Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 3

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< March 2 March 4 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was already deleted by NawlinWiki on 6 March 2007 —♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 20:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not exist because a better one is already in place:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warcraft_%28film%29

The warcraft lore described in this article is not very well written, was incorrect in places, and is well documented on other parts of wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warcraft_Universe

We do not know anything about the film yet and this article is speculation on the film storyline and basically describes the world of warcraft game. This should be deleted due to the fact theres a lot of speculation and none of it has to do with the topic of the movie. 151.196.38.97 22:41, 3 March 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. Mhiji 23:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Nominating the article Jon_Walton to be deleted.[reply]

Inappropriate + useless content

Beelake 14:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge to The Sims. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:13Z

List of famous people in The Sims series

edit
List of famous people in The Sims series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I don't really see any value in this list that say a category wouldn't on these individuals pages. Please read WP:ILIKEIT before making comments on this. The way EA is cross-marketing this product to try and get as many celebrities as possible involved in it it could very easily become massive and unmanageable if it was to be completed.Crossmr 00:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having taken a look, everything except the last item "Tivium" is on their respective pages. The console games only get a short couple of paragraphs in the main TS2 article, so I don't know if that should be in there or not.--Crossmr 04:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To date that has been pretty straight forward. Celebrities that are in have appeared as sims, musicians have re-recorded songs of theirs for the game. The explanation has already been made on all the appropriate articles anyway, so in this case its really a duplication of material except in the one case I noted above. The console piece is small and I'm not sure if Trivium re-recording a song for the game is notable in that context.--Crossmr 17:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:23Z

August Donnelly

edit
August Donnelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

appears to be a non-notable biography. Speedy deletion tag was removed twice. My vote is a very weak delete. Mostly listing because of the repeatedly removed tag, with no attempt to add any references or content that would prove notability. Improbcat 00:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has guidelines for inclusion of biographies or musicians, they can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Notability (music). Please read those, and make changes to the article and/or provide sources here that reflect how August Donnelly meets those requirements.
In addition, did you have permission from the author of the article you copied to post it in wikipedia? Because if you did not, there are possible copyright violations which would require removing the article. Improbcat 05:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(moved comment below from top of page to correct location)Improbcat 14:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • DON'T DELETE (2nd Vote In Favour) I can also vouch for this artist and I know that the article was reproduced with the consent of the original author. As noted he has been featured with several well-known Canadian bands, so really, what concern is it of someone who doesn't listen to more underground artists anyway? Let's not forget that's how groups like The Roots started out. --66.46.233.218 14:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC) L. Boland - Toronto, Canada.[reply]

Delete unless clearly refed by reliable sources. He may be a splendid fellow, but he can't have an article in Wikipedia without enough reliable sources being referenced. NBeale 23:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:24Z

Keith barker-main

edit
Keith barker-main (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Autobiography. No great asserion of notability. -- RHaworth 01:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deletion by admin CesarB as the article falls under the criteria of CSD A7. Non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR.--TBCΦtalk? 04:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olivier Réveillon

edit
Olivier Réveillon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Biography with no assertion of notability. -- RHaworth 01:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:24Z

Circus of the Seed

edit
Circus of the Seed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Circus of the seed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
File:Circus of the seed.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Only one reliable source, no indication of notability per WP:MUSIC, and only 6 ghits, none of which provide any additional indication of notability. — Swpb talk contribs 02:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BAND, WP:RS, and WP:V. Possibly speedy delete per CSD A7.--TBCΦtalk? 02:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The first source is a legit Jackson, MS arts weekly that effectively gives the them an honorable mention for "Best Live Band" in Jackson. The second is a blog. Could be a great band, but not notable, and it's always nice when the given sources prove it. Let's not speedy it, though. Someone could provide a source that proves me wrong.--Djrobgordon 03:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - the first source is legit, so speedy is out. — Swpb talk contribs 03:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:15Z

Aminah Assilmi

edit
Aminah Assilmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

After two years this article still fails WP:BLP policies. There are no secondary sources confirming notability except www.islamfortoday.com. Google only has 827 hits to her name [1]. This article seems to exist for only one reason, and that is to make the list of muslim converts longer. Sefringle 02:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It had over two years to prove notability, and it still hasn't passed notability requirements.--Sefringle 05:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 00:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Višnjica

edit

The subject of the article does meet the guidelines for notability per WP:LOCAL Nv8200p talk 02:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. I have nominated American, London and Mexican etc. neighborhoods in the past. This is a weak argument to keep a non-notable subject. -Nv8200p talk 14:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A mention in a book or two does not make something notable since we have no idea of the extent or the writing about this subject in the book. This article needs to assert that notability, which it does not. I agree with TBCΦtalk? however, that the article could be merged with Belgrade. -Nv8200p talk 15:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a town. It is now an "urban neighborhood of Belgrade." -Nv8200p talk 15:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notability is not judged by how many online articles in English there are about a subject. A major neighbourhood of a world city is notable, and especially one referred to in two books. --Charlene 13:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a link to where it is written that "a major neighborhood of a world city is notable". WP:LOCAL tends to disagree. Thanks -Nv8200p talk 15:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as there is absolutely no reason for deletion...? Are you going to delete all neighborhoods of Belgrade because they are stubs at the moment? As for Višnjica, it is noted in all Serbian encyclopaedias (general, geographical) and merging with Belgrade would probably be the most improper thing to do (just like all the other articles on neighborhoods). Anyway, the first thing on the WP:LOCAL says it is not a policy or guideline, just opinions PajaBG 15:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of the non-notable neighborhoods and suburbs should be deleted. They can be stubs, but the stub needs to assert notability, which this article does not. Sometimes opinions are all we have to base a judgement on. This discussion itself is just a listing of opinions and a decision will be made on it. -Nv8200p talk 16:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How someone not living in a city can know what's notable and non-notable in it. Notable, cited, indexed, credited...if someone spends the rest of his life reading only things he already knows it will be good to memorize them but how will he ever learn anything new? Nobody needs to log on to Wikipedia to check if the Earth is round PajaBG 16:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Flat Earth Society may disagree with you on checking if the Earth is round, but that is their opinion -70.113.57.85 17:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right...my deepest appologies :o) PajaBG 18:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone convince me that our "sources" aren't just street maps. They're not available in any library whose catalogue I checked online, including the Serbian Co-operative Online Bibliographic System & Services. Huon 18:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd imagine that if I could speak Serbian I would have no problems finding materials. Incidentally, the article on sr.wikipedia is even more stubbish than ours, and they don't seem to have a problem with it. It's not hard finding articles on neighbourhoods and suburbs of Australian/British/American cities that are far worse than this one (and utterly *un*referenced, too). Orderinchaos78 02:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to cities, towns and neighborhoods, reliable street maps are excellent sources of their existance, size, location, etc.. --Oakshade 04:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the same reasoning, street maps would be just as excellent sources for individual streets. Somehow I doubt you claim that. To cite WP:N: Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Unless some non-trivial source is found (whether in Serbian or English is secondary), we have to consider this neighbourhood non-notable. Huon 09:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, actually. I'm not saying just becuase something is on a map it's automatically notable. A reliable map will confirm, say, a side street being "just a side-street" as well as a signifficant area being so. --Oakshade 18:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is referenced in the Mala Prosvetina Enciklopedija, Third edition (1985), Volume I, ISBN 86-07-00001-2, No 1 Serbian general encyclopaedia and in Enciklopedijski geografski leksikon Jugoslavije, by Svjetlost-Sarajevo, ISBN 86-01-02651-6 References are added to the page. Street maps are excellent for the detailed view and also would be great sources for the notable streets, why not? In addition, googling for Visnjica Belgrade gives 17,800 and for Visnjica Beograd 28,000 hits. Dorian Hawkmoon has 11,300 :o) (btw, the books are great). PajaBG 10:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Orderinchaos78. It's a signifficant neighborhood in an major city, not some housing project or the like. Inherently notable. There's no reason to delete it. --Oakshade 04:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change opoinion to keep per PajaBG's new sources. Huon 11:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pavel Vozenilek 15:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Villages with a much smaller population in Britain are notable enough to be included. This includes places that have eben absorbed into an adjacent town or city. The English language WP is too English language centred, and we should welcome articles on foreign places that are as notable as those in English-speaking countries. Peterkingiron 23:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep" As a big city neighborhood this is notable and sources are not to be judge by language. Poeloq 23:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are so many reasons this ought to be kept: It was a former suburb before some reorganization took place (like Encino, California and the multitude of other parts of Los Angeles), it is the subject of multiple independent notations (more than most of the schools we keep), and it's home to 7000 people, thousands more than other places we keep, and finally, the systemic bias toward English sources (just look at the repeated use of Google searches in English using Latin characters) needs to be counterbalanced by a real effort to keep articles with non-English sources. I can't read Serbian, but hey that's MY problem... Carlossuarez46 00:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BIAS and Carlossuarez46. A lack of English-language sources is no reason to delete an otherwise valid article. -- Black Falcon 21:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. wL<speak·check> 07:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the Future themes

