Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 18

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

The result was Speedy Delete (CSD A1). Peacent 03:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Return of The Glass Slipper

The Return of The Glass Slipper (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Empty article save for infobox asserting a "2007 School Play". Nominating The return of the glass slipper for the same reason.

• The return of the glass slipper (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)—  MusicMaker 00:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. It seems that this should be speediable per CSD A1 or A3. Deor 00:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - {{db-empty}} or {{db-nocontext}}. --Evb-wiki 00:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I always forget about CSD. They've been so nominated. —  MusicMaker 00:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete -- Ssilvers 02:04, 19 June 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 07:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Facebook stalking

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Captain panda 23:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms & WP:NOT. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 23:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete A1 and per above. YechielMan 04:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete to avoid neologisms. Agree with Hdt83. --Bren ^talk 04:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JJL 04:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above Stevecudmore 05:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. oysterguitarist~Talk 05:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; aside from being dicdef, Urban Dictionary is absolutely *not* a reliable source, and this could be any one of a multitude of possible "{popular website} {activity}" neologisms. Fourohfour 16:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopaedic. <KF> 21:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment -- I Facebooked your mom last night. Guroadrunner 02:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• in all seriousness, Delete Guroadrunner 02:59, 22 June 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 07:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Stunt

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

non-notable person. Claims of notability can't be verified and appear more like speculation. The rest of it reads like a fan biography. Was WP:PRODed but the warning was removed by an IP address. Internet searches yield little to no results (most I could find was tabloid Daily Mail article calling him a "notorious man-about-town". -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 23:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Appears to be a hoax article. Father's page was speedily deleted under A7 [1]. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 23:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete perhaps I should say Speedy Delete No Google hits from both the father and son, so delete per false info.--JForget 23:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Google searches done on the name and the companies he is supposed to be involved with bring up nothing. (And, yes, this article is just screaming "Hoax!") FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 00:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Additional Comment And a search on his name and that of the the member of Girls Aloud he is supposed to have been linked with brings up nothing. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 00:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Leave it on: To propose this article for deletion for lack of verifiable information is just outrageous and based on personal criteria (jealousy) rather than based on objective research. Most of the information on this article is based on two articles and a TV show:

Source: 31st May 2007 Daily Mail

Source: Tramp Magazine march 2007

Source: CNBC Squawk Box 29th of March 2006

If you read those two articles you will find out that the entire Personal Paragraph is based on those two articles and therefore backed up by a serious national English newspaper and Tramp Magazine a monthly magazine targeting the English upper class. As a matter of fact most of the information is copy and paste from the Daily Mail, from his Lamborghini to his romance’s with Known members of the English upper class.

Further to that his business Paragraph is backed up by companies such as IGH and United World, if you did your homework would have found through the “Company house” that both companies are registered in the UK, and both confirmed the existence of James Stunt and acknowledges his merits. Further more I have taken the Time and initiative to contact both Alvaro Llaryora and Count Indoo Sella Di Monteluce (Both backed up in the internet as you should know) and they have both confirmed their friendship and business relationship with James Stunt. Should you require more proof of such communication, I would be happy to provide you with the exchange of e-mails or you can contact them directly.

I Truly believe that your petition to delete this article is not based on any Wikipedia policy as most of the information is backed up by reliable sources, but based on your own individual opinion which should not be considered when deciding whether to leave this article or not. I would imagine the editorial of such sources should be taken into account above all personal views including mine and therefore yours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.198.189 (talk • contribs)

Afa-press, Intercom Ltd and United World: My name is Donald Trelford and as you can see on wikipedia I am the ex editor of the “Observer Newspaper”, for the past few years I have been working as a consultant for the Afa-press group and as you can see from one of their web pages (http://www.intercom-ltd.com/interviewstv.htm) I have conducted a series of interviews on their behalf with notorious politicians around the world such as actual President of Pakistan General Pervez Musharraf. This morning I came across James Stunt’s biography and even though I can not confirm all of the information on it I would like to confirm James Stunt’s involvement on the production of special report on Saudi Arabia distributed on the USA Today and his personal relationship with Alvaro Llaryora. I would also like to point out that James’s involvement was crucial for the success of the report.

Donald Trelford -- the preceding was original left by 86.144.198.189 (talk · contribs) [2], then 86.141.59.36 (talk · contribs) [3], and finally Donald Trelford (talk · contribs).

• Delete obvious hoax. A google search of ""James Stunt" billionaire -wikipedia" yields exactly one hit: myspace. Anybody with the claims this individual is making would be all over cyberspace, not just a couple of newspapers that, convienently, do not have on-line links. The attempt by the article creator to pass off a getty images photo (with the watermark all over it, no less) as being his own creation clinches it. Resolute 04:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete agree with Resolute. Stevecudmore 05:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete It looks like a hoax. The only thing on it was the myspace page and here. oysterguitarist~Talk 05:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - the articles mentioned by the anon above are trivial mentions. The Squawk Box mention doesn't even appear to exist. I don't think it's a hoax, but he's definitely not notable - just some basically non-notable playboy. --Haemo 06:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Leave article on "Interactive Gaming Holdings, plc" My name is Thomas Taule Executive Chairman of IGH and I can confirm James Stunt's involvement in the development and creation of the highly successful VIP program and his subsequent purchase of the Company. signed Taule user name igh123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igh123 (talk • contribs) , then edited by User:81.154.180.91, neither of whom have many edits outside this AfD. Resolute 13:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete if not speedy delete. Very dubious article; in addition to the non-appearance of his name when "James Stunt" and "Sarah Harding" Googled together (see above), the searches "Alvaro Llaryora" and "James Stunt" together yield nothing, the quote "Stunt, is the only man I know who has ever reached the limit on a Centurion Card" only comes up on this article. Half the links are only to the thing they are describing, not actually factual references. In short, this article is at best mostly unverifiable, and at worst made-up nonsense. It would be better to start again if this guy is notable at all. Fourohfour 16:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Even the one reference link that works and gives a result is anomalous. Yes, it is on the Daily Mail site, but why is it the only mention of this supposedly "notorious man about town"? If he had come to the attention of the tabloid press, he would be generating a lot more than this one story. But... he doesn't. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 18:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

'In responce' Flowerpotman you clearly have not checked the link properly on tramp magazine, if you had you would see that if you enter the tramp magazine link and then click on the subscribe today option you will see that it shows the front cover of their magazine and the name JAMES STUNT is clearly mentioned as being LONDONS TOP JETSETTER. So, Daily Mail is not the only mention of him in public media. Article is not a hoax, it should be perhaps edited not deleted. — 81.154.180.91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment There is an image with that text on it, which a search engine wouldn't have picked up, indeed. However I should also point out that a backwards Google search, checking what links to a particular site is interesting. Checking to see what links to the home page of the Tramp Magazine website, and you can try that at home by clicking this link, generates all of two links, and one of them is a MySpace profile. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 01:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete but only because WP:HOAX is not a speedy criteria -- Whpq 17:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Obvious hoax. If it wasn't the people who showed up only for this Afd should have been able to provide reliable sources. Edward321 23:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete as a hoax. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The illuminator

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

(warning: article is about a sex act.) I suspect that it is a hoax, or non-notable. No sources cited, and I could find nothing on Google to verify it. greenrd 23:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete G1, patent nonsense. YechielMan 04:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Unsourced, looks like something made up one day. Fails WP:V. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, unsourced, possibly a gagVectorsap 23:44, 20 June 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 07:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ricardo Lagomasino

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

Non notable musician, apparent vanity piece Michael Johnson 22:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No real assertion of notability. The myspace link proves it. YechielMan 04:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Only link is to myspace. Not notable artical. oysterguitarist~Talk 05:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete biography of non-nnotable. Since when was Myspace a reliable source? Ohconfucius 10:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Worthy of a save if there is some stuff that is notable that is not written. Looks poorly written as it is now.Vectorsap 23:45, 20 June 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 07:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfterDawn Oy

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

Fails the criteria at WP:WEB and could possibly go via WP:CSD#A7. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 22:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete — Fails WP:WEB and completely non-notable. *Cremepuff222* 00:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Bren ^talk 04:36, 19 June 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. Sr13 07:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jen Hawkins

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

article on corporate model/spokeswoman fails to establish notability as per Wikipedia notability guidelines WP:Notability (people) Canuckle 22:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment as nominator. This article may be spam as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Henthorn just below. I'm willing to believe a company CEO could potentially be notable but the company spokesperson? Canuckle 22:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable, and most likely spam or vanity piece. I have also nominated Jenn Hawkins. As both articles are about the same person, one should surely be speedy deleted? --Michael Johnson 02:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Google News Archive comes up with nothing relevant for either spelling nor does Google News. Redirect to Jennifer Hawkins as most hits for either spelling are for her. Capitalistroadster 02:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• If deleted, support recreation as redirect to Jennifer Hawkins, per Capitalroadster. No stance on actual deletion. -- saberwyn 03:00, 19 June 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. Singularity 23:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John McGrady

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

Wikipedia should not have biographies of living people notable for only one event Will ^(talk) 15:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: The article is currently at WP:DRV due to the closure of the previous AFD. Will ^(talk) 16:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing particularly noteworthy about this man who committed one murder. Dismemberment isn't that unusual, and neither is a whole life tarriff. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT, there is nothing here of notable encyclopedic interest. Burntsauce 22:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)'
• Unfortunately not what happened in Chris Erskine debate... recommend you all vote for that next time... must remember to note this...JJJ999 03:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP≠WikiPoliceblotter. All criminals who get caught and convicted get some publicity and he no more than the norm. Carlossuarez46 16:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No basis for encyclopedic treatment. Eusebeus 22:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete just a plain old ordinary murderer. Not notable outside his native country.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 21:52, 28 September 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 07:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archer (band)

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

Actually, I feel this should be speedy (A7), but someone else removed the tag. No assertion of notability (invitation to a future event, even if sourced, doesn't really qualify per WP:BAND).

Not signed with a significant label, no tour, no album, no press coverage, no notability. Coren 22:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no notability established whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The upcoming performance in Germany for this U.S. band is June 23, 2007, not very far in the future, and will establish tour-based notability for the band. The festival's official site at http://www.bang-your-head.de/english/ebilling.php confirms that the band will be playing there. The band also performed at the 2006 Tokyo Guitar Show see http://www.modernguitars.com/archives/002025.html --Eastmain 22:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You missed my point. A performance in a festival isn't enough to establish notability. Coren 22:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete — Notability is not temporary. Maybe the article can be recreated if it recieves significant media coverage, but the band just isn't notable right now. *Cremepuff222* 00:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Band does not meet notability criteria at this stage but please re-add later on if they do. --Bren ^talk 04:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete We don't do articles on the basis of what bands might achieve in the future, that would be a violation of WP:Crystal. At this moment in time this band does not meet WP:Music and therefore should be deleted. A1octopus 22:53, 20 June 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 07:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher john hinkins

Christopher john hinkins (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete. non-notable, no references, doesn't link in anywhere else, apparent vanity page Smerus 22:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete — Non-notable under WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. The only source it has isn't independent from the subject. *Cremepuff222* 00:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Easy failure of WP:Vanity. A1octopus 22:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Bearian 02:10, 21 June 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 08:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jamak Fabrication

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

No secondary sources cited and no assertion of notability for this organisation. Possible meets CSD#A7 but as article has been around since 2006, passing it to AfD. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 21:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence of notability, no sources, almost advertising. Mr.Z-mantalk¢
• Delete. No GNewshits & as per Mr. Z-man. Canuckle 22:30, 18 June 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 07:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lawrence A weber

Lawrence A weber (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Article appears to be essentially a resume/CV, with no obvious claim of notability and no reference to any reliable sources. JavaTenor 21:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Claims to have written articles on Lincoln and Stonewall Jackson. No Ghits for these. No other claim to notability. Canuckle 22:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. High School teacher, several apparently minor papers, now going for a doctorate. Probably his papers are not sufficient for academic notability--though there probably have been a ffew exceptions, especially in earlier centuries. A high school teacher could also be notable for professional prominence among high schools teachers, as shown by awards & positions in professional association, but there doesn't seem to be any of this here. DGG 23:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- David Eppstein 01:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- actually pretty well-written for a short article that lays out the subject's bio, training, research interests, and honors. But none of them amount to nearly "Average Professor" at this point, so WP:PROF doesn't apply, and I don't see anything in the standard WP:BIO which would fit. Finding reliable sources seems like it would be impossible. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per WP:NN, WP:BIO, and WP:PROF --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 03:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not seem particularly unusual for a secondary school educator; I see nothing here that would pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein 20:28, 21 June 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 keep per WP:SNOW and WP:N. Newyorkbrad 00:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stanley Jefferson

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

Notability. The fact that this individual played baseball in the major leagues in of itself does not make this individual notable. I request that this article be considered for deletion. Jerskine 21:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. As per WP:BIO "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league...". He was a first-round pick and played 6 seasons with 6 clubs prior to being profiled in the New York Daily News for post-9/11 health reasons. Canuckle 21:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - to short circuit any further waste of time, WP:BIO states that "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards.... Athletes: Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis." Alansohn 21:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. He was a major league baseball player, which means he's notable per WP:BIO. User:Canuckle's reasons are also solid enough for me. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- per all of the above. Eddie 22:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per all of the above. What motivated this? Burntsauce 22:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • See Talk:Co-op City, Bronx. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: he played in MLB, he's notable per WP:BIO.NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Even though he had a relatively short career, the simple fact that he was a Major League baseball player justifies keeping his article on wikipedia. Because he is notable as a baseball player, I believe that his article should be further refenced with statistics from his baseball career. I will try to accomplish this by seeing if I can find the relavent information. Citizen Dick 23:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Easily meets WP:BIO like virtually all professional league players. Although some expansion is require for the article. JForget 23:58, 18 June 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 08:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UCIP

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

United Confederation of Interstellar Planets (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is probably a hoax -- no result on a google search, and no mention on this page where such an evnet would be mentioned, if it were real. Also this same editor has previously created and edited a page about "UCIP" with a different meaning, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UCIP for relevant history. If it is real, it is unsourced and there is no indication of notability. DES ^(talk) 21:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per my nom. DES ^(talk) 21:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Also include United Confederation of Interstellar Planets which is a near duplicate. Change my view to Delete all. DES ^(talk) 21:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Google turns up a big zippo in terms of hits for this topic. Definitely looks like a hoax. Nearly a speedy candidate, too. Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both under WP:V as likely hoaxes. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Confederation of Interstellar Planets. -- Satori Son 21:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Nebraska has a UCIP that stands for Urban Community Improvement Program. This looks like a wry comment, possibly racist (wrycist perhaps?) about integration. The "Unified Convention of Interracial Persons" meets every year on April 1st? Nothing sadder than someone yelling "April Fool!" in June. Mandsford 23:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It could be, but I think it is largely pique that the internet gaming site "United Confederation of Interstellar Planets" was deleted. DES ^(talk) 13:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• delete per reasons above. Also, although this isn't a reason for deletion, I live in Nebraska and have never heard of this. Barsportsunlimited 00:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Bren ^talk 04:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Agnetha1234 08:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Magioladitis 08:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was: Speedily deleted - vanity, nonsense. - Mike Rosoft 22:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Humpy The Rapist Mallard

Humpy The Rapist Mallard (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Obvious unsourced, unreferenced hoax article. Speedy removed numerous times by author, bringing to AfD at this point. Wildthing61476 20:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete I was hoping for something for BJAODN, but this isn't even clever.... —  MusicMaker 20:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• This article is NOT a hoax. The hoax-character of "Humpy" is a cult-celebrity in Denver, CO and has been for months. The wiki article was merely intended to describe him, and his cult-celebrity status! DO NOT DELETE, PLEASE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qtheinfamous (talk • contribs)
• Speedy delete, the only "sources" are a forum and a MySpace, neither of which are WP:RS. I see no reliable sources about this guy, so speedy away. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. Subject is WP:NN and article provides no WP:RS, so it fails WP:BIO. Two ghits to brief bs blog refs. --Evb-wiki 21:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as very clearly made up. Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete ASAP as something obviously made up. ("Buttsecks" is a dead giveaway.) Even the creation of this article is disruption. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:10, 18 June 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 08:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hooligan tactical squad

Hooligan tactical squad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable paintball group. 15 non-wiki ghits, none of which demonstrate WP:NOTABILITY. No assertion of notability in article. Contested prod Kathy A. 20:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)]

• Delete. as per nom.--Edtropolis 20:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - NN gruop of people. --Tikiwont 13:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete NN, vanity. Editor needs to Learn some Rules Of capitalization. --Rmasbury 18:38, 20 June 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

[edit] List of addresses in EastEnders

List of addresses in EastEnders (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia articles are not repositories of internal links. Everything here links to one of two other EastEnders lists, either for "residences" or "buildings." Otto4711 19:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as A3. Clarityfiend 20:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Am I the only one who is surprised that every link is blue? Ought not those be deleted as well? Carlossuarez46 21:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• The links are to sections of one of two other articles, List of residences in EastEnders and List of buildings in EastEnders. There are not, thank God, individual articles for each address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto4711 (talk • contribs)
  • And one link to a nightclub: 4 Turpin Road. Carlossuarez46 23:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Over-listing. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Yes, every link is blue, mainly because they all link to an article called "Residences of EastEnders", as Otto has pointed out. EastEnders is apparently a very popular soap in Britain, but one article is enough, eh what?

