as a single, but even then due to the lack of a chart apperance I'd stick with my delete vote. Corpx 10:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Thriller. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails to assert any semblance of notability aside from being connected to a notable album. Trusilver 21:51, 6 July 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, defaulting to keep. Unlike The Lady In My Life (above), this article has substantive content discussing this specific song and why it is notable, and has specific references. NawlinWiki 03:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just Good Friends (song)

Just Good Friends (song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable album track, not a single. Creator is on a "create an article on every Michael Jackson album track spree". I tried redirecting, but the originator refused to leave it that way. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speed Demon (song). Corvus cornix 06:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Well there aren't exactly guidelines on what warrants a song its own article. Superior1 06:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I think that we should allow time for references to be added to this article. References are out there, and instead of mindlessly deleting articles we should strive to find them. Give it time. --Paaerduag 07:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • References about what? References which say this is other than a non-notable album track? Such references will not exist, because it isn't anything other than a non-notable album track, no matter how many references you stick onto the article. Corvus cornix 07:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• If it has references, it would lead one to the conclusion that it isn't entirely non-notable.Paaerduag 11:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That makes no sense. Corvus cornix 18:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This song is a non-notable album track. References that prove otherwise should be produced now for the article kept, not vaguely promised for some future time. See Talk:HIStory for other problems related to this editor, where I proposed the merging of several of these non-notable tracks to their parent album (using the proper Proposed Mergers page etc.) and had the proposal closed by this editor in less than a week after a 2-1 vote by 2 members of WikiProject Michael Jackson. GassyGuy 12:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect back to the album per WP:MUSIC. EliminatorJR ^Talk 22:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Obviously you have entirely misread what I have said. If a song has references, that means that it isn't totally, 100% non-notable as some would have you believe. Also, I'm not promising references for some future time; don't put words in my mouth. Also, GassyGuy, were you planning to actually rebut the HIStory merging issue at the time, or where you going to keep your opinion quiet until some future time, such as now, when you could use the issue to your advantage? I'm getting references, whether you like it or not. --Paaerduag 02:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Expanded and referenced - shallow promises eh? I've added references, and am continuing to do so. Also, please don't quickly shut the other Afd's (as many of you would like) as I am going to improve them as well.Paaerduag 03:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• LOOK - I'd call it a lot better than it was. Sure, it ain't a long article, but it's referenced, and therefore it isn't as obscure as you might like. It no longer deserves to be deleted.Paaerduag 03:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Song reviews do not make a non-notable album track notable. Corvus cornix 16:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the proposed notability guidelines for songs includes "2: is a released single by a notable artist, band or group." This guideline is consistent with other notability guidelines that gives implied notability to a number of groups/writers/etc based upon affiliation to famous people (just look at WP:MUSIC and you'll see how this criteria is consistent with other notability guidelines there.)Balloonman 18:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Except it wasn't a single, so that guideline doesn't apply. EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I missed the phrase single... but I would still argue that any song on a platinum album is noteworthy. This album is 8x platinum.Balloonman 21:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Fine, but then where does that level of notability stop? That's why the guideline is there. EliminatorJR ^Talk 22:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Notability is just a guideline... I am not a music person... I couldn't identify 10 songs that reached the top 100 in the past year. I'm more into sports. But I have more respect for any song on a platinum album than I do for that backup linebacker who gained notability via a single game... or the book that nobody has heard about, but was written by somebody famous. The guidelines are broken, but if the potential exists for these non-notables to be considered notable, then you would be hard pressed to convince me that a song on a platinum album is any less notable.Balloonman 04:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I believe that a song that is on a multi-platinum album (in this case, 32 million copies worldwide) is a very notable song. Note that there are no current guidelines on song notability, see WP:SONG#Notability; There are currently no specific guidelines for the notability of songs. It is currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines/Songs. Contrary to what people have posted in this AfD, there ARE references in this article, maybe they have been added since it was nominated for AfD. Also I believe this discussion should be merged with Speed Demon (song) - ARC Gritt^TALK 23:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• And yet it still fails the primary notability criterion. That one trumps all other guidelines, including WP:MUSIC, which does leave grey area, although it does not explicitly pass any of those criteria either. Basically, this amounts to "keep because I think being on a notable album is good enough," but there is no policy which backs that up. GassyGuy 00:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. chocolateboy 22:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - funny how the concert image has mysteriously stopped working in the infobox. I don't know why, but I'm still puttin' it in as a thumbnail. If anyone knows why it doesn't work in the infobox, please tell. If anyone subterfugely removed it, sorry but it ain't going nowhere.--Paaerduag 03:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete by WP:MUSIC. Every Jackson album is notable, and most sold very well. However, that does not mean that every song on all those albums deserves an article. The song has to assert its own notability, either through cultural influence or popularity (did it chart well?). Tdmg 00:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Bad. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect to Bad. I don't like the trend of "every song for every notable albume deserves an article". While I did feel that Speed Demon had enough notability due to how prominently it was featured in Moonwalker, this one has no such secondary claim to notability beside simply being on a notable album. Trusilver 21:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:52, 6 July 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, non-admin closure of orphan AfD Hut 8.5 09:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] X-o.g