edit
Back to the Future themes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - An enormous mess of a trivia article, filled with unsourced original research in declaring as fact that such things as Marty's saying "Mom, is that you?" in each of the films was a deliberate "running gag" or "theme" and that this sort of thing contributed to the popularity of the film series. Otto4711 03:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some improvements to the first section of the article based on the comments above but it still needs work, some points could probably be removed, and if anyone has a better idea for the title, it would be much appreciated. I don't think this information should be put back into the Back to the Future trilogy page, as it would become too long. Also it is difficult to cite sources, when you are referring to scenes in a movie, the source is the films themselves. Dannyboy3 11:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Think of sources this way: if a reputable publication hasn't explored a theme of the film, at least briefly, it probably isn't notable enough to be mentioned in a Wikipeida article. If you want an example of a good "Themes" section, check out Blade Runner. It's impeccably sourced and well written, and explores the themes rather than lists them. I suspect a well-sourced article would be significantly shorter than this one, and could probably be merged back into the main article.--Djrobgordon 17:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my user page and please don't mention it again. - Arch NME 06:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. This band seems to be on the line between notable and not notable, with some saying it qualifies under WP:BAND, while others saying it fails WP:MUSIC. If this band doesn't improve, maybe another AFD might change matters. wL<speak·check> 07:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grown At Home

edit
Grown At Home (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

reason non notable band article does not state why they are imptent enough to be on here Oo7565 03:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomOo7565 03:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Delete — Cites only a single BBC article that denotes notability (as far as I can see). Apart from that they have no charted hits or major awards. However, they have two album articles on Wikipedia not listed as AFD, and as such those two articles would also require deletion (I don't consider albums to be more notable than their respective bands). Changed my mind per below comment, though I still think the album articles would also have to be deleted, and it's a keeper if another reliable source is cited. --RazorICEtalkC@ 04:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - it looks like they totally fail WP:MUSIC. The BBC link is only one non-trivial source; the policy requires several. The articles should be deleted if more sources can't be produced. --Haemo 04:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete This band seems to be just on the cusp of not meeting WP:MUSIC. However, if there were any additional sources, they would probably already be in the article. janejellyroll 04:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Per radio playings. Just barely notable.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 19:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article describes national and international tours as a support act. "In April and May 2007 Grown At Home will be supporting the established Californian ska punk outfit Voodoo Glow Skulls on their European tour." --Eastmain 21:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BAND as having two albums and radio playings (including on BBC local program) and the multiple references that discuss the band and/or their albums. However, my "keep" is conditional on both album articles being merged into the main band article, as there seems to be more references for the albums than the band itself. -- Black Falcon 23:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BAND as having two albums and radio playings (including on BBC local program) and the multiple references that discuss the band and/or their albums. (As above. I'm lazy.) The UK ska-punk scene is hardly thriving in 2007 (what with popular bands such as Lightyear, No Comply, King Prawn and Adequate Seven all splitting up in recent years), and Grown At Home are one of the few surviving bands of the genre still gaining popularity. It seems silly to make me come back and rewrite this in a few months after more headlining tours and CD releases. I'm sure that many fans of the genre would be interested in this article. Don't make me beg now. -- MartyHol 04:33, 4 March 2007 (GMT)
    • EDIT: And they're clearly "the new market leaders for their genre in this country, and with a nationwide fanbase to back their unsurmountable popularity"! :-P -- MartyHol 03:04, 6 March 2007 (GMT)
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Do other editors read the article? For those that don't here are some excerpts from the article, they have realeased one EP 'which was then released on Cash For Pigs Records - a label created primarily to release this EP', e.g. self released. It is going so well 'The EP has sold more than 1000 copies.' They have also released one album, again on the Cash For Pigs Records label. As for the references, very few qualify as reliable sources. As for the tour, the requirement is that 'Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in reliable sources'. The tour has not yet happened, has no independent sources reporting it and, IMO, the requirement is that they are the main act. Nuttah68 08:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, assumption will get you everywhere. So... because Cash For Pigs Records was created to release the EP, it's 'self-released'? Who said anything about any members of Grown At Home having ANY affiliation with the running of Cash For Pigs Records? Somebody considered their EP worthy enough of release to create a record label simply to release it. Lack of reliable sources? Now I'm sorry, but where exactly would you expect me to be getting references for an upcoming UK ska-punk band if not sites such as Punktastic? -- MartyHol 09:00, 6 March 2007 (GMT)
  • Delete According to WP:Music a simple entry on a tracklist, even the BBC's tracklist, does not constitute signficant non trivial third party coverage. This band may well be very good and they may well one day sell millions, but they simply do not meet the wikipedia criteria set out in WP:Music at this moment in time. We cannot keep the article on the grounds of what they might become because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A1octopus 15:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Obvious joke nomination; non-admin closing using WP:SNOW.--TBCΦtalk? 04:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Harper

edit
Stephen Harper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Totally fails WP:Notable. Little known leader outside Canada. Does not require article.

User:Superkiooo 3:36 UTC AM

This user also has a history of sprurious nominations of Canadian political figures. I'd urge admin action to address this disruptive behavior. --Haemo 04:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Inter-Cooperative Council at the University of Michigan in lieu of deletion. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:16Z

Luther Buchele Cooperative House

edit
Luther Buchele Cooperative House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Despite being a "cooperative house" this reads like it was written as a frat house prank. I acknowledge this might be salvageable as a basic article by removing everything beyond the first three paragraphs. Yet I'm putting it up for deletion because I waver on the importance of the location itself. But no references at all in the article. Given the tone and content, this suggests it's written by members of the house. Officially, I'm pegging it with WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:ORG. PigmanTalk to me 03:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:17Z

Somewhere off Jazz Street

edit
Somewhere off Jazz Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Notable? Neutralitytalk 04:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:17Z

Crash Course in Science

edit
Crash Course in Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not notable. Neutralitytalk 04:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the random uncited claims from it, just becuase... - Arch NME 13:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to Geometry Template. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:30Z