Mandsford 23:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of residences in EastEnders, maybe List of buildings in EastEnders. Overlisting. --Bren ^talk 04:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of residences in EastEnders — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 19:12, 19 June 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 08:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beau Mirchoff

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

subject does not seem to meet wikipedia's notability criteria (see Wikipedia:Notability (people). Article makes no appearant claim of notabilty and cites no secondary sources. Stevecudmore 19:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking through the history, it appears that a previous version that did have sources and some assertion of notability - his acting career - was in place until someone came in and edited the heck out of it, losing the mention of his acting. I reverted to that version, and it appears there's a little to work with there - but not a lot. Very weak keep on the basis of his acting credit, the Times-Colonist feature and claims of future work. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. As his IMDb listing and his TV.com credits show, this actor has had only two roles, neither of which is very impressive. --Evb-wiki 20:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete — Under WP:BIO, a high school football star and a bully in Scary Movie 4 doesn't qualify as being notable. *Cremepuff222* 00:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete; I agree with the above. I would take this opportunity to say that there are many show business articles of the same level of importance that are alive and well on these pages. We should strive to be even-handed in our approach. --Stormbay 14:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Do It. Arkyan • ^(talk) 19:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do it

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

This article is a stub on a song by Nelly Furtado. There is a far more expanded article on the same song under the name Do It with a capital 'I' and therefore Do it is obsolete. Acm2210 18:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Do It then. This didn't need to be brought to AfD, when a redirect would work just fine. Wildthing61476 19:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to erotic humiliation --Tony Sidaway 15:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Humiliatrix

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

Apparent original research, devoid of supporting cites. Delete. Karada 18:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Erotic humiliation. Per nom, article is WP:OR, and no adequate citations have been found despite several previous deletion initiatives (merge (2006), prod (2007)). Sources found so far tend to be commercial sex sites. Term means female humiliator — "Keep" proponents tend to insist this is a distinct subject, but such distinctions are usually gender role variations that fit entirely within range of Erotic humiliation. / edgarde 19:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC) edgarde 19:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and for that matter a sexual behavior can be see as a set of variations (smile) The questions is whether there is enough content for a separate article. In this case almost all the content is nonspecific. I suspect there is certainly enough for a good article, even in conventional sources, but loss of the material here is no handicap to anyone who might want to write one. DGG 23:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as per Edgarde. -- Schneelocke 08:15, 20 June 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 per A7. Sr13 08:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TYC

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

No evidence for notability according to Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles or otherwise. No independent sources. High on a tree 18:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete-per CSD A7-non-notable biography.--Rossheth | Talk to me 19:49, 18 June 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 08:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ronald Svarney

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

I am doubting the notability of this person. Google only finds two pages, one a "letters to the editor" page, the other a local church members birthday list. As for the references given: The first two only seems to concern a teacher he had at university, not himself (and being "in a direct student-teacher line back" to J. S. Bach doesn't establish notability, I think I could claim that too). The 2006 publication is marked as "under review"; for the 1995 book there is no ISBN and it can't be found at Amazon.com. The 1990 article in the New York Times quoted to support the statement "Svarney developed the field of behavioral facilitation..." is really just a letter to the editor - the abstract on the NYT web site starts To the Editor: As a student of psychology in a world of lawyers, I am sometimes puzzled by a legal mind's description of reality. I do not understand why Robert H. Bork thinks that George Bush, in nominating Judge David H. Souter .... Also the claims that Svarney's work had a significant impact on president Clinton's trial and impeachment and on the aftermath of September 11th need to be substantiated by reliable third-party sources. High on a tree 17:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. As per nom. Fails criteria in WP:BIO.--Edtropolis 17:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete none of the aspects are notable, and adding up 3 unnotable aspects (or any number or unnotable aspects) doesn't equal notability. DGG 18:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- David Eppstein 20:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable and more egregiously, self-promoting.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 03:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: See also Behavioral Facilitation by the same author and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Behavioral Facilitation. Regards, High on a tree 08:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete -- per DGG. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 00:09, 21 June 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 userfy to Oldspammer's userspace. Observing the current consensus, it is most likely that the community will decide to delete. However, reliable sources may be found, but not with the given five days of an AfD discussion. At the bottom of the discussion, the nominator suggested a userfication, in which three users agreed. Sr13 08:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert C. Beck

Robert C. Beck (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF notability guidelines. Lacks independent, reliable secondary sources documenting notability. Article is poorly sourced (mostly to Google Video), speculative original research and opinion - this could be fixed if independent reliable sources exist, but given their lack, the article should be deleted as one can't build a neutral encyclopedic article without such sources. MastCell ^Talk 17:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up.--Edtropolis 17:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Using what sources? MastCell ^Talk 17:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• How much time is available for curing the deficiencies? Are you giving a day's notice? A week's? Two weeks'? Hertz1888 18:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The AfD will close in 5 days. If the article is deleted, and subsequently reliable sources turn up, it can be recreated using those sources (in other words, deletion is not necessarily permanent). But there has to be some indication of notability, via independent, reliable secondary sources. MastCell ^Talk 18:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long set of comments by Oldspammer

The article's subject person is famous among alternative medicine circles. Many Internet sources cite the work of this Dr. Robert (Bob) C. Beck person as having gathered together the research efforts of other valid scientific medical researchers, and publicized non-patented versions of working medical treatment devices. "The Beck Protocol" is a topic of substantial interest to AIDS patients (among others). A Google search of combinations of the words of "Robert C. Beck" OR "The Beck Protocol" OR "Dr. Bob Beck" OR "Bob Beck D.Sc." OR "blood electrification" will turn up tens of thousands of hits.

The link for WP:BIO says that it is not strictly WP policy.

Many persons already treated by main stream medicine may have had it fail them. To me, in my researching alternatives to main stream medicine, several individuals strike me as fact-based, and seekers of true science, rather than suppressors thereof.

That the article initially used links via Google is no reason to have it deleted. Unless you are from another planet, you would realize that web links go stale in a relatively short period of time. By linking articles via Google search for keywords, the web articles or quotations thereof can be easily be located, sometimes along with any disputed information.

Videos of the man telling his story are good enough to substantiate claims that he was a researcher, that he quoted scientific literature, and experimental results of others. The videos show that he preferred alternative medicine and was a vocal spokesperson for it. That many persons searching for AIDS treatments view the same Google videos and lead them to this man's "The Beck Protocol" publication, and devices following his designs.

No amount of references would qualify to satisfy someone who wants the information suppressed.

The quality of references given would always never be good enough for someone who wants the information suppressed.

Many people who want to suppress such information are serving what purposes?--You would certainly not be serving my purposes of investigating alternative medicine treatments if you successfully had this article deleted!

If you feel that you could better format and research this person, then feel free to do so without completely destroying the article.

Did you try to improve the article at all?

Did you try to find references suitable to your standards in order to keep the article and information within WP?

If not, then why not? And why elect to have the article deleted?

Excuse me please. I am old. My CRT screen is set for low resolution so that I can see the bigger print. If you guys indent the content too much, the text re-flow on my browser will make the text less and less readable by ultimately putting only a couple of words per line, so please don't indent too many levels. Thanks. Oldspammer 01:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• If I ignore the personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, and WP:ILIKEIT arguments in your above post, it seems your argument is that WP:BIO should be ignored in this particular case, that Google videos distributed by the subject of the article are reliable sources which establish notability, and that it's my responsibility to adequately source the article. I disagree on all three counts. MastCell ^Talk 20:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

How did you establish that he himself ("by the subject") distributed the given video(s)? The video shows the subject person, himself, but the video was submitted to "Google videos" by a third party, possibly years after Robert C. Beck died. Certainly Beck died prior to Google Videos being established. One of the videos is of a Granada Forum lecture that he gave to a school sized auditorium of people, and a second video is from a different lecture given at a College lecture hall. Oldspammer 07:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Return to normal one-comment-per-bullet discussion

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- David Eppstein 20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• There's no attempt at "suppressing" information here. If there are sources available regarding Dr. Beck that meet the reliable sources guidelines and can verify the article's content, then please bring them forward. Google videos of a person speaking specifically about his own activities aren't reliable sources under the guidelines here, that I'm aware of; we need independent, non-trivial secondary sources. If you can find them, then please present them, and other editors will be happy to evaluate the article based on those sources. As it is, I'm maintaining a neutral stance at present - I suspect there's enough available that isn't sourced through Google Video to produce an article, but haven't the time right now to hunt for them myself. Those editors who would like the article kept should provide the necessary sources within the AFD period; at that time, I'd be happy to re-evaluate my opinion. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"The Beck Protocol" is a document. It has been amended slightly (to include mention of Bob Beck's death) by those selling it. However, a reference was made to a copy circulating the Internet on a particular peer-to-peer network of a pdf file of about 10.4 Mbytes. The name of the peer-to-peer network was ed2k. A name of a p2p networking client of eMule was given (possibly via Google Search-link).

Two means of viewing "The Beck Protocol" are at your disposal: (a) You could purchase a nice, bound color copy from some Internet site "alternative medicine store," or (b) Download a freely available grayscale pdf file via p2p networking. Some Internet sites have excerpts from the full document as pages on their sites. The schematic to one device was linked in the article. Oldspammer 01:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Without proper sources this is not worth keeping. --John 20:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Aside from what was already mentioned, article seems to advocate his position as well as attempting to give a biography. Not suitable. Nyttend 20:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not out right dismiss claims of people without investigating a bit. A "person's position" sounds like he was a political person. Political people adopt positions not necessarily based on reason or on facts presented. This person's approach seems to have been methodical and based on testing theories. Mention in the article was made that he investigated a list of other machines and found they did not satisfactorily work when he tried them. Oldspammer 02:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I am not interested in "suppressing" this information but I do want to read an article that has reliable sources, a neutral point of view and is not self-promotion. Quality over volume is also important. If he is recognized for his contributions to research, make those the focuse of the rewritten article. Finding mainstream or near-mainstream sources is more difficult for alternative subjects, but it is not impossible. Canuckle 22:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no reliable sources presented so far. Redecke 23:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of notability and reliable sources. -Chunky Rice 23:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete because there apparently are no accessible sources. The person's own works, even if accessible, are not enough to demonstrate notability in this field unless there is evidence that it has been noticed & written about by other people in RSs. I am personally willing to interpret RSs rather flexibly for alternative medicine practitioners, but there needs to be something solid; if he has done extensive work and is considered important, people will have said so. If you can find anything, the article can be kept, but the long description of his methods needs to be shortened, as well as the part of the article which provides a show of links--but to other people's methods. DGG 00:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete due to lack of reliable sources and promotional format. -- Fyslee/talk 08:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Almost all of the references that I have in the article are still Google Search links. If you have a firewall that blocks access to Google, then your accessibility would be blocked.

If I was to select individual Google search result links as sources for the information, would that be suitable as providing sources for my references?

How could I determine if these sources would meet with the satisfaction of the most critical people on wikipedia? Oldspammer 02:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second set of comments by Oldspammer

The link for WP:BIO says that it is not strictly WP policy.

1. "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." "The Beck Protocol" is famous in the alternative medicine field.
   
2. "Commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products" As notice of his "The Beck Protocol" spreads, more and more of the interested public want to know what products he endorsed that qualify for use in his Protocol. Referenced pages indicate that Sota instruments of B.C. Canada produced a line of treatment devices that he endorsed. Unless you were ill with an incurable disease, you would probably not have known this, or tried to determine this information.
   
3. "Creative professionals: scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals." Robert C. Beck lectured about, and handed out literature that he wrote about Blood electrification treatments and associated information. This is contained in "The Beck Protocol" document that is about 90 pages long.
   
4. "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." Whereas other scientists patented work related to their findings on blood electrification, Dr. Bob Beck openly published his findings, schematics, and protocols to enable members of the interested public to examine the merits of the treatment methods. This represents a greater contribution in my mind than a scientist who patents a well kept secret idea that will rarely see the light of day in every day life.
5. "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." In the conventional medical field, he is probably hated. But to members of the public having many forms of incurable diseases, his work should become more well known and possibly beneficial to the masses. Oldspammer 02:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It should be clear to anyone that some source who is reliable to one group of people is quite the opposite to another.

For example, Quackwatch is an internet site that quotes cancer journal articles where "an expert" studies descriptions of a concept, but does not do a scientific experiment to prove or disprove the concept involved, nor do the article authors cite any scientifically proven principles to indicate why their conclusions were accurate. Some wiki articles have cited Quackwatch as a source. I think that Quackwatch has some reliable information, but it also has its fill of unreliable information as well. It is usually up to the judgement of the reader as to how to believe one way or the other. Oldspammer 02:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second return to bulleted comments

• Delete. There appear to be no reliable sources that cover this person's life and work. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No Reliable sources presented. --Fredrick day 08:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Utter rubbish and pseudoscientific nonsense. This is for the National Enquirer, not an encyclopedia. Does not meet any measure of mainstream notability; he might as well have taught at Hogwarts.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 03:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment You are absolutely correct that it is "utter rubbish and pseudoscientific nonsense." In fact it is dangerous nonsense that can cost lives, but we have articles on equally nonsensical subjects like homeopathy here, and the promotion of homeopathy also costs lives. That is not a Wikipedia-legitimate reason to keep information out of Wikipedia. His lack of notability is a good reason. If the article gets saved, then it can also be a place to provide the documentation against this nonsense, in keeping with NPOV. -- Fyslee/talk 07:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't delete yet

I'm planning to re-write the article so please don't delete it quite yet. I'll see if I can bring it up to the level.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Tell me if it meets the quality qualifications yet.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it does not, ref 9 & 11 are searches--you need to reference the individual relevant documents found in the search. Ref 6 is a copy of WP and is useless for any purpose. Refs 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 12, &15 are not acceptable to establish notability as they are not 3rd party sources, though some might be usable for biographic details. . Refs 13 14 & 16 are general refs. about this type of therapy and are acceptable sources for discussing that, but do not establish his individual notability. DGG 18:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Since both User:Wikidudeman and User:Oldspammer have expressed an interest on further improving this article, I'd propose that if the consensus is to delete, that we userfy the page and move it to Oldspammer's userspace. Then, Wikidudeman and Oldspammer can continue to work on it without a deadline. If at some point it rises to meet the bars of WP:BIO and/or WP:PROF, then the revised article could be taken to deletion review. Thoughts? MastCell ^Talk 19:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds very reasonable. -- Fyslee/talk 19:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. It looks like the sources are challenging to dig up, and may take longer than the AFD period. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.DGG 00:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete all but Weddle. Sr13 08:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Novik

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

Contested prods. This, and the related articles which follow are resumes of four executives at a prominent, but not world-shaking, company. Wikipedia is not a collection of resumes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This also includes

• Ken Dude (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Bradley S. Scott (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• James D. Weddle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete as nom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete since Wikipedia is not the place to publish your resume; and also since no sources whatsoever are given (not to speak of independent coverage). --B. Wolterding 17:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Very obvious fluff pages. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• I do not believe the above articles should be deleted. They inform people of the executives who run a company. Isn't that what Wikipedia is for? So that someone who would like to know more about a person or thing they can search for it here and read more about the person or thing? For those of you complaining, please see the CEO of Goldman Sach's page, as its more "fluff" than these.
• Delete. To the creator, the encyclopedia is for articles on notable people judged by secondary, reliable sources to have wide recognition, influence or impact. Simply being a company executive isn't enough. Someday I hope that my company's CEO and Board Chair are notable enough for their own article. Until I'm certain they pass the guideline WP:Notability (people), I'll wait to post and I'll flag the conflict of interest, too. Canuckle 22:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Wedell or list separately. The CEO of a large company is normally notable. (The company claims a revenue of $3 billion or so, whch counts as large. ) He's "managing partner" , which is the equivalent; the others are heads of Accounting, HR, & Recruiting. There will need to be some outside reference, but there should be one in the trade press. I do not like the practice of a joint nomination of people with possibly different degrees of notability--the one likely one may get swept away (or vice versa), DGG 00:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Novik, Dude and Scott. No vote on Weddle. Agree with DGG, the 3 are executives in the company and are unlikely to be notable per their positions. Indeed, the articles fail to assert how they would pass WP:BIO. A search for Weddle yields 87 unique Ghits], some of which may indicate he may be notable, so should be examined separately. Ohconfucius 01:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Wedell Being head of one the largest financial institutions in the US has pretty strong claim to notability. There should be a complete revision of his article of course.- thank you Astuishin (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect. « ANIMUM » 01:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] StarTrek.com