X-o.g (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable DJ. Claims of notability, so can't be speedied. Corvus cornix 06:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as above. Dazz|Talk 07:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• CSD db-bio Corpx 08:01, 1 July 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, defaulting to Keep, similar to Just Good Friends (song). NawlinWiki 03:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speed Demon (song)

Speed Demon (song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable album track. Every track on every album doesn't need an article. Corvus cornix 06:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to the album (Bad (album)). All info here is in the album article. Not-a-keep not-a-vote. -- saberwyn 06:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Creator is on a "create an article on every Michael Jackson album track" spree. Corvus cornix 06:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I was only planning to do HIStory, Thriller, Bad and maybe Dangerous. Blood on the Dance Floor and Invincible are unnotable. Superior1 06:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried redirecting Just Good Friends (song) to the album article, but Superior1 refuses to leave it that way. Therefore I have been compelled to nominate Just Good Friends (song) for deletion as well. Corvus cornix 06:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I think that we should allow time for references to be added to this article. References are out there, and instead of mindlessly deleting articles we should strive to find them. Give it time. --Paaerduag 07:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Adding references doesn't make this anything more than what it is, a non-notable album track. Corvus cornix 07:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Dazz|Talk 07:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete just being part of a notable album by a notable artist does not grant notability to a song. Unless the song made the charts/win notable awards etc, its not notable. I dont see any references to those in the artilce Corpx 08:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to the album. This song does not pass WP:SONG. --Charlene 08:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable album track. Viable as a redirect, not as an article. GassyGuy 12:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect back to the album per WP:MUSIC. EliminatorJR ^Talk 22:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect/Merge per Charlene and Saberwyn.--JForget 01:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I have repeated myself over and over again, but I hope not onto deaf ears. Look at the Just Good Friends (song) article if you don't believe me. That is what I intend to do to all four of these disputed articles. If you cut me short then I cannot. I ask for one thing, and one thing only: time. Give me a little bit of time to improve and cite these articles. That is all I am asking. Look at the Just Good Friends article if you think I am just talking. I am not. I am DOING.Paaerduag 04:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Notability of subject - I do not think that this is an entirely obscure, non-notable song anyway. It was, after all, featured on the film Moonwalker by Michael, and there is a music video that accompanies this. That makes it notable, after all. Paaerduag 04:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Just because a movie used it and a music video was made does not make this notable. I'd guess that thousands of songs fit this criteria Corpx 04:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well I still think it does make it notable.Paaerduag 04:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I believe that songs that are on platinum alblums should be notable by default. The alblum is a major oneBalloonman 21:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I believe that a song that is on a multi-platinum album (in this case, 32 million copies worldwide) is a very notable song. Note that there are no current guidelines on song notability, see WP:SONG#Notability; There are currently no specific guidelines for the notability of songs. It is currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines/Songs. Contrary to what people have posted in this AfD, there ARE references in this article, maybe they have been added since it was nominated for AfD. Also I believe this discussion should be merged with Just Good Friends (song) - ARC Gritt^TALK 23:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• There are references, but there are not references which demonstrate notability. WP:NOTE establishes that "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The sources either are not reliable sources or deal not primarily with the song, but with its parent album. That is a strong case for discussing the song within the article for its album, but not for keeping this one as its own independent article. GassyGuy 00:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. chocolateboy 22:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This is Michael Jackson. This is a notable song by Michael Jackson. Can we leave the bureaucracy at home on this one? It's obviously notable, if not for its interesting usage/subversion of a negative slang word normally reserved for Hispanics alone. In short the article has potential. --Manboobies 01:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The point is that there's yet to be any reliable source presented that shows it does indeed meet the guidelines set out by WP:NOTE. Notability is not subjective. I've seen nowhere that says "It must meet the criteria except if it's associated with Michael Jackson, in which case we can ignore them." GassyGuy 04:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Rolling Stone magazine IS notable. Why do you keep ignoring that one? Also, why must it be about the song itself? I don't see why comments within a larger framework are wrong? And if you start quoting WikiProjects, I'll simply direct you to WP:SONG, which states that "there are currently no guidelines for the notability of songs."--Paaerduag 09:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring Rolling Stone. If you read me, I already said that this is not non-trivial coverage of the song, as the primary topic of the article is the album, proving the notability of the album, not the song. Also, I don't see why you're linking to WP:SONG when it is not the WikiProject's unofficial notability guidelines I am invoking, but rather the primary notability guideline. I am starting to feel like a broken record and apologize to whoever closes this. GassyGuy 00:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Bad. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. ONLY because of it's connection with Moonwalker and the video that was produced for it. I feel that those two things combined with it's connection to the album are enough to confer suitable notability to the article. Trusilver 21:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. Everyking 09:07, 9 July 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 ck lostsword•T•C 00:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amil Imani