Mathomat

edit
Mathomat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. No appearance of notability as a commerical product (are there multiple, independent published sources discussing it?). I think it warrants discussion no matter whether it is kept or deleted. CMummert · talk 04:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That comment says that a Mathomat can be used to draw some shapes, and says this in exactly two sentences. But it does not discuss the mathomat as a subject. What we need is an article somewhere that discusses the mathomat as a subject (for example, with the title "Educational benefits of Mathomats in elementary classrooms"). CMummert · talk 15:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Many of us have seen them or even used them, but I have never known them called by that name, though I cannot readily think of a good specific name. DGG 23:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Absolutely notable, and institutional in Australian classrooms - I don't know any Australian kid who wouldn't have used one at some point. It'd be called a stencil anywhere else, I guess (it's *not* a ruler, it's used for tracing shapes like triangles, curves and circles, and contains a protractor in its centre, but does not make a great fashion accessory in the headwear stakes unlike the opinions of some 14-year-old students). It is a requirement to purchase one if studying maths in any Australian state - and often they have to be approved by a government agency such as the Board of Studies (NSW), Curriculum Council (WA) etc. Australian-based educational theory textbooks would be the place to reference this, but I don't have any at my disposal. Might contact Curriculum Council during the week to see if they know a text which would clearly and unambiguously refer to it. Orderinchaos78 03:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Orderinchaos78. As an Australian student I can tell you that what Orderinchaos78 was saying is true. We do have to purchase Mathomats for our math classes, (not just any stencil but the specific "Mathomat" stencil.) They are on our booklists every year. --Candy-Panda 05:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, maybe I'm getting old, but I went to school in Brisbane, and I've never heard of this "Mathomat" gizmo before. To my mind, a non-notable commercial product. Lankiveil 10:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Weak Keep, changing my vote, as obviously my school was unusual in not having these gizmos. Perhaps it's a private/government school thing. Lankiveil 10:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

AFD is not a vote; if you give no new reason for keeping the article, the closing admin will ignore your "vote". Several people have claimed that this thing is notable; I hope that they will provide some sort of reference. When I went to school, we used Mead notebook paper, and while there is an article on MeadWestvaco there is no article on Mead paper. CMummert · talk 03:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument, 'Mere numbers are an indication of consensus: in fact, evidence of uncomplicated agreement may represent the best evidence of consensus. Your "just a vote" shows that you concur with another editor's judgment.' THE KING 12:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep It was on the booklist. An unusual and specific design made compulsory. I can almost hear that sales pitch. History of adoption by the Education Dept would be interesting. A generation knows them well. Unless there is an article to merge it too? - Fred 11:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC) merge to new article. Greatwalk has almost written the lead paragraph below. Fred 08:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is inadequately referenced, which is clear cause for deletion. WMMartin 13:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of references is not an AFD criterion. Lack of notability is, however. CMummert · talk 13:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Geometry Template, TEE or HSC or Delete. Australian students do often own a geometry template, but students are just as likely to carry at MathAid/Proliner as they would a Mathomat. The main claim to fame of both of these templates is that they are allowed into TEE and HSC Math/Science examinations, along with a specific list of calculators and a selected math tables book. Geometry templates are rarely required purchases for students, but are recommended and do appear on most booklists. Almost every Australian secondary school student would have owned one or the other, but I believe many would have owned a MathAid and not a Mathomat. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 02:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my experience, no. I was always asked as a student to have a Mathomat, and what the bookshop ordered in (I don't even know how you'd go about buying one in the wider world) was a Mathomat-brand thing. Students who had different kinds of templates were at a disadvantage every now and then. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm from Western Australia and see Mathaids in use more frequently...they are called 'Mathaid.' I can't speak for how the word is used in the Eastern States. --Greatwalk 02:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Above comment is by nominator. Discussion moved to talk. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:23Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:27Z

Biochain

edit
Biochain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Original Research Alex Bakharev 04:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:28Z

Yu gi oh Champions

edit
Yu gi oh Champions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Champions 013.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Champions 008.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Champions 003.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Champions 0033.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Article solely on advertising, all created by one person who mentions himself in the article, contact info at bottom DiamondDragon contact 04:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:30Z

Container Man Project

edit
Container Man Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This project does not appear noteworthy. A Google search yields only 8 hits. Furthermore, the article is copied verbatim from its website. Over half of the article are biographies of its two creators. Even if the artwork were somehow found to be notable, and even if there were a significant secondary source of about the sculpture, the article would have to be scrapped completely because of the copy vio, not to mention the style and content issues. Tbjablin 06:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete agree with BlastoButter42, but the AfD trumps the WP:CSD#A7 so it probably has to wait the 5 days. I did not find the first paragraph in the self site or else I would have placed a copyvio on the article. Jeepday 16:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:36Z

Johnny Mann (actor)

edit
Johnny Mann (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I think this is a hoax, but for once, it wasn't played on Wikipedia but rather the the source that was used in good faith by the article creator. Other than the obituary which is referenced and provides the material used for the article, I can't verify the claims, which if true should be easy to verify. I note that while IMDB has an entry for a Johnny Mann (I) and a Johnny Mann (III) there is no Johnny Mann (II) which leads me to suspect that they were hit by the hoax but later discovered it, deleting that entry. The only innocent explanation I can think of is that he was credited under a different screen name, but if that's the case, we really need that name for this article to be of any use. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This isn't a hoax, but he wasn't notable. He really did exist (I'm looking at an obit from a Palm Springs, CA newspaper with his photograph and with a direct quote from the wife of the bandleader Johnny Mann, who says she wishes her husband dressed as well as this guy always did). The problem is that the man's notability was exaggerated quite innocently after his death. He may have worked as a walk-on or extra in soap operas and movies; generally there's a set number of lines an actor has to say in order to be credited, and he probably didn't make the credits cut in any of the things he did. I think what happened is that the writer of the Palm Springs obituary took Mann's roles to be more involved than Mann or his widow ever claimed they were, then when the AP picked up the obituary and condensed it they made him seem even more important. For instance, the AP report talks about a "recurring role" in Highway to Heaven. A recurring role is generally meant these days to mean a major role in two or more episodes. The original obituary didn't use that term. So yes, delete, but not as hoax. --Charlene 13:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gotta agree with Charlene there. Delete per nom, but only for lack of any real notability. Sorry. --Dennisthe2 19:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Charlene AlfPhotoman 19:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Metamagician3000 08:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hatten

edit
Mark Hatten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged for speedy deletion, but I don't think the article's subject is completely non-notable. Having said that I am unsure about the subject's long-term impact. Procedural nomination, no vote from me. – riana_dzasta 06:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:44Z

Bucklers mead

edit
Bucklers mead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Bucklers mead community school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Clearly does not assert notability, and is defiantly not in the tone expected of an encyclopedia. —— Eagle101 Need help? 07:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if not the whole article, then at least the bit about the student; obviously unencyclopedic – Qxz 15:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nomination. Jeodesic 16:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial Deletion, I believe that the article shoudn't be deleted as it is a real school, and the ofsted claim is also true. However, the paragraph about Daniel McNiven should be removed as he is actually a real person and an acquaintance of mine, however for his privacy i believe the paragrpah about him should be deleted.DoubleBassist 18:55, 3 March 2007 (GMT)
  • Delete, in entirety. The school's article does not assert as to why it is notable. Let's completely disregard that Mr. McNiven's blurb therein makes it look an awful lot like a Myspace page. Note that I will change my mind about the notability if I can be proven otherwise, but Mr. McNiven does not belong there. --Dennisthe2 19:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - removed McNiven's bit. --Dennisthe2 19:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability neither asserted nor evidenced, and no references. WMMartin 13:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Neuroimaging. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:46Z

Brain function map

edit
Brain function map (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This one is a bit interesting. On one hand it does not neatly fit into one of our speedy deletion categories, but on the other hand I have concerns over how it is written, and the possiblilty for this to become a WP:OR problem. In either case I just happened along this while clearing Category:Stubs. —— Eagle101 Need help? 07:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was {{wi}}. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:49Z