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

Official website of Star Trek television series but other than that completely not notable and should not be listed in an encyclopedia. This article clearly falls under WP:SPEEDY's criteria for deletion of websites: "Web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." Refer to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7 and WP:WEB, as it relates to this type of article. -- Wikipedical 16:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical 16:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Uhhh... Correct me if I'm wrong, but Star Trek is pretty damn notable. With that being said, the official website is notable as well. All this article needs is some improvement --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What is notable about it? What is the "impact or historical significance" of this site? Should every official website get a Wikipedia page? That's what WP:WEB is for. -- Wikipedical 17:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well....per your own link WP:WEB Criteria #1 is The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. . I've love love LOVE for you to argue how Star Trek is not notable. The content of the website has to do with the TV show/movies/franchise. There is no way in the world this would not pass notability standards. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"The content itself..." is referring to the SITE itself. Of course there are published works about Star Trek but not StarTrek.com! I'm not saying Star Trek is not notable, I am saying that StarTrek.com isn't. -- Wikipedical 17:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The content itself..." is talking about the CONTENT. IE: What's INSIDE the website, ie: The Star Trek Franchise. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek is the subject of the content, but the content would mean the actual, literal articles or other offerings on the site. By your interpretation, any fan site about a notable topic could satisfy WB:WEB. Propaniac 18:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• redirect to Star Trek#External links, and merge whatever of this content is worth keeping. I don't see where WP:WEB says anything about official sites. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Septentrionalis.--Edtropolis 17:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge to Star Trek. Doesn't require a standalone article and not much scope for expansion. Clarityfiend 17:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to a section of Star Trek as while this is certainly reasonably content to cover, it's still highly connected to the series itself. FrozenPurpleCube 18:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect as suggested above, website isn't particularly notable except as the official website of a very notable franchise - really nothing to say about it independently. Arkyan • ^(talk) 19:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect. Otherwise, if Important person has a website, then ImportantPersonWebsite.com is automatically notable enough to have a Wikipedia article as well? Similarly, Important Company and ImportantCompanyWebsite.com? Ridiculous. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect Alexa rank of 21,179 does not demonstrate notability. Carlossuarez46 21:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to Nickelodeon (TV channel) --Tony Sidaway 15:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nick.com

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

Official website of Nickelodeon television network but other than that completely not notable and should not be listed in an encyclopedia. This article clearly falls under WP:SPEEDY's criteria for deletion of websites: "Web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." Refer to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7 and WP:WEB, as it relates to this type of article. -- Wikipedical 16:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical 16:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Whole-heartedly disagree with nominator - First of all, you believe this falls under SPEEDY because of this statement: "Web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". I believe you must be mistaken, as the first sentence of the article established important. It's the official website to the TV station. Sure, it could use some improvement, but to delete this article would be absurd...I don't see any policy is breaks. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• What is notable about it? What is the "impact or historical significance" of this site? Should every official website get a Wikipedia page? That's what WP:WEB is for. -- Wikipedical 17:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Well....per your own link WP:WEB Criteria #1 is The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. . I've love love LOVE for you to argue how Nickelodeon is not notable. The content of the website has to do with the TV show. There is no way in the world this would not pass notability standards --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    • "The content itself..." is referring to the SITE itself. Of course there are published works about Nickelodeon but not Nick.com! I'm not saying Nickelodeon is not notable, I am saying that Nick.com isn't. -- Wikipedical 17:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
      • The content itself..." is talking about the CONTENT. IE: What's INSIDE the website, ie: Nickelodeon, not Nick.com --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
        • It's talking about the subject of the article, which in this case is a web site, not a television channel. You have yet to demonstrate that there are multiple non-trivial published works about this web site. Your best, and only, argument is to cite some. Continue to chop logic instead of citing sources, and you'll fail to make a case for keeping this article. Please cite sources. Uncle G 18:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Nickelodeon#Official sites as above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to section of Nickelodeon article. Nickelodeon is certainly notable. Therefore the actions it takes are reasonable to cover. But I don't see why it should be covered on its own at this point. FrozenPurpleCube 18:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Nickelodeon (TV channel), which already has a section about Nick.com that currently directs users to this article. Propaniac 18:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect as suggested above. Arkyan • ^(talk) 19:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to the Nickelodeon article as mentioned above. -Matt 20:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with Nickelodeon (TV channel). Does not justify separate article. --Bren ^talk 05:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge or delete. Not enough to base an article on, but a reasonable subject to cover in the channel's article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Absolutely positively whole-heartedly keep. or a merge would do fine. You might as well delete MSN as it isn't truly notable... it's just a search engine! Jonjonbt on a wikibreak but yet protecting Nick.com from being deleted
• Merge; not yet ready for an articleVectorsap 23:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect This is an information and feeder website for the station. Unless the website has a totally separate identity, which this one does not, it should be redirected to the main article. Imagine if each company/business/person will get a separate article for its/his/her website!!! Ohconfucius 01:50, 21 June 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. « ANIMUM » 01:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cibao Airport Flight Schedule

Cibao Airport Flight Schedule (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

WP is not a directory, an updated schedule of flights is not needed, the article's relevant information (airlines, destinations,...) seems to be all at Cibao International Airport. This was speedy deleted during the previous nomination and promptly recreated, so I think we better let this nomination run its nornal course. - Nabla 16:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy and salt Was already speedied, and recreated promptly after. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

comment speedy deletion criteria for recreation of content only applies to AfD deletions, not to previous speedies. Let this AfD proceed. - Nabla 17:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Cibao International Airport.--Edtropolis 17:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and recreate as a protected redirect to Cibao International Airport. Wikipedia is not a travel guide - or a flight guide for that matter. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 17:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete recreation of deleted material. Resolute 18:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and protect, recreated material, blatant violation of WP:NOT. No reason to hang on to this article, no reason to force it through AfD. Arkyan • ^(talk) 19:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:SNOW, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info. Useight 20:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not an airline timetable or a computer reservations system. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Salt- per all of the above. Eddie 22:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete — Already deleted before. Recreation of material violating WP:NOT. WP:SNOW it already! *Cremepuff222* 00:56, 19 June 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 08:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs which refer to other songs

List of songs which refer to other songs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - another sprawling (72K and counting) unsourced, indiscriminate list, a directory of loosely associated topics. The list brings together songs with no commonality in style, theme or content beyond happening to supposedly refer to another song in a line or two of the lyrics. This list tells us nothing about the listed songs, the songs that they supposedly reference or music in general. Otto4711 16:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Delete Agree with nomintor, additionally it's listcruft --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Delete As per WP:LC.--Edtropolis 17:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Delete, defintely a loose association. So what if Blake Shelton mentions "Margaritaville" in the opening line to "Some Beach"? The rest of the song has nothing to do with Buffett or Margaritaville (except maybe for some marginal stylistic similarities). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

   Comment. Blake must have met Jimmy Buffett before.--Edtropolis 17:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

4. Delete Not only is this listcruft; it's largely WP:OR as well. Geoffrey Spear 17:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
5. There are too many "Lists of songs about..." articles. I'm tempted to create List of Wikipedia articles about lists of songs about a topic, expect that it would be ultimately pointless. OK, how about List of Wikipedia articles about lists of songs that should be deleted (the lists, not the songs)? Never mind. As a kindness to the closing administrator, I'll just say delete. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Delete per nom. --Evb-wiki 19:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Add to the ever growing "List of lists of songs with arbitrary inclusion criteria that were deleted". Arkyan • ^(talk) 19:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
8. BALEETED!!!. I'm getting real tired of List of songs that contain the letter E in the title. Useight 20:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
9. Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 21:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
10. Delete Save your list somewhere, for it will be deleted; but consider bringing it back in a shorter form. It's not that the idea is bad, but it's too long, and after you get to the K's, it gets boring. However, within the list are some interesting ideas, such as songs that respond to other songs. As Joel Whitburn and other persons with a sense of popular culture know, some songs are replies to others (such as "Sweet Home Alabama" to "Southern Man"). If you were to "chainsaw" the thing, get rid of (1) parodies, especially Weird Al; (2) a singer or band referring to a previous song in a more recent song, such as with any of the Beatles; (3) songs from the same album that link to each other, such as with Queen; (4) an obscure song that tries to ride the coattails of a hit. Hope to see this again in a much abridged form. Mandsford 23:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
11. Delete The trivia or general info of the songs should be enough, not in a long list like that.--JForget 00:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
12. Delete: I don't see a common theme for the songs in this list. -MrFizyx 04:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
13. Delete per nom. Listcruft. Maybe if enough songs that have their own articles should be grouped like this, consider a category for those. --Bren ^talk 05:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
14. Delete per nom., and all. Consider bringing back in an abridged form, per Mandsford.--JayJasper 17:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
15. Delete. Indiscriminate, unsourced list with no corresponding article on the subject matter. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 22:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep

1. Keep, but with sources and/or moving to another Wikimedia site, e.g. Wikiquote. Agree mostly with Mandsford. Pædia 00:11, 20 June 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 12:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Robert Wooten

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

This is a non-notable individual. He is the head of a small heraldic organization and the article currently reads as though it is a self-produced biography. In fact, the only editor of this page is Davidwu10, who appears to be the subject. The only main space page that links here is that for the American College of Heraldry. I think that this is fairly clearly a vanity page of a NN person. Eva ^bd 16:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not MySpace.--Edtropolis 16:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this page but move some of the content to American College of Heraldry. JJL 17:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I can do that.--Eva ^bd 22:45, 18 June 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 17:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 7th Heaven multimedia

7th Heaven multimedia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - I have restored the DVD releases to the main article because there is no reason for it to be split out from the main article for length or style. The remaining information should be deleted, as it has been for many other similar standalone articles including Desperate Housewives, Smallville, The Simpsons and others, because Wikipedia is not a TV Guide or a guide to television syndication. Otto4711 16:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. as per nom.--Edtropolis 17:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:Note. IP198 19:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I was originally going to vote to delete, because I figured that it was an advertisement for this week's DVD collection at Wal-Mart. I still think that you should get rid of that part. However, I vote to keep because you've gone to great pains to show that this show does have a following all over the world, including the networks and the title. I liked the Turkish title--"Crowded, But Happy". Far better than individual Wikipedia articles about each character on the show (and I'm sure someone has written a Simon Camden article, so I'm betting on a blue-link, without looking). We need more TV articles like this, fewer about individual episodes and characters. Mandsford 23:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nobody cares its not on in any New York stations!!! XNYTV 23:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — Per nom. Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Mandsford, your !vote sounds like WP:ILIKEIT to me. Plus, XNYTV has 2 edits as of this !vote time. *Cremepuff222* 00:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment "Wikipedia is not a TV guide." LOL! Yes, I guess I do like intelligently written articles about the culture of television... better than I like 400 articles about the fascinating world of "Smallville". Wikpedia principles are like the Bible-- often quoted, never consistently applied. Mandsford 01:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Bren ^talk 05:11, 19 June 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 17:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Designs in Creative Entertainment

Designs in Creative Entertainment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability per WP:ORG. Google shows no reliable secondary sources. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 16:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. No reliable sources. In fact, no secondary sources other than Wiki/Wiki mirrors, period.--Ispy1981 20:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Wondering if their only game 18C2C would also make notability. --Bren ^talk 05:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I did consider that but decided not to as it seems to be part of a wider series of games (18XX) which is a bigger task to take on. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 08:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment good point just saw 18XX now. Thanks. --Bren ^talk 13:05, 19 June 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. Also author requests deletion. —Centrx→talk • 20:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jay S. Thomas

Jay S. Thomas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable minister; article on him was already speedily deleted twice today under the name Jay Smith Thomas Nyttend 16:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

<personal attack deleted - Corvus cornix 16:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)>

I think that I have found the source of this dispute and the reason that this article was deleted. Though it tends to be colored in terms of "wiki guidelines" which is an ironic term in and of itself, I truly believe that this is a case of both religious persecution and racial discrimination. With regard to religion, it is obvious that the existence of reformed evangelical Christian content would be shunned by the comprehensively secular bias of such a place such a wikipedia, thus making you all just as controversial and fifth column as the creator/editors of conserapedia. Thusly, considering the blatant refusal to allow cited and relevant information concerning legitimate Christian leaders and legitimate Christian content, these actions could potentially be grounds for a religious descrimination suit against the providers and editors of this site.

Also, when one considers that Jay Smith Thomas is one of the few persons in this country with triple citizenship (being born in India to an American citizen who happened to be a full blooded member of the Chippewa Indian tribe) Jay is an America/Indian/Native American with full rights to all three and a mixed heritage that has made the progression and of his life and subsequent success much more difficult than the average man. This dispute is simply another example of the racial discrimination and oppression that he has endured throughout the entirety of his life. Once he is made aware of your blatant and repeated violations of his secured and endowed rights to life and equity as an American citizen, much less a human being, you, and wikipedia in general would do well to think twice before deleting such a post in the future.

The lack of cogency is astounding and characteristic of very, very poor form. Legal counsel is being sought.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cstanfie (talk • contribs) Corvus cornix 17:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA. Corvus cornix 16:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete-The only sources are those close to the subject of the article, and there is no asserion of notability other than 'he works for a church that a magazine said was quite important'.--Rossheth | Talk to me 16:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Further clarification- does not meet the `The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject' clause of WP:BIO. The opinion piece quoted is insufficient, since it doesn't deal exclusively with the subject, and is in any case an opinion piece.--Rossheth | Talk to me 17:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Absolutely nothing suggests that this article fulfills the qualifications outlined under WP:N. Plus I just love the whole "I'm going to get a lawyer because you don't think my guy is notable" thing. It's added a bit of levity to a stressful morning, thanks. Trusilver 17:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Expanding my reason for deletion to include the request of the author. Trusilver 02:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Cstanfie wants to get a lawyer in case of a libel suit, having falsely accused someone of racism on a popular website. As far as I can see, this user is the only one here to have done smething potentially legally actionable. Lurker 18:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no sources of notability. Though the IP addresses that keep vandalizing the article, the AfD and the AfD's Talk page do resolve to a large law firm. I wonder if it's "Bring your college age kid to work day". Corvus cornix 17:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Pastorcruft, doesn't meet notability criteria. And it's a repost of a deleted article. Lurker 18:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This has gotten out of hand and should be deleted. I am seriously disappointed with the immaturity of those editors involved in the deletion of this page. The breach of privacy in tracking IP addresses and contacting Jay Thomas directly were uncalled for and very unprofessional. Apologies for everyone's wasted time. Dhaut 18:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There was no breach of privacy. All IP addresses have WHOIS links at the bottom of the page. One click goes to the appropriate address owner. Corvus cornix 18:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete the page please so that we all can move on to more productive things. Dhaut 18:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This article has been deleted at least twice (maybe three times) already. The user persists in recreating it. delete and salt. Exploding Boy 19:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems that, although this minister may be remarkably influential and noteworthy given the circumstances he has overcome in life, he has yet to be given sufficient press coverage to merit a page at this time.Radioalarm 19:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

'A Statement from the Original Creators' Consistent with the wishes of Jay Thomas and College Church, we hereby request that this page be considered for Speedy Deletion. We regret that what started as a lighthearted issue has escalated to the current level. We would like to publicly acknowledge that any "legal threats", expressed or implied, were shallow, baseless, and inactionable and were intended to be sarcastic. This sarcasm was lost on many readers. We also retract any personal attacks, express or implied, against any of those who requested deletion of the article. We also apologize for any other people or entities, expressed or implied, who were offended by any remarks made in these posts. We have reason to believe that many Wikipedia users, including Nyttend and Rossheth, were acting with the best of intentions and regret our comments with respect to those individuals. We apologize for the colossal waste of time and energy that this has cost all involved, and we ask that out of respect for Jay Thomas and all of those associatd with these discussions that the page and all of its associated discussions be summarily deleted. Thank you. Cstanfie2 22:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record before we go, his notability would be that he is college pastor of the College Church at Wheaton, a very notable liberal religiously-oriented college. Thee may be sources, but the article did not provide them. Perhaps some time a proper article can be written without this fuss, preferably by someone who know about Wheaton but with less COI. This round, COI, as it often does, hindered the writing of an acceptable article and conducting a good discussion. DGG 00:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. I can only imagine the hastily convened meetings and sheepish discussions that precipitated this. Just delete the damn thing already. Exploding Boy 00:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per author's request. Most of the sources do not clearly refer to the subject. The fact that he is one of the pastors at one of the "50 Most Influential Churches" should not qualify him under WP:BIO because he is not the head pastor at that church. I would also point out that the issues of his citizenship or Native American heritage were completely irrelevant to this AfD since they were not even mentioned in the article. --Metropolitan90 02:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and Salt. Let's move on. --Bren ^talk 05:19, 19 June 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.--Wafulz 17:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World s Most Hated

World s Most Hated (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

• Delete: The content of this article is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a blog, etc. Absurdist 16:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete-no assertion of notability-CSD A7--Rossheth | Talk to me 16:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Wildthing61476 16:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is nonsense, in fact a snowball.--Edtropolis 16:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete vanity page. JJL 17:11, 18 June 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

The arguments to delete here are particularly strong.

Firstly Wikipedia is neither a newspaper archive nor a memorial. This is a statement of Wikipedia policy. The life of this man, which is of great import to his immediate family, his colleagues and friends, is however of little or no encyclopedic significance.

Secondly this is a recent enough death that the biographies of living persons policy does apply, as argued by B. Wolterding amongst others. This is a person known only for one event. All encyclopedic aspects of the event should be covered with due weight in the relevant articles (and nearly six years after the event, they already are).