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

As has been discussed on the article's talk page, this guy isn't really notable enough for Wikipedia. WP:FRINGE applies here, as his views definitely qualify as fringe views, and it is definitely undue weight to give him an article. I have to do this through AFD because the proposed deletion, which was seconded by another user, was invalid because the page's author, User:Patchouli, removed the 'prod' tag earlier, and no exception was made to allow the prod go through even after 5 days. Anyway the guy is still not notable and hence the article should be deleted. The Behnam 06:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete WP:Fringe or not, this guy fails WP:Notability by a wide margin. VanTucky 06:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as above. Dazz|Talk 07:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I dunno... I see 90K Ghits for him... A lot of people seem to be listening to what he has to say. --Groggy Dice T | C 00:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This was discussed already on the talk page. Fringe, hate sites and bloggish stuff, mainly. He also appears on some sites where people can submit their writing for posting. But I don't see much mainstream RS about him to make him notable, and we are also not supposed to place undue weight on fringe views & activists. If the fact that he features prominently on anti-Islamic fringe sites doesn't convince you that he is fringe, I suggest that you read this rant. It doesn't even come close to being mainstream. The Behnam 01:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't need "much," just enough, & our definition is enough=2. DGG 00:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Should I say "any" instead? I don't like pretending to know everything so I don't say "any" just in case there is something really big that I have missed. The Behnam 05:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete NN ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 18:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per The Behnam. No reliable sources about him and Google News hits only show articles by him. Not notable by a longshot.--Ispy1981 21:40, 7 July 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 04:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fillmore 4th of July Festival

Fillmore 4th of July Festival (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fourth of july festival whose only claim to fame is the sale of fireworks. Corvus cornix 06:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Its a Fourth of July festival. Is there anywhere in the United States of America that does not have a Fourth of July festival? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bankstown Christmas Carols for my reasoning why a location's festival does not need an article when every location in the same nation/continent has the same festival. -- saberwyn 06:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow, saberwyn, you were prescient!  :) Corvus cornix 07:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Dazz|Talk 07:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There's nothing unique about this festival that vastly sets it about other 4th July celebrations! Corpx 08:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If festival is significant to the town and the surrounding area, I think it then deserves to be recognized on Wikipedia.
  • —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjhecht (talk • contribs) Corvus cornix 19:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non notable firework showBalloonman 21:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no references that establish its notability among fireworks shows. We do not take the authors word for the article's notability, he needs to provide evidence for that. Tdmg 00:46, 6 July 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 04:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Josh Appell

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