Single Supplement

edit
Single Supplement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Single supplement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We are not a dictionary. —— Eagle101 Need help? 07:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Carabinieri 14:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dupee

edit
Michael Dupee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This was marked for speedy deletion, but it is well-written and has plenty of assertion of notability. I think the real question is, are there reliable sources for this guy? There might be, there might not be. But I'd rather let the community decide what happens to this article. No opinion. Grandmasterka 07:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn game show contestant, other top Jeopardy contestants have been deleted in the past. Booshakla 07:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't seem to be notable or newsworthy. It'd be one thing for his name to be mentioned in some list of quiz show winners, but a full article is not warranted. Pseudomonas 17:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Michael Dupee is one of the best jeopardy players of all time. Plus, lots of people know him from playing his online games at MindFun.com. He is not a person of merely local interest. His online radio trivia call-in talk show is also becoming popular among people who like trivia. Next week, he is going to start hosting Jeopardy Tournament of Champion winners as guests on the radio show. This is sure to be a popular segment.70.171.58.219 18:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Additionally, many other notable Jeopardy contestants who did not do as well have biography pages on Wikipedia. Michael is within the scope of the Biography project. Adding additional sources is a good idea.Zana4 18:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include I was sitting on the fence about this article, but now I'm inclined to keep it since it lists sources now, and is well-written (no surgery is necessary to bring it up to standards). There are sixteen articles about Jeopardy! contestants on Wikipedia, by the way, which is a very tiny percentage of the number of people who have appeared on a popular show that has been running for decades. It's not like Wikipedia is dealing with an avalanche of Jeopardy-cruft, unlike say, Pokemon-related articles. I don't think removing this article is helpful, and I hope the new editor who wrote it stays around to contribute further to Wikipedia. - Itsfullofstars 19:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only thing even remotely close to this is a blurb on emory.edu's online magazine, mentioning Mr. Dupee's winnings. Anything else is either official stuff from Jeopardy or what appear to be fan pages. We need some reliable third party sources here (of which the Emory Magazine may count, but we still need more), and without those my vote will stand. --Dennisthe2 19:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable game show contestant. —ptk✰fgs 19:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence he passes WP:BIO is presented. --Dhartung | Talk 20:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Include.Per above.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 20:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't include. Having an article in the scoop of a WikiProject is meaningless, and so is having other articles on Wikipedia with a similar subject. As I see it, the article doesn't provide a single reliable source about the notability of this multiply Jeopardy! winner, and all the existing ones are lists of Jeopardy! winners and players which only provide his name (e.g. this and this). It also seems that the most of the article consists of viewer's original research rather than verifiable facts. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dupee has no records on the show and it not especially notable outside of the show. Robert K S 08:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Although Dupee currently has no records on the show, that is mostly because of the multiple changes in the show's format since he competed. He is a highly notable Jeopardy champion because he wrote the book which most contestants use to prepare to go on the show. Thus, all competitors know of Michael Dupee, and he is certainly notable enough to be one of the 16 Jeopardy contestants who are biographied in Wikipedia.75.200.104.42 21:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarification In contrast to Tom Walsh, Dupee never held any winnings records on the show, which should be requisite for notability barring notability outside of the show (as are the cases for Ohio State Treasurer Richard Cordray or children's author Linda Sue Park). If Dupee's forthcoming radio show is deemed to establish his notability outside of his involvement in the show, this should be considered. But his authorship of How to Get on Jeopardy! and Win! doesn't qualify him. It wasn't a huge seller, it's out of print, and it's mostly known only within the Jeopardy! community. Nor does his stewardship of several (wonderful) web sites/games make him notable. ToC champ and Google employee Ryan Holznagel also has a great web site (Who2.com), but none of these is enough to establish him as notable. Robert K S 11:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarification Dupee's authorship of How to Get on Jeopardy! and Win! does qualify him as notable. That book is the book that most Jeopardy! competitors have used to prepare for the show for the last several years. If everybody in a specific field is using a particular text to learn how to do something, then it is notable. His book is the "Joy of Cooking" of Jeopardy!-preparation. Every copy ever printed sold and it was going into reprints when the publisher went bankrupt for completely unrelated reasons. The used copies on Amazon have historically been difficult to obtain and highly priced. Lately, the used copies are more attainable, but that probably is because there is now so much Jeopardy! info on the internet (thanks to certain persons like yourself, Robert K S, the extraordinary writer of the online J! Archive), which is in stark contrast to when Dupee's book was published. Plus, Dupee's 2nd book was a best-seller, being sold at all stores, including Wal-Mart, book stores, the Scholastic Book Fairs, and through Publishers Clearing House. It even had a sequel. Plus, TOC champ Ryan Holznagel is highly notable. He, in fact, is the next person that I was thinking of writing a Wikipedia page on. His web site Who2.com is really a cool site. It is a comprehensive trivia encyclopedia of biographical information.Zana4 04:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Ken Jennings, the 75-game Jeopardy! winner, also regards Dupee as a Jeopardy! legend, detailing Dupee's Rocky-like preparation for Jeopardy! in his book, Brainiac: Adventures in the Curious, Competitive, Compulsive World of Trivia Buffs. Ken Jenning's book, The Emory Magazine article, and The Alligator newspaper article are reliable third party sources.70.171.58.219 05:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this IP address has now said "Include" three times. Pseudomonas 06:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barbie and the Kens

edit
Barbie and the Kens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Band has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. which is the core notability requirement. I don't see any citation that the band had a hit on a national music chart. Article had previously been proposed for deletion in Aug 2006. I'm not sure if the undocumented claim that is in regular rotation on a retro internet-only radio station meets the requirement for notability but would be interested in what others have to say. Warfieldian 17:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Their song" the Just a Gigolo (song) of 1929? SmokeyJoe 12:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know that WP:BAND is just a guideline, but the central notability requirement for this band has not been met. And reading the guidelines, the secondary qualifiers of being on a national music chart is only an indicator of the probable existence of "sufficient reliable information is available about a given group or individual musician." I don't see any reliable information in the article or available on the web that would lead me to think that this article would ever be anything more than a stub. Warfieldian 18:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scraps & Heart Attacks

edit
Scraps & Heart Attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 12:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep An explanation of who TRAVIS (or any of the band members) would be nice - these people could be anyone without a surname attached. Since this article was only created on 10 Feb - its only been on two weeks, can it not be expanded better by the creator first since he seems to be the only person who has done anything wtih the article. if the creator does not make amendments (if this is kept) then it should be reconsidered for speedy deletion. --PrincessBrat 12:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 08:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dillon Dam Brewery

edit
Dillon Dam Brewery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod of small-town brewery. No indication of notability per WP:CORP. --Elonka 06:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just because a page is part of a wikiproject doesn't mean it shouldn't be deleted. In fact the article seems to have been all but forgotten by the community as for the better part of 2 years all it had said was: "Dillon Dam Brewery is a brewery and restaurant located in Dillon, Colorado. The brewery was founded in 1997 and is located near Keystone Resort. Customers of the brewery tend to be a mix of locals and tourists and the brewery is a common stop after a day on the ski slopes." It also included a link to their website and a list of their beers. With the new addition of the beer awards notability is trying to be established, but I question if this can ever become more than a stub, which coincidently the above proposal flatly says should not be done. Maybe a better place to cover this establishment, and other like it, would be in a Micro-breweries of Colorado page?? EnsRedShirt 15:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: How depressing. I really did create it almost 2 years ago, and nothing of real value was added until this AfD came around. I guess my thought is that all breweries are notable, but I don't have a good reason for it. Not disagreeing with anything you wrote there. Wikibofh(talk) 04:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete The Pitchfork Media reference is damned by the conflict of interest brought up by Nuttah68; without it, the entire article fails. Veinor (talk to me) 04:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bowerbirds (band)