This young man did not live a life that should be recorded in an encyclopedia. The manner of his death, and those other many others that day, has been covered adequately in this encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 16:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Regenhard

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

Notability. This person, who was a New York City Firefighter who died in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, lacks notability as defined in WP:Notability. He is simply one of the 343 New York City Firefighters who died on that day, and outside of the New York City area, he is virtually unknown. The only reason that he has any name recognition at all is because of the post-9/11 actions of his mother, Sally Regenhard, who is an activist for change in skyscraper safety. In addition to the notability issues, the article contains unsourced and unreferenced material, irrelavant external links, as well as photos from questionable sources. 68.174.26.32 12:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Any minor notability this person has is purely happenstance or borrowed. This article was probably submitted by an adherent of the nonsensical "the world changed forever on 9/11" concept. As a two-time Iraq vet, I say, get a life people. --Nonstopdrivel 12:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - The subject's unfortunate death has caused a national movement and organization that will shape the future of Ground Zero and the future of skyscrapers built in the USA. Personal attack removed. Uncle G 15:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC). The deceased subject has brought Hillary Rodham Clinton to the spotlight and she memorialized him in a new center for fire safety studies at John Jay College. Everything has been sourced and referenced in the article. Personal attack removed. Uncle G 15:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Furthermore, the article contains hyperlinks to major newspapers such as the San Francisco Chronicle and the St. Petersburg Times. If he wasn notable, these newspapers which are located far away from NYC will not even discuss him. Therefore points taken:
  • His death launched a movement and organization that now has a say in the development of Ground Zero.
  • He is memorialized with a center at a NYC college, same way Medgar Evers was memorialized in NYC with a college in his name even though he never lived in NYC.
  • Hillary Rodham Clinton and other senators have stepped up to bat to memorialize his legacy.
  • He is covered by notable newspapers in articles
  • This is a biography stub for the moment. It will eventually grow with the contributions of other editors.
  • His name was mentioned in the 9/11 Commission.
  • There are many victims of 9/11 (Mark Bingham, Todd Beamer, Tom Burnett, Andrew Garcia, etc.) who all have articles on this site and no one has a complain. They were memorialized in film and books. Christian is being memorialized by politicians and social activists.

If I find an other point to validate entry I will return and post.--XLR8TION 13:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Wikipedia is still not a memorial. More than half the information and links in this relatively short article are, in fact, about his mother.  RGTraynor  13:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I know the difference between Wikipedia and legacy.com; This is an article not a memorial with virtual flowers and flags.--XLR8TION 13:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Despite the comments of "XLR8TION" (who is the author of the article) defending the notability of Christian Regenhard, this individual has no real notability outside of the New York City Fire Department and related nomenclature. Is this person notable simply for having the misfortune of being one of the almost 3,000 individuals who died in the 9/11 terrorist attacks? If that were the case, then articles about each one of the thousands of people who died on 9/11 would appear on Wikipedia. I think that this article probably should be deleted or at least merged into the article about the September 11, 2001 attacks. Issue brought up here dealt with by removing all personal attacks. Uncle G 15:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Jerskine 13:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't think annonomous users (I.E IP) should nominate articles for deletion. Should they?--Edtropolis 13:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • There's no policy that discourages this, for all I know. --B. Wolterding 14:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Editors without accounts are not prohibited from nominating articles for deletion. Please read the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Uncle G 15:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• I think there's a technical problem here - the comments appear in the wrong article's AfD, could some administrator correct that? --B. Wolterding 14:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Resolved by now. --B. Wolterding 16:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm on the fence about this fellow, but there's other articles in the 9/11 victims category that probably need to be looked at. FrozenPurpleCube 15:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. For me, this is precisely the case described in WP:BLP1E. Sad as this man's fate has been, he is notable only for one event (namely the 9/11 attacks). Thus Wikipedia should cover the event (which it does), but not the person. --B. Wolterding 16:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete-While it seems callous to say this, his only `claim to fame' is the fact that he died in a famous event. So have many others, and it doesn't make them notable either.--Rossheth | Talk to me 16:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep seems to pass WP:N with notable people Hillary Clinton making him newsworthy. Carlossuarez46 21:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• With respect, Merge and Redirect to Sally Regenhard. These can be tough calls. But their articles should be merged and this is not a comment on him or his accomplishments. Canuckle 23:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Even though I have had my differences with XLR8TION, who is the author of this article, I believe that Christian Regenhard is in fact notable for the above reasons elaborated by the author. If Todd Beamer deserves an article on wikipedia, then so does Mr. Regenhard. In a contentious exchange on the Co-op City talk page, I challenged XLR8TION to create articles with references and sources about Christian and Sally Regenhard. He created articles for these two individuals, and I feel both of them are notable. Citizen Dick 00:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Citizen, that was a very honorable thing to say about Christian. I want to point out that I wrote an article on Waleska Martinez, who was aboard United 93. Ms. Martinez had notoriety in the fact about the brave actions of pasengers and crew prevented that flight from crashing into the Capitol. Furthermore, she has been portrayed in motion pictures. There are many notable victims of paramilitary groups such as Al-Qaeda on this site whose deaths were notable such as Leon Klinghoffer, Mark Bingham, Daniel Pearl, etc.. Third, in you look into history, some will want to inquire why Christian has a building named in his honor (see John Jay College blurb) and others will want to what effect his death had on this world. As mother who became the accidential activist just like Cindy Sheehan became when her son died. Pain is one thing, but Christian stands out among other firefighter not in a selfish manner, but because simply his family did not want his death to go in vain. When Hatshepshut was overthrown, there was a movement to destroy any lingering effect of her reign, thuse wiping her out of history. If it wasn't for some brave souls in Egypt she would not even have any notoriety as being the only female pharoah of Egypt. Yet, a select few decided to write about her and inform future generations that she did exist. Ms. Regenhard is a brave soul who has gone to Capitol Hill, CNN Studios, met with beauracrats, technocrats, etc.. to make a difference. Christian made a difference on 9/11 and his unfortunate death launched something. Maybe its me only, but I feel that some on this site, especially those who edit using an anonymous ISP address simply have a vendetta against this individual. Why not instead of attacking and denigrating him, doesn't some one write more and make his bio stub more detailed. It not only takes time, but takes passion to illustrate and educate and if he is notable for Hillary Clinton (possibly the next president of the USA) to dedicate a wing of a college in his honor, why not for others. Open your minds and use it for a greater purpose in life. A purpose to bring the dead back to life in the minds and memories of children and students who will inherit our world and will have to find ways to resolve the numerous problems that plague it. I write because I care. I only write articles for notable individuals that I feel mean something in this world and to me as a person and as a citizen. What makes someone notable on this site? That can vary from person, but actions speak louder than words and there is a cause and effect to everything in this world. Hence, his death caused a new front in the war against terrorism to be born as it will help prevent furture tragedies like those on 9/11. I can provide a list of murder victims on this site who probably many of you never heard of , yet they have articles that no one else has contested. If you look at it, Christian's death was a homicide by a paramilitary group. Just like Marianne Pearl's drive to honor her late husband Daniel, Christian's family works to do the same. Daniel has an article. His death is notable. Christian's name was mentioned in the 9/11 Comission. Capitol Hill has heard his name and so have many in NYC and the world.--XLR8TION 02:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep BLP is obviously irrelevant. Those disliking news coverage in WP have been saying that there needs to be, first, national attention, and second, continuing attention. OK:Newspapers from SF to Florida, over a span of 3 years. Meets the requirements here, interpreted at their strictest (though I disagree that either is necessary--I personally continue to accept regional coverage -- not just local coverage, and as for continuing, longer than the initial coverage right after the event). DGG 01:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • BLP is not "obviously irrelevant" here; while C.R. is obviously no longer living, the arguments given in WP:BLP1E are routinely applied to the deceased as well, by the same reasoning. To quote: If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. (No reference included here as to whether this coverage spreads over a longer time.) We have precisely that case here. --B. Wolterding 16:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

that general guideline , certainly, applies to everyone living or dead; but the specific concerns in BLP about the wishes of the subject, about greater than normal sourcing for any possible negative material, and so forth apply to the living only.DGG 00:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Notability guidelines don't cover how widespread notablity needs to be, either geographically or how generally notable a person is. We have entries for people who are quite notable within the realm of, say, particle physics, that aren't notable to the rest of us. This man appears to be notable as a firefighter and notable as a New Yorker, and saying that he needs to be notable nationwide appears to me to be making up new rules, unless I missed a guidelne somewhere. Capmango 15:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, as per all the other Keeps above. Tony the Marine 19:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Borderline Keep. Sally Regenhard is definitely notable, but the call on this article is tougher. But the same can be said for many of the articles in Category:Victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks. I for one would not want to start a purge of these. Wasted Time R 19:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment-Can anyone here point to something that he was notable for prior to 9/11? Because if no-one can, then WP:BLP1E is clearly applicable. And since it's about notability, the fact that he is dead doesn't make this policy inapplicable.--Rossheth | Talk to me 19:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Rossheth: Using your rationale, Christian Regenhard's brother firefighters Angel Juarbe, Jr., Michael Cammarata and Ronald Bucca, as well as Port Authority Police Officer Dominick Pezzulo, United Flight 93 passengers Todd Beamer, Mark Bingham and Jeremy Glick, Aon Corporation Vice President Kevin Cosgrove and the DOZENS of other 9/11 victims who were not notable prior to the terrorist attacks should have their articles on Wikipedia removed. Do you really want to go there? Citizen Dick 21:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• As always, the argument WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should be avoided in deletion discussions. --B. Wolterding 07:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment: Citizen, thank you bringing up the names of those firefighters as well. Juarbe had extra notoriety for his winning of a reality show and Keith A. Glascoe, another NY firefighter had a notable role in a modern day film classic ("The Professional" aka "Leon""; directed by Luc Besson). He too perished in the aftermath of the WTC. While both Juarbe and Glascoe had notable exposure in Hollywood, their deaths while unfortunate did not launch a movement like Regenhard did. We will be seeing Ms. Regenhard more on television as Rudy Giuliani becomes the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for president, Christian's name will eventually be heard more in the media. The article can be lengthen by anyone and it eventually will, but to delete him just because his life was not notable to some will only lead to a domino effect of nominations for deletion of other 9/11 victims. --XLR8TION 00:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge→Sally Regenhard. The notability of Christian Regenhard is directly related to and dependent upon the notability of Sally Regenhard as inspiration for the work that has led to her notability; being one of the many 9/11 victims does not alone establish the notability of this or any other person. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:38, 24 June 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.--Wafulz 21:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karl Engelmann

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

Non-notable musician. One of his bands is notable because it is a side project of notable Jake Cinninger, but he has not released anything significant to warrant his own personal page. In other words, Mother Vinegar is a bar band. RunLikeAnAntelope 15:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails criteria in WP:MUSIC.--Edtropolis 17:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Passes WP:MUSIC because he was a member of a notable band --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. subject appears to be a figure of questionable notability. The article is unsourced, and there are few reliable sources to support the assertions in the article. The most prominent hit is a myspace page, and the vast majority of Ghits for "Karl Englemann" clearly do not relate to the subject. 109 unique Ghits in English. There are references which indicate the subject wrote some songs for Umphrey's McGee, but all mentions are trivial. Ohconfucius 02:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I would change my vote if reliable sources were added to document the performance of his songs by Umphrey's McGee, which is a notable band. WP:MUSIC includes a criterion for lyricists: Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above, a notable theatre, or has been taken up by a musician or ensemble that qualifies above. EdJohnston 16:45, 24 June 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 17:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Whitehead

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

• Delete - This person appears to be a non-notable entertainer. His only appearance in any medium has been as a minor voice actor in a Wallace and Grommit movie. A Google search turns up little additional information on this Ben Whitehead (although several other apparently unrelated people by the same name do appear in the search). The article may also have been written partly to promote Do Me ... London, which is also nominated for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Do Me ... London). Dr. Submillimeter 15:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above Non-notable voice actor whose only credit is the W&G movie.--Ispy1981 15:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect and add the name to Gag name, which it appears to be.--Edtropolis 17:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - only credit is a small role as a voice actor, non-notable. Rossrs 22:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Kbthompson 10:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was close, issue has been solved. Sr13 18:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Norbottenspets

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

This page is very close to being speedy. It lacks context (I seriously have no idea what the page is about), it appears to be essay like (possibly OR), and has no sources. Bachrach44 15:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Thanks to Uncle G for figuring out what this page is supposed to be. Per a few people below I think a redirect is in order - I can see other English speakers making this typo. --Bachrach44 15:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, but for God's sake, clean up Merge, per below. I didn't notice the spelling variation before.--Ispy1981 15:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Just merge it to Norrbottenspets. Uncle G 16:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Norrbottenspets, an existing article on the same topic. (appears to be a spelling variation)-- MisterHand 16:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Uncle G. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 16:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect clearly. Capmango 00:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (and no redirect). This article is pure nonsense. As already pointed out, a good article already exists on this breed under its proper name. As a native Swedish speaker, I can guarantee that this is not a spelling variation. The breed, hailing from Norrbotten is named after that region, and neither the region nor the dog is ever spelled with only one r. I see no reason to have a page redirected to the proper name, then there would have to be loads of redirect-pages for every single article on Wikipedia. (Norbotenspets, Norrbottespetts, Norrbottennspets etc. - Norbottespets is no more correct or in use than any of those spellings). Just delete this page. JdeJ 04:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

True enough, I'm okay with delete. But it wouldn't be the only redirect from a common misspelling. Capmango 05:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Only delete don't redirect. xC | ☎ 04:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close merged per above. Sorry to the Swedish speakers, but I feel this is a plausible spelling error for the average English speaker. Ohconfucius 03:04, 21 June 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. I used AWB to add [[Category:Lists of films with disabled protagonists]] to each of the films listed on this article. — Ocatecir^T 00:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of films with disabled protagonists

List of films with disabled protagonists (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Previously nominated a few months ago and ended in no consensus, but I feel that there has been enough precedent to nominate it again. As stated in the previous afd, Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely-associated topics. When the X-men series is being listed, as well as films where the disability is nothing but a passing element or a set up for a joke (Dr.Strangelove), it becomes apparent this list serves no purpose but to display POVed trivia. Bulldog123 15:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom Bulldog123 15:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, list of trivia. Per nom. Lankiveil 15:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC).
• Delete for a few reaons. It's an indiscriminate list, serves no purpose, and it's listcruft --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. IP198 19:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete-adds nothing in particular to the encyclopaedia. Issues of disability of protagonists should be dealt with on specific article pages.--Rossheth | Talk to me 19:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and because disability is ill-defined and subjective. Carlossuarez46 21:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep -- In that handicapped and disabled persons aren't usually characters in films, let alone the protagonists, KEEP it. The disabled are underrepresented in popular culture. A person in a wheelchair, or with Down's syndrome, or cerebral palsy... not very often in Tinsel Town. About the only thing I like about the Farrelly Brothers (sp?) is that their films, though tasteless, recognize that the world is not limited to fully abled people. A movie that deals with disability in a non-patronizing way is a rarity. Suggestion-- mention the protagonist and the disability. Mandsford 23:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment-Certainly not all the films in that list treat with respect. For example, in Dr Strangelove, it's just an extra comedic element.--Rossheth | Talk to me 08:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Convert to Category since it is just a list with no other info. If there were additional content as Mandsford suggests, I'd vote to keep. Capmango 00:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Listcruft. As each film has it's own article and there are enough to justify it, create a category instead. --Bren ^talk 05:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• keep if mandsford's last suggestion (add protagonist & disability) is followed, thus making it more informative than a category  ⇒ bsnowball  10:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this artical is not worth keeping XNYTV 11:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep on condition that the protagonist and the disability are mentioned (Mandsford's suggestion, see above). <KF> 21:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep ditto to keeping if mandsford's suggestion is followed, otherwise, delete it. BsayUSD [Talk] [contribs] 14:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as WP:INTERESTING. Ohconfucius 03:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the list and create a category The concept here is notable. There is a website with an index of 2500 feature films compiled (http://www.disabilityfilms.co.uk/ note: yes, they have included the x-men). And this subject is significantly covered in reliable sources ( here is an aricle, here is an entire list of books, etc.). Since every item listed has an article, however, it would be much better to use a category. I might be persuaded to change to "keep" if Mansford (or others) state plans to (1) add the additional information suggested above, and (2) write a well-sourced introduction breifly presenting some historical and cultural backgound (to show that this is really not indiscriminate/trivial). -MrFizyx 16:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paraverse

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

Neologism. After a few Google searches, the only person who appears to use "Paraverse" in the context that it appears here (ie: not as a band name or in bad fanfic) is one "Peder Burgaard", who started and has been the only significant contributor to this article. As the idea of a "Paraverse" in this context is not more widespread, I think this falls under WP:NEO. In addition, there are some WP:OR issues with this article as well, as indicated by the phrase "The term was coined and put on Wikipedia by Mads Thimmer" Lankiveil 15:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete WP:OR, WP:NEO, no reliable sources and a touch of vanity. In short, as per above.--Ispy1981 16:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. JJL 17:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Parallel Universe.--Edtropolis 17:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, that's a disambig page, is that kosher? Lankiveil 11:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC).
• Delete per nom. If redirection is appropriate I'd lean more toward Virtual reality or Virtual world. --Bren ^talk 05:28, 19 June 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 18:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] H8000

H8000 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - Original research, Unsourced by reliable secondary sources, very little information, most of article is a list of bands, this just seems to be a local name for Metalcore. Prod was removed with this comment: deleted warning, H8000 Is very well know in Western Europe, US and Japan. It is of great Cultural Value! which is completely unverifiable. Something 'of great cultural value' should have plenty sources available, you'd have thought. DarkSaber2k 15:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable MySpace group with absolutely no reliable sources--Ispy1981 15:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Most likely a hate group.--Edtropolis 18:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Dutch version of this page has been up for years without controversy, but web search in Dutch or English doesn't turn up much (most hits are for a piece of music equipment, not the music style. I couldn't find anything in English that amounts to a reliable source, but there could conceivably be something in Dutch (Dutch wikipage also lacks sources though). But no evidence to accuse them of being a hate group, which seems to me to be a pretty strong accusation. Capmango 00:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not seeing anything that would make it a hate group. The H (or Hate) in this case seems to refer to the criticisms against their particular style of music. If hatred of critics makes one a hate group, I guess I would be a hate group, too.--Ispy1981 15:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Hate group? Doubtful. Not notable? Certainly. Realkyhick 20:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, CSD A7. Article about a group with no assertion of notability. Also the lists are just redlinks. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 05:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• It's not really about a group, it's about a so-called genre (which basically appears to a local Belgian name for Metalcore, rather than anything notably different.) DarkSaber2k 09:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, I did think about that, but the etymology of the name makes it seem like a sort of cabal more than a genre. For an example of a genre name based on a certain place from which it originated, take Chicago house, which wasn't being used as a label until it had had an influence on people, and could be used to classify anyone making a certain kind of music regardless of where they were from, with the "Chicago" part of the name based on the cultural origins. This, on the other hand, merely states "H8000 is the name for all hardcore scenes in West Flanders." There's no indication on whether this is a genre, or any different from metalcore, it just seems to be these bands classifying themselves based on where they're from (what postal district). So by that def, my rationale is that it's an organised group of bands with a name, and therefore a group of people. I totally applaud the decision to take this to AfD rather than speedy it, as it's not blatant, but after consideration, it does seem to meet A7. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 13:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Having said that though, if "H8000 Is very well known in Western Europe, US and Japan." can be verified, then this would probably be keepable. It just doesn't seem to be verifiable. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 13:44, 20 June 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. The discussion indicates that the title corresponds to a valid subject, so POV problems and sourcing issues can be solved through normal editorial processes. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Romano-German culture

Romano-German culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a fourth attempt by the same author to create an article that advances a dubious, poorly sourced, and confusingly expressed theory about the nature of the Holy Roman Empire. Its assertions of fact contradict existing articles, which the author has not attempted to contribute to. Other editors have tried to improve the article, but there seems to be no more room for improvement. See Talk:Romano-German culture and User talk:ProfMozart. Rob C (Alarob) 15:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The phrase Romano-German appears to be widely used (e.g.: "The legal systems of Europe originated in the impact on the vital Romano-German societies in the early Middle Ages..." [4]). This may or may not be a good article, but the subject seems worthy of an article separate from H.R.E. JJL 17:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete But that's not what it's about; this is a POV fork of the initial paragraphs of Holy Roman Empire. It doesn't even mention Theodoric or the Merovingians. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment concur about the content, but the article title represents something that should be here, so I'm hoping the POV battles can be ironed out. JJL 18:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    • If we delete this, we can reuse the title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Or, just edit what's there? JJL 18:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Unlikely to succeed with a revertwarrior who wants this to be a tendentious article about something else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would suggest that the existing article Germania is a good place for the content info on "Romano-German culture", by analogy with Gaul and Roman Britain. -- Rob C (Alarob) 18:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Looking at ghits for Romano-German, a redirect would certainly be called for in that case, but I see a distinction to be drawn here between Germania and Romano-Germany. However, I am not expert in this area. I stick with my Keep. JJL 18:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    • No, Germania is too early, and too far north, for Theodoric; and much too early for the content here on Charlemagne (which is in any case redundant). Septentrionalis

PMAnderson 18:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Definitely a POV article. The author has been given several chances to improve the article and has failed to do this or provide any reason for this article being notable. As mentioned this article conflicts with others and the article is generally written poorly by Wikipedia standards. Maybe some of the content can be merged into a relevant article but for now the article needs to be deleted and hopefully for the final time. Xtreme racer 20:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comments by nom:
  • I'm not an expert, but do notice that many Ghits on "Romano-German" are to Romanian pages, where "Romano-German" means "Romanian-German," while some are to Italian pages, where both "Romano" and "German" can be proper names.
  • Looking in German Wikipedia, I find that matches describe "römisch-germanisch" conflict rather than a merging of cultures.
  • In fact, the article on Germanen in German Wikipedia contradicts the major thesis of our Romano-German culture, stating that the Germanic peoples "preserved their distinctiveness, notwithstanding the intensive exchange between Germans and Romans." (Sie bewahrten ihre Eigenständigkeit, obwohl es auch zwischen Römern und Germanen einen intensiven Austausch gab.)
  • Please note as well that other English Wikipedia articles (e.g. Irene (empress), Translatio imperii, King of the Romans, etc.) contradict assertions made in this one. -- Rob C (Alarob) 22:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. More or less OR. The term Romano-German does exist, but a Romano-German culture as described in this article? No. All relevant content can be found in many other articles, such as Holy Roman Empire or Germania. JdeJ 04:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep there is no article on this subject in wikipedia. Its ludacris to not have it. I am the author of this article, and i will be the first to admit my english, and grammer are not up to par. But either the the article/subject does deserve a place in wikipedia.--ProfMozart 05:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Part of the problem is that the article is simply your own ideas and that the factual accuracy is low. You come up with things like And like all the other countries that were once under Roman rule, they used the Roman alphabet . That's nonsense, the countries that were once under Rome have used over ten different alphabets when/after under Rome. So unfortunately, the spelling and grammar in the article is not the problem, the accuracy of the whole article is dubious at best. JdeJ 13:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - this is a shallow article most of whose content is covered in Germania and Holy Romasn Empire. If the article has anything worthwhile that is in neither then it should be merged. But that applies to very little of it. Most of it should be deleted. I assume that Romano-German is the equivalent of Romano-British, which refers to Britain in the period when it (or rather most of it) was part of the Roman empire. If so, any thing Romano-German will be covered in the Germania article and subarticles on its constituent provinces. Peterkingiron 23:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - But the article should be at least rewriten. No offense to anyone, but its as if a 9 year old wrote it. Secondly most of the article comes from other wikipedia articles, it looks like paragraphs were just cut from Germania and Holy Roman Empire, and pasted in Romano-German culture. Although the subject is notable and does belong on wiki, the article itself needs vast improvement. --Sir Kindle 07:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment Sir Kindle the article was written by an editor who wasn't exactly the most fluent in English which explains why it is written badly and you are probably correct as it does seem that parts were just cut out of other articles but for now unless someone can figure out how to rewrite this properly we need to delete this article and then in the future rebuild this article but right now it just isn't in a state to be left on Wikipedia. Xtreme racer 23:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Well that explains the way the article sounds, I'm sure I could rewrite this article, and have it up to standard in a few days. I have a pretty good understanding of the subject, in college we studied something that resembled this subject. I would need a few days to do some research, but I dont see a problem. How much longer is the current article going to be posted? --Sir Kindle 23:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment AFD debates last 5 days and since the article was nominated on June 18 the article will still be here till at least the 23rd of June and maybe longer depending on how the debate goes. I know it may not seem like much time but if you really do have a good understanding I can't see why you wouldn't be able to get the article up to standard. But as mentioned a lot of facts either need to be verified or removed if they were the personal opinion of the original author of the article. Xtreme racer 00:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sir Kindle, if you're serious about working on the article, you might have a look at Gallo-Roman culture for guidance. A good factual article. As you're a brand-new editor, let us know if we can answer questions about how things work. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Ya know, I may have spoken too soon. The thing is I'm not too familiar with editing articles, and I wouldnt want my first wiki article to be anything less then suitable. I do however have some resources that might help. I have some books, and refrences that touch the subject, and I have done an extensive google search on it. I just wouldnt be able to make an article out of it, not quite yet anyways, not in 3 days. Its not that simple of a subject, and not so black and white, as if I was writing an article on something more tangable, say the moon for instance (no disrespect to the editor) :). I looked at Gallo-Romano, and as far as im concerned, its very close to the subject at hand,(since Franks are Germans per se) and I wonder if why the author didnt "cut and paste" from that article as well. --Sir Kindle 05:53, 21 June 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Tweedie

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

Seems to be a very clever chap indeed, but is he of encyclopedic notability? The references provided are all to papers written by him, not independent reliable sources. kingboyk 15:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. He does have some notability in WP:PROF. He was working on ext2 and ext3.--Edtropolis 17:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of resumes. If someone wants to write a real article about him, they can. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Pmanderson and nom. I'm working on Wikipedia, but I'm certainly not notable. Someguy1221 05:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep new version. Someguy1221 23:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but needs rewriting. Suggest AFD in 2 months.Vectorsap 23:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (or move to Vectorsap's userspace). No sources indicating notability. Per Edtropolis, I don't see how this passes WP:PROF, and deliberately avoided adding it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators because I didn't think it was a good fit for that list. If Vectorsap wants to rewrite it to better demonstrate notability but can't get it done for two months, I suggest that moving the article to his or her userspace would be a more constructive path than leaving it in its current state as an article. —David Eppstein 20:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- Groggy Dice T | C 21:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep, with one paper having 42 cites, he is certainly an academic, though I am not sure he would pass PROF based just on that. However, it is not uncommon for software produced by comp.sci. academics to be included in research output metrics. In this case, Tweedie has contributed to some very high impact software. John Vandenberg 23:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, his ext3 work has had significant, as John says, "impact". .--soum ^talk 10:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. In the area in which he works he is notable. I've re-written the article a wee bit and added more references which I think cover the "independent" and "reliable" bases. AlistairMcMillan 11:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't think that the delete side fully appreciates how important ext3 was. At the time, the lack of a journalling filesystem on Linux was cited as a key reason why Linux couldn't penetrate the enterprise market, and reiserfs was building up a lot of momentum to replace ext2. Ext3 changed that. If there aren't gushers of articles about him, I think it's plain that it's not because the Linux magazines and sites wouldn't love to interview him, but because for whatever reason he's just not interested. We shouldn't value self-promotion more than the respect of his peers. (For example, in this interview,[5] Andrew Morton describes his journalling work as "easily the most complex part of the kernel with which I have had experience.") --Groggy Dice T | C 12:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. It was (for me at least) not about doubting the significance of ext3, but the article providing utterly no information on his contributions to it, and no independent sources for it. This has been cleared up now. Someguy1221 23:36, 23 June 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 18:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hot demolition

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

Not notable. Source describes only one instance of use, without a description of how widely spread the practice is, and source does not seem to be much corroborated. Adds little or nothing to wikipedia. Deltopia 14:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Appears to be a dictionary term.--Edtropolis 14:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this is a hoax. Capmango 15:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I thought it was a hoax, too, but didn't want to base the nomination solely on that. Outside of the cited harper's article and wikimirrors, I've found no evidence that any such thing exists. But even if it does, needs deletion. Deltopia 16:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Dont think it qualifies as a hoax. However, I believe it does fall to be deleted as a neologism. Ohconfucius 03:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a hoax. I guarantee you that if you douse a rat with kerosene and set him on fire, he will NOT go running from shack to shack setting them on fire for you. He will take two steps and fall over. Not that I have tried this, mind you. Capmango 16:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as copyvio'd spam (CSD G11, G12). Creator has been blocked for an inappropriate username; other articles have been similarly zapped. -- Merope 15:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Based on a number of factors, this article appears to be spam of a nonnotable organization by a COI author. I am also nominating the author's userpage, which contains identical content.

User:Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

YechielMan 14:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. He may have an inappropriate username or he may be a spammer.--Edtropolis 14:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Same user has now created articles Human right to work and Human right to education, both of which seem to be bordering on personal essays with some linkdumpage at the bottom. I merged and redirected the first to Labor rights for the time being, and I'm making note of this activity here. ~Matticus ^T_C 15:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manavaseva

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

Blatant conflict of interest. The organization is not notable, having fewer than 100 google hits. Please delete the image also. YechielMan 14:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - not for lack of Google hits, but for lack of secondary coverage. Fails WP:CORP. --B. Wolterding 15:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Article written by SPA Manavaseva. Fails WP:ORG & WP:COI. Caknuck 21:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G12 - It's a copyvio of various pages from [6] and although the inital editor probably represents the organisation, there is no indication that the text has been released. CIreland 05:21, 23 June 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 by Jimfbleak (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 08:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IGavel

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

Notability to come; this article looks like an advertorial. --Gavin Collins 14:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 14:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails criteria in WP:CORP.--Edtropolis 16:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as spam per G11, and so tagged. Ohconfucius 03:22, 21 June 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. Sr13 06:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wong Tzyy Yu

Wong Tzyy Yu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

At minimum, most of this ridiculous article is obviously a hoax. On the talk page, someone says they found some evidence that some of it may be true, but I can't find anything to indicate such, although some of the claims are mundane enough that it's theoretically possible. No references are included, of course. 25 Google hits for "Tzyy Yu -wikipedia". Prod was removed. Propaniac 14:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable author. Fails criteria in WP:BIO.--Edtropolis 15:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax, but even if not, this chap fails WP:BIO. Lankiveil 15:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC).
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - NN author, true. However, if not a hoax, his victimization of having music/backing beats stolen by Green Day is notable. Guroadrunner 08:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, but there's zero reason to think it isn't a hoax. Propaniac 13:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • • Sounds fair. Delete under WP:HOAX. Guroadrunner 04:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per CSD G1 as WP:NONSENSE, and sp tagged. Ohconfucius 03:26, 21 June 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mars Crossing

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

Conflict of interest: author of article seems to be the author of the book. The book doesn't seem notable enough to have earned neutral coverage. YechielMan 14:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up. Appears to have notability in book reviews.--Edtropolis 15:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Reasonably notable author; published by TOR, a professional publishers; book reviews, even if quoted from Landis' website, are from neutral sources, like Locus. Three blows from a wet noodle for WP:AUTO violation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Locus awards are decidedly non-trivial in the field. Although book reviews and any other references should link to the original source. The wet noodle suggestion also has merit... FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 20:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Nominee for a Nebula, winner of a Locus? Uh, yeah. Keep and clean up. The author should be warned about COI, though, if not done already. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm-- didn't realize Wikipedia had such a policy; I saw that a non-existent article was referenced, and thought it would be easy enough to write it. While I can see that a COI policy makes a lot of sense, I have to point out that it's nontrivial to detect from the top level that such a "COI" policy exists; I checked the "editing wikipedia" article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Wikipedia_content_criteria ); and the "list of policies" article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies ) neither of which mention any such policy. Geoffrey.landis 03:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment article by the author isn't necessarily a breach of COI if article maintains NPOV, and COI is not reason to delete an article. Capmango 15:45, 19 June 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. Looks like crap right now, but if someone can write better, they may repost. Sr13 19:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Peace

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

Non notable singer. ~ Wikihermit 14:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - The singer has a few reviews from different online sources as well as stating that the CD's will be released "in WalMart's Everywhere". If this is true, it will meet WP:MUSIC for notability. Plm209^{(talk • contribs)} 14:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. He's got so many albums on his web site. He appears to be notable.--Edtropolis 15:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete - released a self-financed single with a pressing of 2,000 sold at shows, released one single that "did nothing nationally," released another single that also "did nothing nationally with only minor local success," now performing as a solo entertainer using self-produced backing tracks. No way does this guy pass WP:MUSIC. Otto4711 15:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oh hey, and the article was created and heavily edited by User:MichaelPeace. WP:COI anyone? Otto4711 15:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above. JJL 17:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - unnotable, apparently unsigned musician. Korny O'Near 15:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete may be notable, but this article is WP:POV, a pile of crap, part of which was C&P from another site. We will look at it again if someone wants to write it properly and repost. Ohconfucius 03:38, 21 June 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eidon

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

The Greek verb εἶδον is not a notable encyclopedic topic and is being used as the vehicle for original research (e.g. "Plato's philosophy is that 'eidon' is the immutable genuine nature of a thing"; connection to Morpheus; etc. etc.). At best, it is an attempt to open a new-article backdoor for the unsound ideas the same editor has pursued at Good sense (deleted), Nous, Divine Nous, Idea, Eidos, Theory of forms, etc. The author's ideas, if they were not original research, would belong at Theory of forms. Wareh 14:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. A good article on this Greek word would be nothing more than a dictionary definition, and thus unsuitable for Wikipedia. The article we've got is stuffed full of original research, and is a POV fork of Theory of forms. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as nominator. Wareh 14:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Akhilleus. (In addition to which, it treats a verb as a noun; but that's trivial compared to the rest of it.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I'm not completely opposed to an article on a Greek word (mimesis comes to mind, and paideia). But eidon doesn't make the cut. semper fictilis 17:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Linguistically and philosophically, a complete mess. Calling it original research is too kind, since clearly very little research went into it. Deor 00:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, Since there is no specifics as to what parts or sentences are being objected to I believe the article should be kept for the following reasons. The main source of the information (80% +/-) for this article was obtained from Professor Joseph Novak's essay on the meaning of "Eidos", available online to a PDF file from the Department of Philosophy, University of Waterloo. It is number 14 in Notes. I also used Google to get additional references to back up this references and provided these as inline citations on the majority of the sentences throughout the article. If any source of these definitions are in dispute, there has not been any editor that has said such specifically. These definitions are the same for "eidon" and "edos" with many other sources.