edit
Bowerbirds (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems to fail WP:MUSIC; no album yet, the record label doesn't seem notable, and there isn't external coverage. (Lots of Google hits but they're mostly about the actual bird. Crystallina 05:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. If they achieve later fame, the article can be re-created. --Elonka 06:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BAND. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 07:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is indeed an album out by these guys (albeit on a small record label) and there have been two independent sources of published reviews (from Pitchfork Media and the Independent Weekly). So, while we might be able to call their record label non-notable, we cannot say that there haven't been multiple sources of external coverage, and per WP:MUSIC, that seems to be enough to keep the article to me. --TheSteve04 05:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not yet able to meet WP:MUSIC criteria. Might be so in future in which case article should be re-created but for the time being wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A1octopus 16:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point here is, indeed, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but more than a quick Google search will turn up numerous results for external coverage, with multiple independent reviews of an album that has indeed been released from notable sources. We seem to be assuming that there is no album and/or external coverage, and there is indeed such material, so we can't quite make these claims. Instead, the major argument is not about whether the article is speculative in nature (the crystal ball argument) but whether the group is notable enough to be featured in Wikipedia. Considering that this group has been featured in and given positive reviews by well-known outlets such as Pitchfork Media, I've got to think that the group is notable enough to at least remain in Wikipedia, and with the advent of further material, there should be no debate on the issue. --TheSteve04 07:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 08:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Total Control

edit
Total Control (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not sure whether this passes notability for products. Montchav 14:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 04:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 14:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R. Jay Fisher

edit
R._Jay_Fisher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Not Notable. --Hojimachongtalkcon 04:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The subject is the elected sheriff of Baltimore County, Maryland (not to be confused with the city of Baltimore, Maryland). As such, he could potentially qualify under WP:BIO per the clause for "Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." The problem is that I can barely find any press coverage for this person. If it can be established that he has received significant press coverage, I may reconsider. --Metropolitan90 17:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Militaryphotos

edit
Militaryphotos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A website of no objectively provable significance, subject of a lame edit war about the rules placed on its forums, entirely sourced fomr the site itself, sole external mention is a passing mention in a list of related subjects in an article on military subjects on the internet. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge to University of the East. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:52Z

University of the East College of Computer Studies and System

edit
University of the East College of Computer Studies and System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod contested with no reason given. This ia a spam article for a non notable university faculty. Per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a substitute prospectus. Nuttah68 10:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:53Z

Brian Smith (photographer)

edit
Brian Smith (photographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is an autobiography, and at least some claims are overstated. The author describes himself as having won the Pulitzer Prize, but this was in fact awarded jointly to staff of the Orange County Register. See also Gerald W. Smith. JQ 10:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While I agree it's tacky to create your own article on Wikipedia, and it may have POV puffery problems, notability is stated for both him and his dad. Even as a co-pullitzer prize photographer, it's still notability. Flawed articles and non-notability are two different things. Bobanny 18:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, doesn't matter how we twist it a Pulitzer winner is notable. The article should be wikified and properly sourced and referenced though AlfPhotoman 20:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I'd think some prizes at least would be recognized automatically.DGG 23:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He won a Pulitzer prize. It doesn't matter if it was alone or with 5 others. Also, one of his photos has been on the cover of Newsweek magazine (see [4]). I have incorporated this information into the article. -- Black Falcon 23:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Hinterlands (short story). —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:54Z

Toyvesky Anomaly Coordinates

edit
Toyvesky Anomaly Coordinates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

does not merit its own article, all content is already on the stub-like Hinterlands (short story) page Skomorokh 11:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sport teams by championships

edit
Sport teams by championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic, no references or citations, unnecessary fluff Anthony Hit me up... 11:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:55Z

Carole Goble

edit
Carole Goble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No case made for notability Billlion 11:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Professor at the University of Manchester and editor-in-chief of a peer-reviewed journal (the Journal of Web Semantics). First two hits on Google Scholar cited 281 and 199 times, several other more than a hundred times. Pharamond 18:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:In the light of the above it sounds like she might well have done something interesting and be known for it, in which case lets see an article citing secondary sources that establishes that. However being a journal editor and having loads of grants and publications is pretty much part of the criterion for promotion to professor at the University of Manchester. Looking at Wikipedia:Notability (academics), I don't see the evidence for eg The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources. (which is perhaps the easiest to meet). Billlion 19:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In WP:BIO, "People who satisfy at least one of these criteria may merit their own Wikipedia articles ... Creative professionals: ... The person or their work has been widely cited by authors". The editorship etc also indicate to me that she is known as a significant expert by her peers. Passage of the more specific criteria in WP:PROF would be even clearer. —David Eppstein 21:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Full professors at major research universities meet it, having passed several external reviews by experts for their notability in the profession. We don't establish notability in WP, we see if the profession has established notability. -- This doesn't apply to every college, but it does to major universities, and University of Manchester is unquestionably one. This is further confirmed by the editorship.
There's an interesting phenomenon--if an article on an academic does list all the papers then it gets condemned as puffery, if an academic is more modest, then it gets thought non-notable. DGG 23:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Given information provided by User:Pharamond, this qualifies under criterion 4 of WP:PROF: "The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known." Having an article cited >200 times is a major accomplishment in academe. -- Black Falcon 23:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being a journal editor-in-chief does meet "The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources". Why otherwise would she be selected. The criteria for promotion to Professor at UK universities pretty well makes anyone so selected to be notable and this academic is. --Bduke 01:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, ditto to all the above keeps, extensively published and internationally known. --User:Duncan.Hull
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:55Z

Alan Rector

edit
Alan Rector (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No notability is claimed in the article, although possibly he might meet WP:BIO criteria this is not claimed in this stub article Billlion 11:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unsourced and unreferenced AlfPhotoman 15:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, effectively a link farm, not even a stub. Bobanny 18:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Much better. As a suggestion, you might want to reverse the order of much of the information - putting his accomplishments ahead of the more day to day stuff. Bobanny 23:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is claimed through being appointed a professor, Professor#Most_other_English-speaking_countries, in a UK university. This is a position only academics reknowned in their field receive. The article needs expanding though. Nuttah68 09:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Certainly professor is fairly high rank in a UK University, but I think it falls below what is required for notability in the wikipedia sense. A typical professor would be an editor of a journal and loads of publications, grants and PhD students. But that in itself is not notable, in a sense they are just doing their job. On the other hand any science professor with an FRS or engineering professor who is an FREng almost certainly would be notable. My interpretation of Wikipedia:Notability_(academics), 1. The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources. 2. The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field. has to be backed up by evidence that is verifiable, I don't think the result of a promotion board can be considered as that. I must declare an interest, I am a professor at a UK university. Billlion 10:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is merely an over-modest article - as was an AfD a little earlier. Did the nom think to check the links? He is a member or leader of many of the UK Semantic Web and related information Science groups, including several international committees. I added the to the article just now. DGG 22:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The additions by DGG demonstrate notability. Eastmain 22:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't think checking the links is the point. Links should point to secondary sources so that the case for notability established in the article can be verified. I admit I am being a little provocative, but I feel strongly such articles should make a case for notability even if they are stubs. Similar point for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carole Goble. Billlion 21:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to Dave Douglas (drummer). —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:57Z