1. If there was a specific phrase or sentence objected to in the article, let me know and I will provide additional sources besides those already provided.
2. Then if these are still objections by a consenses then that part could be taken out. Most sentences however have inline citations for references.
3. There is so much information in various philosophy books and online on this subject that it warrants an article by itself or its associated term "eidos."
4. Professor Novak's essay on the first page says, "anyone familiar with the history of philosophy, the term \eidos" is one of great significance. Along with its associated linguistic derivatives, the term \eidos" contains a nexus of concepts that are probably the most important to philosophizing as such."
5. Novak's essay also says, "For Plato himself it serves to designate any of those primary realities which have come to be known as the Forms." He then points out that the term Idea" and eidos" share the same root.
6. According to this source it is a verb and of the definitions I provided. Novak's essay says, "The term \eidos" (plural: \eide") is of Greek origin, \eidos" and it basically means \something that is seen." The term is a noun that is derived from the verb "eido" which means "to see."
7. In footnote 5 the source says: "In the philosophy of Plato, the eidos is the immutable genuine nature of a thing, one of the eternal, transcendent Forms apprehended by human reason {Gk. nouV [nous]}. Aristotle rejected the notion of independently existing Forms and understood them instead as abstract universals."
8. Since the main reference source is Professor Novak's essay, I believe those that think any parts are original research and not attributable should read this essay first (7 pages); since most of the article is from this essay. It is then backed up with no less that a dozen more references, all easily obtainable (or online). Most are in large public libraries or university libraries or through ILL.
9. There are a dozen sources that Professor Novak used for his essay written specifically on the subjects "eidos", "eidon', and "eidolon". --Doug ^talk 15:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Doug, your points relate to the noun εἶδος, not the verb εἶδον. In fact, most of the content of eidon is about the noun, as is Novak's essay. Now, I notice that you made an attempt to include some material in eidos (philosophy) ([7]) that's related to the material in eidon; your changes were reverted by Wareh ([8]), and rather than try to work something out on that article, you've created this article instead. That's a textbook example of a POV fork, and we haven't even examined your contributions to idea, Theory of forms, Nous, Noesis, and other philosophy articles where you're contributing very similar material.
  • As for why we're not objecting to specific sentences of the article, it's because it's an unsalvageable mess. Well, no, the direct quotes are ok, but the rest of the article makes it clear that you have no understanding of classical Greek (the missing/incorrect breathing marks and accents are just the most obvious indicator of this) and a tenuous grasp, at best, of the history of ancient philosophy. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but this article is just crap. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

To be a bit more specific, there is no Greek verb (in dictionary-entry form) είδον. That spelling—with a lenis and circumflex, not an acute, over the initial diphthong—could be the first-person singular second aorist form of the verb meaning "to see," or it could be the accusative singular form of the noun ειδος—again with lenis and circumflex, which WP doesn't provide for, apparently)—so the very first sentence of the article is hopelessly bollixed up, to begin with. And matters don't improve from there. (If anyone can tell me what the heck "Since eidos (ειδος), eide (ειδε), and idea (ιδεα) are similar in English, one can use them in their Cyrillic form" is supposed to mean, I'd be grateful.) You simply don't understand what you're writing about, and that's a poor basis for creating an article. Deor 18:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

WP allows for the circumflex (at least in the font I'm using): εἶδον. This could also be 3rd person plural aorist indicative ("they saw"), but εἶδος is neuter, so its accusative singular is also εἶδος. Sorry to be nitpicky, but I don't want to give Doug any erroneous information--you'll notice that he frequently asks language questions on the Reference Desk, and the answers often form the kernel of some odd idea that he slips into an article. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was relying on my aged memory for the gender of εἶδος. I should have looked it up. And I'm just getting a little empty box in place of the iota-with-circumflex on my screen. Deor 18:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Deor, don't apologize--I'm sort of embarrassed that I brought it up, actually. As for the empty box, I think it's a font issue--some fonts have the appropriate polytonic characters, others don't. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI: It so happens that this article of Eidon was found in "Good" articles proposed by bot for June 15 to be considered for the Main Page of Wikipedia in the section Did You Know. Another article that I wrote lately is Francesco Dionigi which shows up for "Good" articles on June 18. Here are some other articles I wrote lately.

• Good Will.
• Liber sine nomine - Book Without a Name.
• Self-guided tour, verses escorted tours.
• Laura de Noves, referring to Platonic love.
• Automatic Scorers, helped develop this in the 1970's.
• Street light interference - don't know why, but it happens to me!
• Petrarch's testamentum, about Petrarch's Last Will and Testament.
• Petrarch's library, the core material that started Biblioteca Marciana. (notice how many edits to this article since I started it)
• Palazzo Molina, Petrarch's home in Venice 1362 - 1367 where he lived with his daughter and son-in-law Francescuolo da Brossano (another new article).
• Aemilia Tertia, wife of the famous Italian general Scipio Africanus who beat Hannibal.
• Factory tours, an interesting one I went to lately was Fenton Art Glass Company.--Doug ^talk 20:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Just showing up in the bot list is not much of an achievement. It mostly checks for length, the existence of references and a few other things, so I could write a completely nonsense topic formatted properly and it would still get picked up by the bot. howcheng {chat} 23:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep judging the article in its own right, it seems adequately sourced, and a reasonably distinct subject. DGG 00:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • DGG, I don't mean to be bothersome, but I must point out that the ostensible subject of the article is the verb eidon, but the actual subject of the text is the noun eidos and its use in ancient Greek philosophy. The difference between verb and noun may seem trivial if you're not familiar with ancient Greek, but the verb has no significance as a technical term and doesn't merit an encyclopedia article, whereas eidos (philosophy) has one. The confusion between noun and verb is merely the most obvious sign of an unfamiliarity with ancient Greek that runs throughout an article that (badly) discusses words that share an etymological root with eidon.
  • Note further that Doug apparently created this article to expound ideas that he has been unsuccessfully trying to put in eidos (philosophy), idea, Theory of forms, Nous, and Divine Nous, making it a POV fork.
  • Lastly, the sourcing for this article includes a treatise hosted by the Unification Church--(Eidon#_note-9), hardly an authority on ancient Greek philosophy. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As the original author of the article I didn't realize that a "verb" could not be an article. So apparently then only "nouns" can be an article? I see many articles in Wikipedia that have been around for years with similar themes; i.e. noosphere, noetic, noesis. I am not sure which ones are nouns or which ones are verbs (as they didn't say). However these three have as a common theme the word nous, meaning "mind", "intellect", "logos", or "reasoning." These three present very similar themes and they all exist and have been around for years.

If there was a POV fork on my part, it was unintentional - as the fork policy points out what happens in many cases. It further points out "A POV fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts." I also didn't realize that my article presented a "point of view" that was either negative or positive. The article is about a theme being the definition of the term "eidon" and/or "eidos" - no positive or negative viewpoint. Its just straight definitions by several sources and references (besides Professor Novak's essay on Eidos). If there is another viewpoint to this, then please feel free to present it - I have no objection.

If it should go under eidos (philosophy), then lets put this article here - since it is well sourced and referenced as DGG points out. All it would take is a little rewording in the lead, like this:

Eidos (noun, Greek: είδος) means that which is seen. Eidon (verb, Greek είδον) means "to see" or "to recognize" or "to know." It is like the Latin word video for "I see" (first person singular present, indicative of videre, "to see"). Eidos is derived from eido (root rid) which in Greek and Latin is the original terms for form, figure, shape, and genus. Eidos is the images of the sensible world, the poor, inexact copies of the perfect eid[1]. From eidos ("see") comes the word idea (Greek: ίδέα).

Any other minor items that may be left could then just be edited out and corrected by any other Wikipedian, just like all articles are done. When a Wikipedian sees something that should be expanded or corrected they just go ahead and edit it accordingly. That's what would happen then on this "new" article as [Eidos (philosophy)], There, the problem is now solved.--Doug ^talk 12:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Doug, you seem to have missed the point, which is not that verbs can't have Wikipedia articles; the point is that this particular verb (εἶδον) is not a significant term in ancient Greek philosophy (or any other field of study), and therefore doesn't merit an article.

As for whether eidos (philosophy) should be expanded, I'll say once more that you've already given that a shot ([9]), and your changes were reverted by another editor ([10]). Rather than try to work something out on that article, you created eidon. That's a WP:POVFORK--as that policy says, "POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus."

At any rate, it's good to see that you've acknowledged that you "unintentionally" created a POV fork, and you can cut this AfD short by requesting the speedy deletion of eidon--just place {{db-author}} at the top of the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Move/Merge. By "Eidon" then becoming "Eidos" (since Eidos merits an article, especially since it is now a stub) then this solves everyone's problem from any and all points of view. I think its best to use the suggested lead above and just merge "Eidon" to "Eidos". "Eidos" has been a stub for 2 years now, so this would be a good chance to expand it into a full article. Keep in mind that these definitions are not my personal views, but referenced sources of these terms (attributable). Someday a Wikipedian will write up a full article on this subject and come up with basically the same material (from these references as well as additional sources). Why wait for another 2 years before an article is fully written on this subject, especially since it is already here ready to go. There is plenty of information available on "eidos" for a very large article on the subject; so this heads start would be a springboad to start from that other Wikipedians can expand upon. It then becomes a normal real article (not stub), like any other article. Suggestion: Merge and let the community work on the article. I would even agree with a 6 month ban not to edit the article, if you all's would agree with that too. I believe that is more than fair. What do you say? Let's make it a real article! The community of Wikipedians can then modify, change, expand, and edit accordingly to their heart's content. Even Professor Novak from the University of Waterloo says (as is now in the article itself),

along with its associated linguistic derivatives, the term 'eidos' contains a nexus of concepts that are probably the most important to philosophising as such.

This then is a very easy solution to the problem. I can do these simple steps (change lead) or others can do this (i.e. administrators resolving the dispute).--Doug ^talk 15:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

In short, this is a rewrite of Novak's essay, which is a carelessly written ad for his magazine: it has two typos in the initial Greek quote, and his treatment of the digamma is confusing - perhaps confused. Most of it is an inflation of this entry from LSJ and the corresponding entry for species from Lewis and Short, or possibly OLD. If he had consulted the middle LSJ or Autenreith, he would have understood that Homer also uses eidos for "image".

This article has the same flaws, and the same fundamental weakness: we don't do articles on words. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Merge and let the community genuinely work on the article in Good Faith. Let's make it a real article under the title "Eidos"". The community of Wikipedians can then modify, change, expand, and edit accordingly to their heart's content improving on any weaknesses. Does that sound fair to you? --Doug ^talk 18:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No one seems to have hit on this point yet but Doug Coldwell says he based this article largely on an essay "A Sense of Eidos" by Joseph Novack. First of all, that's not a good idea - articles should not be "based" on a source but rather be written by the author, after learning what they can learn through various sources. Second, though, this particular essay by Joseph Novack is not peer-reviewed, but rather is like a foreword to a journal called Eidos, partly to give information, and partly to explain to the audience why Eidos is a good name for a journal of philosophy. I oppose merging because this is so heavily based on a single, self-published source: this is OR (or perhaps "unoriginal research"?). As for covering the topic, I'm not quite sure. A mere etymology is not worth an article, but would be worthwhile at Wiktionary. An article on the philosophical concept is better, but I'd rather see us improve the Eidos (philosophy) article rather than starting with this. Not wholly convinced we need an article separate from Theory of forms. Mangojuice^talk 17:37, 21 June 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saturday Night Special (film)

Saturday Night Special (film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources indicating that this film is notable (not even an IMDB page). I prodded on 5/21; prod was removed without comment or improvement. I forgot about the earlier prod and prodded it again on 6/15, which was removed since it should be taken here. Propaniac 14:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. As per WP:CRYSTAL.--Edtropolis 14:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Propraniac's comments are incorrect. The IMDB page has not yet been posted, therefore it cannot be listed yet...however, it is pending and it takes time for IMDB's staff to approve a page. It is worth noting that the film's musician and actors have IMDB pages from previous projects, which is one of IMDB's criteria for approval. IMDB takes time...it isn't as efficient as Wikipedia. Significant improvements have been made, including distribution and festival information. This film's IMDB page was put on hold until it had won a "best of" award at a film festival, which the film did 3 weeks ago. The Wikipedia page has been completely redesigned, conforms to Wikipedia layout guidelines, includes approximately 50% more information, includes distribution information and includes a theatrical poster. It is incorrect to define such changes as "without improvement."

In addition, this isn't a "Crystal Ball" situation. This film has already won a major festival and will begin a limited theatrical release in August, which is only 6 weeks away. Lastly, there is the implication that the accidental removal of a deletion notification was deliberate. In this case, I'd appreciate it if the assumption was user error and unfamiliarity with Wikipedia. SuperDuper 1001

• Delete because a case needs to be made for its notability before an article should be created. None of this "Let's wait for it to get popular" business. As further evidence, I searched the keywords "saturday night special" "justin evans" in Google, and got 22 results. No prejudice against recreation if objective, secondary sources indicate this film's notability. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:26, 21 June 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 19:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The 250 Most Important Albums of Latin Alternative

The 250 Most Important Albums of Latin Alternative (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is about a list that once appeared in a music magazine. Although the musicians are notable, the list is not notable. YechielMan 14:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, inherently subjective, other people or sources may disagree. Furthermore, if this article is meant to represent a particular list at a particular time, then I don't see how much further the article could be developed. --Kyoko 15:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Also probably WP:COPYVIO. Clarityfiend 16:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and per Kyoko, and we still are waiting for the Wiki legal gurus to tell us when a top X list is or isn't a copyvio. Carlossuarez46 21:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. We had a big copyvio "debate" about the American Film Institute lists, which was finally settled by getting permission from them. Clarityfiend 01:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• No Delete, i really think this article must be kept it because of difficulty to get some info about lists or any kind media coverage about Latin Alternative genre. I know lists are subjective, but i think if it's developed the criteria what was used to be elaborated it it's possible to consider it as any list of Rolling Stone magazine that appears on Wikipedia. --JICAMARCA 21:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Maybe, it's better to change the title as Al Borde's The most important album of Latin Alternative. Please be fair with this article :/ --190.40.175.2 21:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The notability of Al Borde magazine has yet to be determined. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info. Ohconfucius 03:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. It's notable for California's Latino community--190.40.175.2 21:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. There are a number of lists regarding best songs or best films on [Wikipedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFI%27s_100_Years..._100_Movies], [11], Of course any such list is subjective, but those lists (just as this one) makes it clear that the list represents the opinion of an identified source. The copyright issue would need to be sorted, and the top ten might have to be removed, but I see no consistency in deleting this article when a number of more or less identical lists abound. Would anyone of the contributors voting for deletion care to explain why this list is different from, say, The_500_Greatest_Albums_of_All_Time. JdeJ 18:21, 23 June 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. Sr13 19:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abbeville Opera House

Abbeville Opera House (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article has problems with notability and possible conflict of interest. It may need cleanup or deletion - I'm not sure. YechielMan 14:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a travel guide.--Edtropolis 16:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup - the opera house is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The city's web site talks about the history of the opera house, so that should provide sufficient context on the opera house's history. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep So far I think we have consistently kept buildings with individual listings on the National Register--certainly if they are significant public buildings like this one. DGG 00:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, NRHP listings are vetted by professionals at the state and federal levels for their architectural, cultural, or historical significance. I don't think the tourism award is that significant but in a context of downtown revitalization might be (there seem to be some news sources on that behind paywalls). --Dhartung | Talk 03:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This building is listed in the National Register of Historic Places, this in itself makes it notable. The article needs a cleanup, that's all.Einbierbitte 17:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - An individual listing on the National Register of Historic Places should merit keeping this article. Particularly since it was added to the Register in 1970, making it one of the older listings (the program started in the late '60s). -Ebyabe 17:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: The NRHP listing is enough to keep this article. IvoShandor 17:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up The particular facet about the tourism award may or may not be made notable with context. But certainly the historic values of the site, as established through its NRHP listing, make it of encyclopedic value. (Conflict of interest disclosure: My folks used to perform there several years ago.) -Ipoellet 18:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I did a bit of clean up, the awards I left in because they are likely notable in context of the building's overall cultural significance. I cut a few things that I thought could reasonably be construed as POV or as trivial information. I removed the NPOV tag and autobiography tags (not sure why that was there). IvoShandor 18:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Has problems but does have notability. Vectorsap 23:48, 20 June 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

The event is encyclopedic, and is handled in an encyclopedic manner in Big Day Out. The person is not encyclopedic and since there are living relatives there are biographies of living persons (BLP) issues. In short, the policy tells us the biographies of people known only for one event needn't be written about in their own right.