Agnes (band)

edit
Agnes (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per Wikipedia:Notability. Auroranorth 12:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per WP:N. Auroranorth 12:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there appears to be no attempt to communicate with the article's main editor or recent editor to allow them the opportunity to either expand or substantiate any notion of notability SatuSuro 13:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the article's been tagged as part of this process - consider them notified. Bobanny 18:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am the main editor of the page. Now, I don't understand why there is a sudden urge to delete this article. I have discussed with others before when it was considered for deletion, and it was decided that the article was worth keeping because the band is the side project of the drummer of a very popular band. I will gladly expand upon it if you will allow me to. The artist is currently doing more songs for the project. I hope we can work something out here to keep the article around. God Bless.RoryS89 01:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)RoryS89[reply]
  • Keep with option to review if WP:N not sufficiently addressed at a future time (but not, like, two days or two weeks or something - sources can take a while to find sometimes). It seems the issue is more that it doesn't *assert* notability, rather than that it doesn't *have* notability. Orderinchaos78 03:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, I truly believe it's a non-notable pet project, and not asserting notability is often a sign that it's not. But I could be wrong. Looking at the article for Dave Douglas (drummer), it's pretty stubby and kind of fluffy, and it would seem merge the two would do a better service to the subject.Bobanny 09:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just think someone could explain to me exactly what they want me to do to keep it around, because in cases like these, I'm always told all these things that don't lead to a direct answer. No offense to any of you guys, but I just think that the deletion policies on Wikipedia need a little more explaining. I don't see why there's always a rush to delete pages that don't seem notable enough. But hey, if you think combining the two articles is a good idea, I'm all for it.RoryS89 22:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)RoryS89[reply]
  • Delete: If this band is so notable where are the reliable sources that conform to WP:V?A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 17:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: Not sure on reliabilty of amazon but I can go with the CD Review.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 13:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As for what to do to keep the article around, read WP:V and introduce sources, preferably inline citations, to verify the information and establish its notability. Otherwise I wouldn't be surpirsed if it gets deleted.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 17:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep or at least merge I added 2 reliable sources that talk about the album, and the side projects that are contained on it, along with their history. Meets or nearly meets notability standard "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. " I think that the future expected recordings are enough to break this article out of Douglas' main article. Royalbroil T : C 03:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to History of Liverpool F.C.. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 14:01Z

Liverpool F.C.'s European Cup triumphs

edit
Liverpool F.C.'s European Cup triumphs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Only serves to duplicate information found on the Liverpool F.C., History of Liverpool F.C. and 2005 UEFA Champions League Final pages. Robotforaday 12:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge this page into Liverpool in Europe or History of Liverpool because as mentioned above it duplicates info from other pages or otherwise delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kyriakos (talk • contribs) 13:27, March 3, 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 Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 14:02Z

DoylesRoom

edit
DoylesRoom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I don't think this website meets the criteria for notability and generally seems like just a subversive attempt at an advertisement Arch NME 12:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Andrew Choi

edit

The result was Speedily deleted. Nothing to see here, move along folks. Hesperian 12:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Choi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article should be deleted under WP:N. Auroranorth 12:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to Blood Stain Child. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 14:03Z

VIOLATOR

edit
VIOLATOR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Is this drummer notable? WP:N Auroranorth 12:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of YWAM bases

edit
List of YWAM bases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

list of external links -Sucrine ( ><> talk) 13:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - List of YWAM bases is not a list of external links but a list of YWAM bases. The external links are only listed where available, and are not the point of the list. --Davidkazuhiro 13:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK I see the point you all have. Deletion seems like a reasonable action. If this is done however, consensus will have to be made as to what YWAM base external links are appropriate on the main YWAM article. People tend to add YWAM base links to the external links section until it looks too large and an editor removes them. That's one of the big reasons I made this list. If we simply delete the list we'll have the same problem again of people contiually adding base links and editors having no consensus on what's appropriate and what should be left to the YWAM directory. --Davidkazuhiro 18:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • David, what I would suggest is locating a link on the YWAM home page that has a list of all the bases - and just link to that from the main YWAM article. Placing on the talk page an explanation for this should at least answer questions. --Dennisthe2 23:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks Dennis for formatting my cluttered posts. It's the first time one of the articles I created became an AFD so I wasn't sure if I was allowed to vote. I've gone ahead and done what you suggested. --Davidkazuhiro 03:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - being an incomplete list of external links isn't that much better. There is no encyclopedic content whatsoever but the list, and no indication that there ever will be. Unsourced, too. In short, fails WP:LIST. Huon 18:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Merge - merge because it's better served in the article, but weak because I think the YWAM home page itself has a more complete list. --Dennisthe2 19:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this can safely be left to the YWAM webmasters. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With some reluctance, Delete. WP is not the place for a list of links to external websites for a particular organisation, even one as notable as Youth With a Mission. The main YWAM website contains an adequate search facility for identifying websites for their bases; where there is a base without a website, there is little point in merely providing a placename in a list. The list is anyway libale to become obsolete. Peterkingiron 23:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The 'keep' !voters didn't present really convincing arguments compared to the deleters. Veinor (talk to me) 03:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Profound Intent

edit
This page has been blanked as a courtesy.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram 13:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Mayo (news reporter)

edit
Bob Mayo (news reporter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not pass notability test for inclusion in Wikipedia. Burghboy80 13:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yumi Shimura

edit
Yumi Shimura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOTE Snarfies 13:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP, I only corrected the deletion nomination. Seems a bit stubby and not sourced, but is that really grounds for deletion? Snarfies 14:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Are anime voice actresses inherently notable? – I don't see any other claim of notability. Furthermore, there are no sources. Mention of blood type seems a little out of place, too. Incidentally the redlink farm on I'm Enterprise will at best lead to dozens of these, and at worst be a list of red links. Someone might want to think about pruning it – Qxz 15:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Problems with WP:V, real or perceived, due to missing references are always a good reason to delete. If the person is notable there are references (somewhere) AlfPhotoman 17:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if the actress plays a main character role in a notable anime, then yes they are notable. --Candy-Panda 05:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Japanese seiyū are more notable thank their Western counterparts because the seiyū industry in Japan is large and has a high celebrity status. (Read seiyu) Not all seiyu are notable, however. Judging by multiple roles in Animation, CDs, and other information from the Japanese wikipedia, she seems to meet notability requirements. There is more info on the Japanese wikipedia that could be used to expand the article. --Kunzite 07:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I think "high celebrity status" is overdoing it. While there are differences in notability among professions between Japan and the Western world, I think that seiyu are getting more than a fair shake on Wikipedia. She certainly may be notable per the JA Wiki, but there is little evidence of it in the current article. I don't see any bias here. Dekimasuよ! 13:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't claim bias and I certainly did not make the argument to include all seiyu in Wikipedia. I specifically argued for this person because of the extra data that appears in the Japanese wikipedia, this is more of a "clean-up and expand", not a delete. --Kunzite 17:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kunzite. JuJube 09:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Holt (second nomination)

edit
Paul Holt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Dalejenkins has deleted and redirected this article twice as non-notable; however, in its last nomination there was no consensus. I created this article, and last time it was I who nominated it for deletion. However, since then I have changed my mind and I believe that the article should be kept. I am only adding this article here because an anon editor tried to add it for deletion but did not do it properly, and also so that we can try to reach a consensus on whether the article should be kept, in light of Dalejenkins concerns. TomPhil 14:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, if the article stays as is, without citing non-trivial second party references then I can predict the outcome of this AfD without a crystal ball AlfPhotoman 15:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 15 minutes of fame based on his non-notability. Bobanny 18:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nomination. Dalejenkins 08:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete failed reality show contest and failed novelty act. That equal fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Nuttah68 09:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete same as Nuttah68's comments. 80.43.22.203 10:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't see the merit in removing genuinely informative and referenced material off Wikipedia. Yes, maybe it's not the sort of thing that would appear in the Encyclopædia Britannica but then isn't the great thing about Wikipedia the fact that it has articles of the type that don't appear in the mainstream encyclopædias? Is Paul Holt really any less notable than, say, Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116? This information does not exist in any other Wikipedia article and may genuinely be of interest and/or use to some people. The truth is that while he does not technically comply with the guidelines set down, he did release a record on a major record label which made the top 40. There was also quite a reasonable amount of media coverage at the time, and Paul Holt was invited to sing on national TV (the Xtra Factor). This article has suvived on Wikipedia now since 2004 without doing any damage to the project or harming anyone. What possible purpose is served by deleting it? It's simply a case of following the rules strictly over common sense. TomPhil 18:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I don't usually comment on people in this field, but i was struck by the phrase "he has appeared in the audition phase of ..." DGG 22:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete There may be a case for adding one line about this gentleman under an "Interesting Events" section of the The X Factor's page, but under WP:Music and WP:Bio he is not notable enough for his own article. His history so far is that he faired badly in an audition show, released a single anyway (which also faired badly) and hasn't subsequently done anything, so that rules him out under WP:Bio. In terms of WP:Music there don't seem to be any non trivial sources that I can find, so it seems he woudl fail that too. His lower end charting with a novelty single should perhaps be mentioned on the The X Factor page as noted above. I note that the creator has invoked a WP:WAX on Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 and I also note that this improbably long-named Swede's article has already survived an AfD debate - so Wikipedia has therefore already answered that question. A1octopus 11:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, obvious WP:NFT failure. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People-counts

edit
People-counts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Neologism Nv8200p talk 14:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Deleted by Majorly. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:31Z