Uncle G's suggestion of a redirect to Big Day Out is well taken. This may be created. --Tony Sidaway 18:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jessica Michalik

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

Non-notable person. Someone who is only notable for their death can be notable (see famous murder victims, for example Matthew Shepard) - however, someone who died by accident is not notable. This individual is not herself notable - information on her death should be merged with moshing. Chardish 00:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Notable but needs more sources. ExtraDry 09:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 09:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and/or redirect to Big Day Out, or create a new article something like Big Day Out 2001 Sydney incident. The person is not notable, but the incident is. (per WP:BLP1E - thanks Uncle G :) Orderinchaos 10:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect and Merge per Orderinchaos (Who edit conflicted me just as I was posting thanks very much). Subject does not qualify for an article in it's own right in accordance with WP:MEMORIAL and WP:BLPWP:BIO. The subject of the article is only notable for a single event, being her unfortunate death. The references are not cited inline, therefore each of the facts as written cannot be checked, failing WP:CITE. Subject also does not receive notability by association as a result of a notable band playing at her funeral. Thewinchester ^(talk) 10:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That doesn't prevent the facts from being checked at all. You have made a common error. Lack of spoon-feeding does not make an article unverifiable. See User:Uncle G/On sources and content#The requirement is only that the sources be cited somehow. Uncle G 14:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - The subject of the article does not meet WP:BIO (not sure how WP:BLP applies) and I am not convinced the incident is notable enough for the information to be merged to any of Limp Bizkit, Big Day Out or Moshing. I certainly do not think that her death, as unfortunate as it was, merits an article in its own right. Wikipedia is not a memorial. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 10:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Bloody good point there Mattinbgn, shows just how long a day it had been for me when I made those comments. Thewinchester ^(talk) 22:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The part of the policy that you are both looking for is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Articles about living people notable only for one event, which in turn is based upon the principle that not everything in Wikipedia requires presentation in the form of a biographical article. Uncle G 14:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
      • No, my point was that a policy that specifically applies to living people surely can't be applied to a person who is dead. That said, I agree the general principle should apply. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 20:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Big Day Out as her death led to changes in procedures and was one of the most significant in the event's history. [12] Also worth a mention in the Limp Bizkit article as they were criticised by the coroner. Capitalistroadster 10:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge -- and redirect to the Big Day Out article. A passing mention in the Limp Bizkit article is worthy of note also. - Longhair\^talk 11:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to the Big Day Out article, although the BDO article is getting awfully long. Recurring dreams 12:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Ditto Merge. The BDO article is surprisingly huge. But this person's death seems much more notable than incidents of hoax press releases. I say merge it into BDO's History section and if something has to go, it should be some of the existing BDO content. Canuckle 23:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notability is not just what a person does, but can also be what happens to a person, as here. (but the BDO article could possibly be divided by year to accomodate this) DGG 16:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC).
  • What happened to this person was that she was killed. The criticism of a rock performer by a coroner doesn't form part of a biography of her life and works. Uncle G 14:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Per the principle that I outlined in the pretty coloured box at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 23, redirect to Big Day Out, where this person's death is already covered in its proper context and without the pretense of being a biographical article. Uncle G 14:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you please identify which pretty coloured box on the linked page you are referring to ? -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 20:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    • It's the one with the green background. Uncle G 19:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Big Day Out per Uncle G. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and not everything that appears in the newspapers needs to have an encyclopedia article dedicated to it. Edison 16:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect the verifiable information to a section in the Big Day Out article, then use this section as an anchor for brief entries in other related articles, i.e. Limp Bizkit and moshing. Significant event in the history of the concert, but does not pass notability criteria as a biography. -- saberwyn 23:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect, per WP:NOT tabloid journalism. Guy (Help!) 10:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There are 351 articles about her in Factiva. It was heavily publicised at the time, and still gets cited years later. This isn't even a marginal case, and it's one where it really mightn't have hurt to have a) done some research, or b) asked some Australians about its notability, before racing off to delete it. Rebecca 10:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I suggest that you actually do some of that research that you are talking about. Those of us who have done the research, which involves not counting search engine hits but actually reading the articles, have seen that the articles are not "about her". They are about the festival, the coroner's report, the changes to safety measures, the arguments between the promoters and the performers, the insurance liabilities, and the civil suits, all of which belong in, and many of which can already be found in, Big Day Out. Presenting any of this as if it were a biography of a person's life and works is a pretense. Once again, and in boldface: Not everything in Wikipedia requires presentation in the form of a biographical article. Uncle G 19:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Jessica Michalik was not just 'some trampling victim'. Her death brought into attention a lot of issues, including poor crowd control at concerts; it resulted in legal action against Australia's biggest music festival, and against Fred Durst, the lead singer of Limp Bizkit. It was very heavily publicised at the time; it still gets mentioned whenever something goes awry at a concert. This is honestly like proposing to delete Matthew Shephard or Rodney King - this was a precedent-setting death. In a less-populated country like Australia, things like this receive a lot of attention. It thus may be hard for the primarily American Wikipedia contributors to put Michalik into perspective. However, she is (I use 'is' to describe the incidents and ramifications of her death, not the person) definitely notable - her death, while unfortunate, helped to bring about a lot of changes. It was newsworthy at the time. It is certainly article-worthy now. Riana ⁂ 10:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You are aware that many of the editors who have suggested deletion or merging are Australian. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 11:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for assuming I have not fully read this discussion. I made that comment for future voters. Riana ⁂ 11:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Just making the point that not all Australians feel the subject is notable. Your comment, whether it was meant to or not, could imply that was not case. Also, I am not a big fan of assuming that those non-Australians who have voted on the subject have not been able to do their own research on the notability of the subject and come to a fair conclusion. Once again, whether you meant to or not, your comment could be read to imply this.-- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 11:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
        • My comment was directed purely as a response to commenters above who clearly had not done that research. If you think that the reason this article exists is because "a notable band played at her funeral", you've very clearly not done even basic research into the actual case; it exists for the reasons Riana outlined above. Rebecca 13:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
        • OK. Matt, I apologise for my tone - I'm just a little surprised that someone's suggested this article should be deleted. How do you suggest I modify my comment? I am certainly not suggesting all non-Aussies have not done their research - I am merely trying to point out that something like 'some kid got trampled at a rock concert' might happen all the time in countries with many more kids, many more rock concerts, many more opportunities for such events to occur. In Australia, something like this is rare - I'm sure we agree on that point.

          I also particularly dislike the idea of a merge into the general Big Day Out article. Certainly it merits a mention in the article. But I believe that Michalik's death was more than sufficiently noteworthy to merit a standalone article. This is not BLP we're dealing with. This is how one girl's death changed a lot of the things we do at concerts. `Riana ⁂ 14:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

          • No. It merits discussion in the article, because the ramifications were nothing to do with this person and everything to do with the festival, its promoters, and the artists who were performing there. Not everything in Wikipedia requires presentation in the form of a biographical article. A discussion of the aftermath of a death at a rock concert is by no stretch of the imagintion a biographical article on a person's life and works. Uncle G 19:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
            • As Riana pointed out, we already have numerous articles on people who are notable, not for their lives, but their deaths. Riana named some of them above, but I can think of quite a few more. These articles aren't "a biography of their life and work"; much of those articles, necessarily, cover the notable ramifications of their deaths. Michalik's death wasn't just notable to the extent of one concert; it fundamentally changed the way concerts are operated across the country. The ramifications of her death were very significant - and crucially, not just to the Big Day Out. It deserves a standalone article, and articles have been kept with far, far, far less evidence of notability. I can't help but much of this just comes down to "I haven't heard of her." Rebecca 23:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
              • I agree that this has to be a keep as under WP:BIO Jessica "has demonstrable wide name recognition". Anytime Big Day Out, mosh pits, big rock concerts are mentioned in a newspaper, her name always comes up. Her death raised issues about crowd safety, organ donation, the naming of a park, and the creation of a memorial trust by Australian record companies. I agree that in over 350 articles, all bar two only mention Jessica in passing, but she has name recognition. I have added a reference to that article by Anna Cock about her in the Daily Tele (hard copy only, no weblinks). The topic of her tragic death is definitely notable enough to have its own page anyway, and it would also qualify under the splitting rule for long pages anyway. Anyway way you look at it, the topic is deserving of a separate page. Anyway, there is enough controversy for it to be kept for failure of consensus, so can we move on and discuss deleting something else. Assize 04:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
            • We have articles on deaths and murders. We don't name them after the people who died and we don't pretend that they are biographies of those people's lives and works. The ramifications of this person's death should not be covered in an article that pretends to be a biography of a person. Not everything in Wikipedia requires presentation in the form of a biographical article. Uncle G 12:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• The rule of thumb regarding notability is this: If topic "Foo" is not notable independently of topic "Bar" (in other words, you can't name a reason why "Foo" is notable that doesn't involve "Bar" or anything related to "Bar"), then information on "Foo" should be merged into the article on "Bar" unless there is so much information about "Foo" that it warrants its own article. Michalik is clearly not notable independently of Big Day Out, and there's not enough information on her to warrant her own article. - Chardish 04:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Except that this patently isn't true. The ramifications of this went significantly beyond the Big Day Out. Rebecca 04:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Yes, and those issues can be discussed in an appropriate section within the BDO article. And quite frankly, the ramifications wern't as big as you're making them out to be. The person fails the required standard for notability, and the article should be merged and redirected, like every other common sense editor here has suggested. Thewinchester ^(talk) 08:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Apologies in advance for not being a common sense editor, but can we just address WP:BIO, as that is what makes a person worthy of taking note. A person is notable if they meet any of the 10 criteria listed in that guideline. One of those is name recognition, and that is something that Jessica has. The association with BDO has no relevance to her notability. That argument would only apply to the security guard who rescued her or her friend who was stuck up the back of the event who are mentioned many times in the articles. Assize 09:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
        • That the person's name is recognized doesn't mean that the information that editors want to present should be presented in a form that pretends to be a biographical article of a person's life and works. The insurance liability court cases, for example, are not part of the life and works of this person. They are, however, part of the history of Big Day Out. And that is where the death of Jessica Michalik, and all of the other things that came afterwards, should be covered, presenting them in their proper context, and without the pretence that they in any way form a biography. Uncle G 12:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Perhaps the article could do with a lot of work, but then 99% of wikipedia could do with that as well. Badly written articles are not grounds for deletion. Perhaps I am being too Sydney-Australia-centric in this discussion, but every twenty something knows who she was, and that in my opinion meets WP:BIO and the ability to have a separate page. If you carry this to its natural extreme, John Howard should be merged into an article about prime ministers of Australia as he wouldn't be independently notable outside of being PMAssize 23:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as Assize has pointed out, this subject does meet BIO, esp. with a yearly Jessica Michalik Contemporary Music Endowment in her name. It may never be a normal biography, but this article should remain as a central point for the event. A rename to reduce the attempt to be a BIO would be good. John Vandenberg 12:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • We don't need a rename. This ground is already covered in Big Day Out#History, and there is plenty of room in that article for further expansion on the events. All that we need is a redirect. Uncle G 12:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • A redirect works for me, as the endowment is also linked to the BDO, but I would prefer to see this as a separate article as I am not a fan of being sent to a long article in order to figure out who someone is, and I think it is sufficiently notable event to have its own article. John Vandenberg 13:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Orderinchaos. We shouldn't be the establishers of fame. Bulldog123 18:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Establishers of fame? I think it's already pretty established, due to the very high media attention . Rebecca 00:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, sources say notable. Everyking 08:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Move/Rename with redirect to Big Day Out, Sydney 2001 as Jessica is only notable due to this event, every thing that has happened is as a result. Besides Jessica the article can cover the changes to barriers for such events, the various court cases that occured. This is then not lost/hidden/unfindable in the Big Day Out article and can offer a broader range of information for those interested. note for closing admin alternative position is delete/redirect as the subject isnt independently notable. Gnangarra 11:28, 22 June 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.--Wafulz 22:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lou Briel

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

Delete Article was derived from Institute of Puerto Rican Culture website; notability is weak. Subject mainly won a talent show and simply due to that he is considered important by the article's author.--XLR8TION 20:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Has no year of birth. Possibly fails criteria in WP:BIO.--Edtropolis 15:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'm from Puerto Rico and the subject is well known here and in some Latin American countries. He is a singer, composer, has had a TV show for more than a decade I guess, etc. The article definitely needs work because somebody poured lots of data that is not NPOV, but I do think it must be kept. Thief12 03:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Googleing "Lou Briel Puerto Rico" returns close to 1,000 results. Yahoo! returns close to 200. For whatever is worth. Thief12 03:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I'm also from Puerto Rico, I didn't write the original article but I've added some contributions. I don't know his year of birth, but I'll try to find out and include it, if it's necessary. The information in the article is quite correct, and it's not derivated from the Institute of Puerto Rican Culture website, www.icp.gobierno.pr,{Instituto de Cultura Puertorriqueña). Lou Briel's biography is not listed there, and it's not a biography website. I do think it must be kept, also.--Entre-Nos 05:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I already found Lou Briel's birthdate and included it. I've cleaned the article, added some information, and eliminated the unnecessary wikilinks, [[ ]], and some triple quotes, . Check it, it's worth it. Best regards. --Entre-Nos 09:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, I would vote a "Keep" if the article is re-written within within Wikipeida's formatting style. The article needs sections, it should start with an introduction and so on. As it is, it is not up Wikipedia Standards. If it is worked on properly then I will reconsider. Tony the Marine 04:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I tried to clean and organize the article as best as I could. However, I didn't check for sources. I basically worked with the data that was there. I also added an infobox. Any comments, feel free to leave them here. Thief12 15:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, Thief12. I was just about to edit when I saw your changes. Excellent job. There was just an error in his birthdate and I corrected it. Congratulations. Best regards:--Entre-Nos 17:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - if the article is correct, he's a notable TV personality. The fact that the article is somewhat badly written is grounds for improving it, not deleting it. Korny O'Near 15:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - the article has greatly improved since the last time I saw it. Tony the Marine 01:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge into Miniature figure (gaming). I know nothing about the subject, but this AFD is past deadline and someone has to execute the decision. If I mess it up, please be bold and edit the relevant articles. YechielMan 10:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miniatures (Dungeons & Dragons)

Miniatures_(Dungeons_&_Dragons) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

What's the reasoning? Pawsplay 17:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge - merge into Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures Game. Plm209^{(talk • contribs)} 14:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - D&D miniatures is not really about the same topic as Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures Game, despite the similar title and cross-reference; the former is about the use of miniatures in D&D (a fantasy role playing game), whereas the latter is about a skirmish wargame based on D&D character types. Role players will tell you there's a big difference between these types of gaming, even if they both use miniatures. Agnostic as to whether deletion is warranted. I'm not sure if D&D miniatures really qualify as notable, separate from existing articles on Miniature figure (gaming) and Dungeons & Dragons. But if this is going to be merged, the unique content might fit better into one of those other two articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenauberon (talk • contribs)
• Merge with Miniature figure (gaming). Zenauberon just beat me to this point. --Bren ^talk 05:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Miniature figure (gaming), per Zenauberon, which is what this article is about. The D&D Miniatures game is a different topic and a separate game. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Miniature figure (gaming) per above. Capmango 15:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge ditto on the merge with Miniature figure (gaming). BsayUSD [Talk] [contribs] 14:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures Game, bit redundant. GreaterWikiholic 21:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge all to Punjab State Carrom Association and Delete. The history of the articles has been merged to take care of GFDL issues. utcursch | talk 04:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Punjab State Carrom Association

Punjab State Carrom Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Merge Guru Tegh Bahadur Sports Club, Amritsar District Carrom Association and Tarn Taran District Carrom Association into Punjab State Carrom Association. All of them are subdivisions of that larger organization (which itself may need to be merged into All India Carrom Federation, but let's leave that for another discussion). None of them have enough material, much less sources, to stand alone as individual articles, are unlikely to ever be anything but stubs, have engendered a useless Category:Punjab State Carrom Association, and (I contend) are not notable enough to sustain separate articles, any more so than, say, the New Mexico regional division of the Billiard Congress of America. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I bring this to AfD because there is not enough editorial interest in these articles to have a meaningful merge discussion at Talk:Punjab State Carrom Association. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge all. These should be merged, and then the category can be deleted.--Mike Selinker 20:43, 18 June 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roger Granet

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

Vanity page, self-inserted by User:Jbederman, a User with no other edits Wetman 00:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing in here qualifies as a valid assertion of notability. Someguy1221 21:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- David Eppstein 05:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep -- each of his books has independent reviews, and several have multiple. To be notable, "self-help" authors need to have a higher level of outside interest in their books than more specialized authors, but the books I searched for definitely make this mark. (Needs definite cleanup) -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as above (agree about cleanup too). JJL 17:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per User:MscuthbertTaprobanus 17:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and let's all be a little more careful with the "v" word, I'm seeing it tossed around a lot. Capmango 16:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps there is a good reason that the "v" word is tossed around too frequently. IMHO, WP:Auto needs to be made far more stringent. Anyway, this article certainly sounds autobiographical to me. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 20:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with calling things COI or AUTO (though why we keep doing that in AfD when it's not relevant to deletion I dunno), but using the word Vanity is a direct attack on the author's character and strikes me as completely inappropriate. We should not assume the worst about people. Capmango 16:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I am familiar with the world he moves in and his credentials are quite typical. I see nothing that makes him stand out. Contrast him with someone such as Otto_Kernberg or (the poorly written article about) Roy_Schafer. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 20:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, WP:AUTO not sufficient grounds to nominate. Subject looks reasonably notable and sources were provided. John Vandenberg 06:30, 24 June 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 feeding the school merge fetish on here, merge/redirect.--Wizardman 14:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steves Elementary_School

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

non notable elementary school ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge only the cited facts to School District 38 Richmond per WP:V. Article fails WP:N on its own. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge, noticed that all already the info of one school is in the school board article.--JForget 00:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to School District 38 Richmond. Alansohn 17:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to School District 38 Richmond Noroton 17:49, 19 June 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 feeding the school merge fetish on here, merge/redirect.--Wizardman 14:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tait Elementary_School

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

non notable elementary school ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to School District 38 Richmond and expand that article to receive it. Dhaluza 16:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as article fails WP:N on its own but facts are supported. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into SD 38 Richmond to allow for the possibility of a better, resurrected article on this school in the future. Noroton 17:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to School District 38 Richmond. Alansohn 17:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to School District 38 Richmond Noroton 17:48, 19 June 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 feeding the school merge fetish on here, merge/redirect.--Wizardman 14:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thompson Elementary_School

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

non notable elementary school ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• I don't believe that this article should be deleted. Please explain how you have concluded that this is not a notable school. More importantly, what would you consider a notable elementary school? --theorb 10:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Some here would not consider any elementary school that did not have some national or international fame or importance attached to it to be notable, I think (but you might ask them). I tend to be inclusionist: If there were plenty of good information in this or any other elementary school article, especially if you can get two reliable, independent sources for information on the school, I would prefer to keep the article, and you'd get at least some support from others (although I don't know if it would be enough to avoid a consensus decision to delete). As it is now, the article is essentially a stub and there's little reason to believe it will grow (elementary school stubs often don't grow). The best argument for taking out even the best stubs is that they disappoint readers. All the information here, along with that of other schools in the same district, could fit into a section of one larger article on the district. All the information could then be saved for readers, who would be just as well served. Noroton 17:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Then why are you listing it at AfD, rather than just merging it, as you say is appropriate in your reply above? Dhaluza 10:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to School District 38 Richmond. Dhaluza 16:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge only the cited facts per WP:V. Article fails WP:N on its own. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge cited material to School District 38 Richmond and hard redirect (protect the redirect). Burntsauce 22:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Burntsauce. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to School District 38 Richmond. Alansohn 17:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to SD 38 Richmond Noroton 18:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to school district article as suggested. Yamaguchi先生 04:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tommy Luciferi

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

This article lacks any reliable sources. I was unable to locate any coverage in reliable sources that were independent of the subject (here, Tommy Luciferi). The prod placed on the article was removed without any reliable sources being added to the article. The article initially included the statement The purpose of this article is to alert people that although Tommy Luciferi has developed somewhat of an online fan base, his true intentions and motives should serve to be a warning beacon of the shifting tides of thought streams in North America. Without reliable sources, the article cannot meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and should be deleted. Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete: A7. Leuko 19:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy or snowball delete per nom and Leuko.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Snowball delete. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 14:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - as per WP:SNOW.--Edtropolis 16:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete sheesh. JJL 17:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as CSD A7, the sole source is a blogspot website ffs. Burntsauce 22:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - The only source cited is a blog. Considering that no clear claims of notability are made, it appears the subject matter is not only unsourced, but unsourceable. ◄Zahakiel► 13:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom, snowballs for Luciferi. RFerreira 06:04, 20 June 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. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ubuntu Home Server

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

• Completely incorrect information:
  • Not developed or even support by Canonical
• Literal copy & paste of the home page's wiki
  • [13]
• Ubuntu Home Server is still in discussion, not even in development
• No useful information
  • What is this article even trying to state?