KEVIN ROLLE

edit
KEVIN ROLLE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Only ghits for Kevin D. Rolle is a comedy/comic strip writer; unverifiable, non-notable. --Walor 14:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipdia is not a platform for self-aggrandizing mystics. Bobanny 18:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Per above. Non-notable. Page is horribly made, would require overly substantial rewring even if it wer notable. Article title is even against wikipedia's naming conventions(ALL CAPS)--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 19:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find verifable sources for the kid going to college early, but the youth ambassador stuff can't be verified. I've asked for sources and prodded it once. Philippe Beaudette 21:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:31Z

Yuriy Leonovich

edit
Yuriy Leonovich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Casanova1.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

This is a user page that user switched to main encyclopedia - it's vain person who believes he's important, but is not notable to the world in general. The key, though, is that if he truly is important enough to have an article in the encyclopedia, he needs to wait and let someone else write it, rather than writing about himself. As a result of writing his own autobiographical entry, this page is full of unverifiable information. 129humility 15:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because Leonovich is not world famous does not make him any less noted. He has had works performed in Carnegie hall, and completed Tchaikovsky's Cello Concerto. 129humility needs to stop his or her personal quest to delete Mr. Leonovich's biography on Wikipedia. Instead of trying to improve Wikipedia by looking real problems, he or she is making persistant hits on a solitary individual that he or she might or might not know personally. I am well aware of Wikipedia rules of vanity and promotion. I am here to state the facts. As you can see, there is a legitimate reference on the Yuriy Leonovich page: www.tchaikovsky-research.org. This page is mainained by Brett Langston and Alexander Poznansky, authors of the Tchaikovsky Handbook, and other well known biographies on Tchaikovsky's life. The authors are used as references on different pages on Wikipedia. I am not here to explain my means of obtaining information. However, I'd like to see the end of attacks on this article.

  • Comment: I don't see where in the article it is asserted that Leonovich has had works performed in Carnegie Hall, nor how this is verified. It does mention that he has performed at carnegie hall with a religious figure, but I fail to see how this makes him important as a classical musician. As for the Tchaikovsky, while this may be notable, it does not necessarily make Leonovich notable. This is similar to the argument that a professor with one important paper is notable. I believe, and numerous wikipedians agree with me, that the appropriate action would be to mention Leonovich in the context of an article on the Tchaikovsky, rather than to create an article about him. Also, Mr. Lysenko, could you please sign messages with your username, rather than a name that doesn't verify whether you're a seperate user or not? Thanks! 129humility 22:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Lysenko 16:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment, guys, rather than fighting at least one party should bother to get some verifiable non-trivial second party references. If they exist there is absolutely no reason for an AfD and further nominations would just get a speedy treatment AlfPhotoman 17:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what a second party reference would be. I also don't understand why "humility" believe that I am Mr. Leonovich. That seems to be his only claim, of me writing about myself. I met Mr. Leonovich once, breifly, and have no personal ties to him. And the fact that an important author on Tchaikovsky has noted Mr. Leonovich as someone of importance, seem to me as a good reason to keep the page alive.
    • A second party reference would be some published material that verifies all of the information presented. As is, one is forced to wonder how you, who claim to have met Leonovich only once, could know all of the facts about his history, his childhood teachers' names, and his many unperformed works, unless they were published in, for instance, some reputable biography. That would count as second party. Personal recollections or interviews are considered new research, and are not allowed on wikipedia. Finally, as to my assertion that you are Leonovich: the fact that your facebook profile gives your username as your AIM username and your AOL email address, and that this biography started as your own personal user page seem to be pretty big indicators that you and Leonovich are one and the same person. That and the fact that hours after I had initially questioned the validity of this page, you had mentioned in on your facebook account. 129humility 22:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


User:Maestroukr Sergei Lysenko 17:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I don't see notability asserted in the article. If it was confused as self-promotion, it's because that's how it reads. There are lots of cellists and composers in the world, not all are notable. I'll change my vote if notability is established, i.e., via reliable sources. Bobanny 18:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are 2 sources to begin with:

http://www.kontinent.org/article_rus_44ef8d4888e0a.html . (this article is in Russian, from a Russian-American paper: Kontinent). However, the article is no less valuable in a differnt language. http://www.tchaikovsky-research.org/en/Works/th249.html is by a noted Tchaikovsky biographer Brett Langston, who gives credit to Mr. Leonovich for completing Tchaikovsky's unfinished concerto.

Sergei Lysenko 22:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are not Yuriy Leonovich, then by an amazing coincidence, your user name is the same as his email address. I understand your concern that a self-authored article runs a bigger chance of being deleted, but you should be honest with the process - it makes it easier for us to assume good faith. As to the article, unfortunately, I can't read the first source, but I hope that the closing admin makes sure that somebody does before this AfD closes. The second source is a trivial mention, but it links to this page [5], which, while written by Leonvich himself, seems to be a scholarly work on his completion of the concerto. It seems to me that it would confer notability, if completing the concerto was a notable or unique occurrence in the music field (much like a mathematician solving or proving a famous theorem or equation). Unfortunately, most of us lack the frame of reference for determining if this is a notable act, so sources would be needed to support the following questions: Was the concerto "famous" for being unfinished? Are there any other sources on the concerto and Leonvich's modifications? Has the completed concerto been played anywhere? These are the questions that need to be answered to avoid deletion. Officially, put me down as a Weak Delete - CosmicPenguin (Talk)
  • Can't one pay homage when creating a user name, or any nickname in general?

Sergei Lysenko 13:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak delete I am a little puzzled by this article, for while the items in it seem reasonable, there are not the expected number of sources for this point in a career.DGG 22:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Leaving aside the autobiography issue--Yuriy, I really wish I could believe you, but people just don't take other people's online handles as a "tribute" -- the article fails our core policies of verifiability and reliable sources. Sorry. I wish you well in your career; you're off to a great start; but Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion. Antandrus (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Putting aside all of the opinions about who did what, and who is who, this article fails qualifications as a Wikipedia article, and needs to be deleted. Kyle 04:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous Aryan Theory

edit
Indigenous Aryan Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I request opinions on this article, which since its creation has been a magnet for edit-warring (with WP:3RR and other problems) [6] and of a lot of uncivility and disputes on the talkpage.

About one half to two thirds of this article can already be found in the Out of India Theory and in the Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) articles. The remaining part of the article could be safely merged as a section into the OIT, AIT and Hindu nationalism articles. Most of it can easily find place in OIT, and the rest in the other two articles.

Here we have an article that claims to be about the "ideological position" that may manifest itself as "Out of India Theory", and that seems to have been created to paint views such as the "criticism of Aryan migration theories" as some sort of Hindu nazism. The article has also neutrality issues.

It does not need a separate article. Wikipedia has articles on theories like Armenian hypothesis, Paleolithic Continuity Theory and many other theories, but Wikipedia has not articles only on the psychological motives or ""ideological position" for these theories. Such claims belong in the article of the theory, not in a separate article.