Altonbr 14:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Jc98250 18:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC) - I think the page has value:

• http://ubuntuhomeserver.org does not show when googling 'ubuntu home server', but the wikipedia page does (and references the site)
• Canonical is hosting a session on the Home Server[14] at the upcoming Ubuntu Live in Portland, OR, in July 2007
• Keep - And cleanup. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Jossi. Bucketsofg 19:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This material is of a very early and nebulous nature. We might overlook WP:CRYSTAL if reliable sources had commented on this plan, but there are none cited. Some of this might find a home under 'future directions' in the main article Ubuntu (Linux distribution). EdJohnston 17:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This edition is in actual development and here is its page at launchpad : https://launchpad.net/uhs/

Don't delete this article.--62.149.114.19 16:36, 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 feeding the school merge fetish on here, merge/redirect.--Wizardman 14:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Walter Lee_Elementary_School

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

non notable elementary school ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge only the cited facts to School District 38 Richmond per WP:V. Article fails WP:N on its own. --Butseriouslyfolks 02:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge per Butseriouslyfolks. Notability not demonstrated, but a paragraph in School District 38 Richmond that contains verifiable facts would be the right place for school information. --B. Wolterding 14:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to School District 38 Richmond. Alansohn 17:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to School District 38 Richmond Noroton 17:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to School District 38 Richmond.xC | ☎ 04:50, 20 June 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. Nice cleanup.--Wafulz 22:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zona Norte

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

This article is a translation from the Spanish Wikipedia. However some users removed most of the content.

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The article at esWiki that this was "translated" from is a rather detailed piece on prostitution and adult entertainment in Tijuana. It has no sources and reads like original research, so it's not suitable for translating in its entirety to enWiki. No prejudice against re-creation with sources and with a less ambiguous name, but I'm uncertain there is enough in the way of sources out there for it. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Objectionable content was removed. --Rivus 21:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

---

There are valid sources, like this article from the San Diego Youth and Community Services: http://www.sdycs.org/site/DocServer/TIC_-_2.doc?docID=641 or the article from Cimac: http://www.cimacnoticias.com/noticias/06abr/s06041101.html

Prostitution in Tijuana is a big problem, so there are sources to verify the content that is written in the article.

If you check the information in the Spanish site, that now has the reference, it says mostly the same as this article.

There is also the blog, however, the author has not talked about his methodology (poll and interviews) and has not been peer reviewed enough, but there are many sites that can be cross referenced to find the validity of all the information.

how about you find them and re-write the article.

---

I will do that. It's already started in Spanish...

• Keep and expand - These Red-light districts are notable, similar to Combat Zone (Boston) or Storyville. Given the proximity to San Diego, this area is very frequented by sex tourists and is certainly well known. The article is a mess though and doesn't even mention it's located in Tijuana. --Oakshade 18:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'd be willing to translate/rewrite this article from the esWiki version if it were sufficiently sourced, but the problem is that even the "new" sources presented there are, with one exception, culled from a blog. If the district is notable then sources will exist, but we cannot assume notability prima facie simply because other red-light districts have been shown to be notable. Arkyan • ^(talk) 20:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• After a very brief search (I do have a life outside of WP), so far I've found a CNN article and a San Diego Union-Tribune one that both have a lot of detail on the Zona Norte.--Oakshade 22:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• That's good for a start. I'll work on translating the article tomorrow and using those for starting sources, and will withdraw the delete !vote from before. Arkyan • ^(talk) 22:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I was going to translate the esWiki version of this article, which was rather exhaustive in terms of information, however that article has been deleted from esWiki [15] for their version of WP:NOT. I've no objections to a sourced article on this topic being written here but I am no longer able to translate it as the spanish version is gone. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

---

I already started the article using information only form the San Diego Youth and Community Service. The information from the article from the Spanish Wikipedia is here, and it concurs with the information from other sources.

I checked this document, and it has the same information about the states of procedence for the Paraditas.

http://www.oas.org/atip/country%20specific/AZAOLA%20Mexico%20Child%20Sex%20Exploitation.pdf

Besides prostitution, there are also drugs in the Zona Norte, here is the article: http://experienciastj.blogspot.com/2007/06/drogas-en-la-zona-norte.html

---

Here is the translated article from spanish:

• Comment - I moved the text onto the talk page to keep it from clogging this up. I'd rather have had the Spanish text to translate from - but this will do fine. However, someone has copy-pasted copyrighted text directly into the article and this is plainly unacceptable. I am going to mark that for speedy deletion, and once it's deleted I will re-write the article based on the translated text as well as the links that Oakshade dug up previously - thanks for the help guys. Arkyan • ^(talk) 14:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• The copyrighted text is from [16]. Putting a link to it here so I have it as a reference and don't lose it when that gets deleted. Arkyan • ^(talk) 14:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Just plain keep - I've gone ahead and completely rewritten the article with the provided sources as well as a couple of others that I dug up. It should be well within inclusion criteria now. Enjoy. Arkyan • ^(talk) 19:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note : I am moving the commentary about the article itself onto the article's talk page, it's a better venue for such discussion. Try to keep the conversation here focused on whether or not the article should be deleted. Thanks! Arkyan • ^(talk) 22:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Thanks to Arkyan's rewrite of 22 June, this is now a solid and well-referenced article! I left a message for User:Stealthrabbit127, the nominator of the AfD, to see if he will withdraw his nomination due to the rewrite. EdJohnston 17:16, 24 June 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. Sr13 20:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IBM WebSphere

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

Another software neologism, but unless they really have invented crystal ball, I suspect this may be non-notable product release. IBM is well known of course, but this list of a product components & their attributes should be deleted because it appears to be a double helping of Spam. --Gavin Collins 13:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 13:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - a product catalog does not qualify as encyclopedic information. The existence of this brand would be worth a sentence in the IBM article or one of its subarticles, but not more. --B. Wolterding 14:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, I am changing to Keep as a product family, but the article definitely needs improvement: a) Non-trivial independent sources need to be added in order to establish notability (separate from the application server); b) the product catalog, i.e. the mere listing of (usually non-notable) products on this page, should be replaced with encyclopedic content. --B. Wolterding 08:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Very strong keep, this is a notable software product with 1.7 millions ghits, 4.5 thousand scholar hits, 186 news hits and 643 book hits. If every word of this article cant be verified somewhere amoungst those sources, I'll eat my hat. John Vandenberg 14:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think this is a misunderstanding. The product you're referring to is IBM WebSphere Application Server, and it is notable for sure (and has its own article). --B. Wolterding 14:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    • No, the article being proposed for deletion is a "platform", and the application server is no longer a major reason for its notability. On each of my searches you can add -"application server" and still receive a large number of results. This would be comparable to deleting Windows Vista simply because its technology components such as WinFS and WinFX have articles (bear in mind that people do not buy "Vista", they buy and "edition" which contains a set of features). Or deleting Oracle E-Business Suite or Oracle Fusion Middleware because they are made up of other components. "WebSphere" is not a catalog; it is an IBM brand and the name of a division of IBM that develops and maintains that platform (similar to the Lotus and Rational divisions) which contains a long list of products that are kept in step with each other and are integrated into each other. A disambig page is not appropriate as it would not mention any of the brand/division aspect of WebSphere. John Vandenberg 22:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Disambig Obviously, some of the articles linked there are of note, but otherwise that's er... ibmcrufty for lack of better terms. Kwsn^(Ni!) 18:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The IBM WebSphere is a very notable product family, like Oracle Fusion Middleware or Microsoft Windows Kmorozov 07:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as an IT expert I can assure that this article is relevant, encyclopedic and accurate. David 12:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This is a major, major player in J2EE platforms and is the backbone of thousands of websites and enterprise applications. It's also been around for many years now; it's not new. Capmango 18:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Is this just anti-IBM backlash or something? This is a very relevant product family, whether you think it's current or not is not relevant. Historical or modern, many people are interested from a technical and lay perspective in the platform.Randomjohn 13:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The point is: Notability should not be established by just stating "it's notable", but by citing independent sources. These are missing, so the article can easily generate the impression that the subject is not notable. --B. Wolterding 14:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Not having sources is a problem, but that doesnt make this article bad. We are all busy fixing things, and deleting articles oft makes more work than it solves. Going back to Randomjohn's comment, there is an anti-enterprise backlash on Wikipedia; notable software that many people havent heard of is often sent to Afd. This isnt a critism of the nominator either; I have recently sent one to Afd and was surprised that it got a second hearing and resulted in a keep. John Vandenberg 23:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Capmango. --Karnesky 13:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This middleware is of relevance to enterprise software integration. It is notable and of interest.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.96.9 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 22 June 2007

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Textbook case of a WP:CRYSTAL violation, and the sort of conditions that WP:SNOW was written about. We've all got better things to spend our time on. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pirates of the Caribbean: 4

Pirates of the Caribbean: 4 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wildly premature article full of speculation. No confirmation that this movie will be made. Prod tag removed with a rewrite, but still doesn't pass WP:CRYSTAL. Resolute 13:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete per WP:CRYSTAL; I might consider an IAR speedy here because this really has no chance of becoming a legitimate article. YechielMan 13:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. This film may not get made, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of facts, not a fan's hyperbole. Alientraveller 14:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. The very writing itself reflects the uncertainty of a fourth film. In addition, the well-cited Pirates of the Caribbean films#Future covers potential development in a proper location that does not violate WP:CRYSTAL. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. "Maybe," "possibly," and "probably" -- sheesh! Definitive and properly sourced information, once it becomes available, can be listed at the parent article, as Erik stated above. María (críticame) 15:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. May I reccomend the creator reading WP:CRYSTAL??? Jonjonbt on a wikibreak
• Delete per above, violates WP:CRYSTAL. Speaking of speculation, my own crystal ball reveals a lot of snow in this article's future .. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:43, 18 June 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 reliable sources presented for notability.--Wafulz 22:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Society in Shadow

NN live Role playing game. Fredrick day 13:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No assertion of notability. YechielMan 13:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Will you please explain how this has no notability if that is so I will start fixing the wiki page for it and enter the notable facts just say what they need to be.--Serge222 22:05, 20 June 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 20:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vikrant Massey

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

I'm sure that Mr Massey is a great guy, but I'm not sure whether he is notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Possibly non-notable. I don't think he's a supporting actor in a Disney Channel original series.--Edtropolis 13:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This article does not assert the notability of the subject, does not conform to basic English standards, and is not referenced. Chrisch^Talk 14:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 19:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect.-Wafulz 22:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Niddhi Tikoo

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

I'm sure she's a lovely person, but I ave some notability concerns with this subject. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Possibly non-notable.--Edtropolis 13:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Dhoom Machaao Dhoom. Low Ghits, even considering how unwired India is (and possibly non-Latin scripts), but the target audience may be too young to be making fansites and penning "reliable sources." But redirect will allow recreation if her career progresses. --Groggy Dice T | C 21:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Groggy Dice T | C 21:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect per Groggy Dice.

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Urban Mage

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

The article is original research and the subject appears to lack notability. Bonadea 13:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Note that the author of the article is a WP:NOOB, and he uploaded two related images which will be useless if the article is deleted. YechielMan 13:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - doesn't appear to have any media coverage. Addhoc 16:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 19:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, with no prejudice toward recreation. Sr13 20:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Starport: Galactic Empires

Starport: Galactic Empires (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - No assertions of notability, no reliable secondary sources to allow any verification and the article is 99% game guide material. DarkSaber2k 13:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. DarkSaber2k 13:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; regardless of outcome everything from the 'Gameplay' section downwards should be scrapped per WP:NOT indiscriminate information. As for sources, best I can come up with is [17], which appears to be a a fairly-written but user-submitted review. The usual bevy of download sites. Marasmusine 13:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Looking round that review and the site it's on, I'm 100% confident in saying it is a blog review, not a reliable source. I agree that, for once, it's a well-written user review, but I'd say it's a user review none-the-less. It does actualy look to be a proper review, but on it's own it's just not a big enough something. DarkSaber2k 17:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Even if it does meet the notability requirements, this is still not a proper Wikipedia article, it's more like an infodump with traces of a game guide. Also, a few recent patches upset a whole lot of people who have now taken to trolling the game forums, so its future is (IMO) at best, uncertain. I'm a former SGE player, by the way. Cctoide 14:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete in the absence of sources to establish its notability, and if it does remain, I agree the gameplay guide stuff needs to go. — brighterorange (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• My Position: keep whatever parts of this article that references can be found for, delete anything else.Repaxan 23:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Behroozed

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

Delete - Unsourced, entirely non-notable neologism. DLand^TALK 13:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. If notable, this is not sourced and can at best only pertain to a small online community. No assertion that the term has spread outside hardcore 24 fans. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 13:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no notability established for this neologism. Acalamari 18:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. IP198 19:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — Non-notable neologism, no sources. *Cremepuff222* 00:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like original research to me. Certainly no evidence to suggest that this term is in wide enough usage to be notable. A1octopus 12:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Unsourced dictionary definition, no assertions of notability. Also, you don't start a dicdef about a verb with its past participle. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 19:58, 22 June 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 04:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dolchstosslegende in popular culture

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

Delete - a mass of original research. Article appears to assert that any instance of internal betrayal is an example of the particular myth. Otto4711 12:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm averse to 'in popular culture' articles at the best of times, but this doesn't even seem to be what it says. The examples given do NOT refer to the Dolchstosslegende with the exception of a Harper's magazine article which is cited three times. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 13:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Rename and keep. What this article seems to want to be about is not its nominal subject, but rather a collection of the several conspiracy theories that have sprung up to explain military defeats. This strikes me as a common enough subset of conspiracy theories, but much broader than the title suggests; the Dolchstosslegende is but one of them. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Split decision. While tempted by Smerdis' solution, two of the four instances have no real content. Divide out the first section, on Britain, and merge into Noel Pemberton Billing (much of it is there already, and I'm not convinced that The Imperialist has any notability independent of its creator.) Similarly, merge the last section into Kevin Baker and offer it to the Iraq War pages, which do not now link here. Delete the rest Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - this COULD be written about. I know, that beyond the Harper's article, NPR did a piece on the same topic. However, this article is unsalvageable. --Haemo 07:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - this is a WP:COATRACK article, with sourcing far too thin to justify its text. And let me point out that absolutely nothing in the article is at all about "popular culture." Not worth keeping in any form. Mangojuice^talk 18:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree 100% per Mangojuice, I don't see any 'popular culture' here. - 71.232.31.43 02:32, 26 June 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 redirect necessary. Sr13 20:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boxing in popular culture

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

Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a collection of loosely-associated items. List seeks to capture any appearance of a boxer in any film, book or TV show. The assertions about the entry of boxing terms into the lexicon is completely unsupported by any sourcing and possibly constitutes original research. Otto4711 12:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Boxing.--Edtropolis 15:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - the boxing article adequately deals with this subject. Carlossuarez46 21:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect — to Boxing. The article alone isn't worthy to stay on Wikipedia, but I thik everything is covered in the "boxing" article. *Cremepuff222* 00:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; no redirect necessary. —Psychonaut 15:51, 22 June 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.