I suggest that this article be merged as a section into the mentioned articles, or that at least a suitable title for this article is found. Such a title could be Ideological positions in the Indo-Aryan migration debate or maybe Out of India Theory (Ideological positions). --RF 01:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC) RF 01:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not exactly, This guy appears to claim to have invented the term in a 1997 Columbia dissertation (now he is at Harvard), and presumably uses it in his book published by Oxford University Press Johnbod 18:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I have read that book. In my opinion, Bryant's "Indigenous Aryan" is just another name for Out of India Theory or Indian Urheimat Theory, and we have an article for that. The creator of the article may disagree with my opinion here. --RF 19:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

it is not, as you can read up in the article. "OIT" is shoddy scholarship, while "Indigenous Aryans" is nationalist propaganda. The two overlap, of course. Bakaman's google search is spurious of course (surprise, surprise), since it includes the "theory" part which we want to get rid of by a {{move}} anyway. (as you can extrapolate from Bakaman's 'dabcruft' neologism, this isn't even about any topical issue for him anymore, he just follows me around wikipedia and tries to disrupt things in various small ways). "Indigenous Aryan position" is just a term for what proponents (or should we say, disseminators) prefer to call things like "exciting new emerging evidence found by eminent professors" (and permutations, ad nauseam), which is hardly preferable as an article title. dab (𒁳) 16:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow? The pages have been on my watchlist since time immemorial, I dont need to follow you around to see what goes on on WP:DSI, or any of the hundreds of pages on my watchlist.Bakaman 17:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sorry - moved comment up - was intended to refer to Bakasupram's one Johnbod 18:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per proven lack of notability.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 19:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bad faith nom using AfD to make a point, coinciding with numerous personal attacks, by a POV-pushing contingent of editors. Article is extremely well referenced. This discussion belongs on a talk page, not at AfD. - WeniWidiWiki 19:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you referring to your own personal attacks above?--RF 19:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually I would be referring to User:Bakasuprman referring to the article with the derogatory dabcruft at this AfD Diff and user:WIN repeatedly referring to Dab as a "hypocrate" (sic) Diff. I forgot to mention the numerous violations of WP:CANVASS and vote-stacking which surround this AfD as well as the conveniently timed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann the same series of editors are involved in. - WeniWidiWiki 20:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Win has not voted on this AFD. I am also not responsible for the personal attacks that the involved editors exchange with each other on the IAT and other articles. If this article gets merged, I am resposible that there will be one page less where they can exchange this. The allegations of vote-stacking surrounding this AFD are interesting, care to explain this? I'm not involved in any way with the RFC on Dbachmann, which was not started by me. My decision to put this article up for discussion came after the AFD for the Nicholas Kazanas article which made me again for a short time active on wikipedia, where I began a discussion on the Talk:Indigenous_Aryan_Theory, which you can read there. --RF 20:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wend Wiki sems to know nothing on the situation but quick to assign names to people. How about you add "Dab is incapable of failure" and "all those who oppose him are trolls" to your statement as well?Bakaman 21:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, well sourced and referenced. We don't have to like it. On the other side, considering the whole history of this article ... AlfPhotoman 20:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not say that the content should be deleted, did I? I said that it should be best merged into OIT and the other articles, or at the very least a non-confusing article title be found. --RF 20:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a proposal... instead of screaming at me find a new title, would be a meaningful use of your time AlfPhotoman 20:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The IAT == OIT reduction is absurd. Generally, writers in the IAT rubric avoid trying to make definitive statements about OIT (and even if they do, the theorising usually ends at the Hindu Kush), or dismiss linguistics altogether. Bryant's book as a source is unfortunate, because as anyone familiar with the popular literature knows, the indigenousness of the Aryans has to do with (a) the indigenousness of Hinduism in all its antecedents and, thus since the 1920s, (b) the relation between the Vedas and the IVC. Everything else is secondary. Bryant does not cover these aspects in any particular depth. But they are the core of the "position", and rife with fringecruft. The point of this article in WP is to offer a home for the kookery, rather than have the nonsense vitiate other subjects. There really is no "debate". It's all jingoistic pseudo-historiography. rudra 20:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If Bryants book as a source is unfortunate, this means that you are also somehow confused over the article title? I admit I am still confused over the article title, and its relation to Bryant's use of the term (in my opinion Bryant uses it as a synonim for OIT). Which authors on history then advocate IAT as opposed to OIT? The creator of the article has defined the article this way: It is about the ideological position that may manifest itself as OIT, among a couple of other positions. [7] And looking at the content, I see no reason why it cannot be merged to OIT, AIT and Hindu nationlism. --RF 20:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Personally, I think "Indigenous Aryanism" might have been better, or even "'Indigenous Aryan' Thesis" (note the two levels of quotes). And I disagree with your reading of Bryant. It's fairer to say that Bryant would like to equate the two (mainly because he considers linguistics important), but this confuses the theoretical implications of mainstream linguistics with the historiographic concerns of the IA "school". rudra 20:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even if it were correct that Bryant's term is about the same thing that the article is about (which I doubt), the term is not in current use outside the work of Bryant. Bryant is notable, but not every term coined or used by him must automatically be so. The term IAT was already used by H. V. Sreenivasa Murthy in 1963 in A History of Ancient India. --RF 11:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please stop playing word games. No one has to wait for someone to coin a term like "Indigenous Aryan(ism)" for the subject to remain in limbo otherwise. Conjoining "indigenous" and "Aryan" in a phrase has been around for a long time, earlier than 1963 for sure. (Try Vol I (1951) of Majumdar's History and Culture of the Indian People, Appendix to Chapter X.) If you want a subject title like "Indigenousness of Aryans to the Indian Subcontinent", say so, instead of quibbling. Thanks. rudra 18:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exact quote, in case you were interested: "The theory of the indigenous origin of the Aryans has been advocated by a number of scholars." A footnote says: "This Appendix is based on a long note on the subject prepared by Prof. S. Srikanta Sastri and most of the arguments are advanced by Mr. K.M. Munshi in Glory that was Gurjaradeśa, I, Section II". That's 1955, if you please. rudra 20:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The linguistic claims in the article can fit in OIT page, the historical, ideological and socio-political aspects of the discussion are already covered in Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies). Although some of the better referenced material (Witzel's comments after being made NPOV) from this article should be moved to that page. The article still has lots of errors, items identified with footnote 3 and 7 are misrepresentation of the referenced material. This article doesn't add any new value to the discussion, but is full of all kind of original research.Sbhushan 23:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per rudra comment about a home for the kookery, the fact it is well referenced and that Google alone should not decide deletion - many notable things are not referenced elsewhere on the Internet - that is what makes Wikipedia important, especially articles that are written with non-Internet sources. mceder (u t c) 13:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "meta" issue here, as I'm sure you realize, and as I'm equally sure no one is prepared to admit, is that isolating kookery is precisely what is not wanted by those pushing for deletion. Because it would lead to removal of material from articles on subjects of legitimate scholarly concern, and thus lose "air time" for the fringecruft that seeks to gain respectability by association. The IAM and OIT articles are disasters already - reducing them should be the order of the day. rudra 21:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could I suggest you make some effort to comply with the civility policy? Addhoc 17:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue against widening the scope, as Hindutva revisionism involves more than just fulminating against 19th century straw men. rudra 18:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Hindutva revisionism"? You mean the article title should not only be confusing and "OR", it should also be pov? What else do you want to include into this "wider scope"? The Holocaust revisionism in India is currently not carried out by the Hindutva folk. So what kind of other "Hindutva revisionism" are you talking about?
The AIT article should be split, and be merged to IAT and other articles? AIT is the most common name for that article, while IAT is not common at all. And by policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions the most commonly used name in English should be used. You said on the IAT talkpage "A decent cleanout of offtopic observations on Nazis, imperialism and 19th century Romanticism just used to add spin ("Role in Imperialism and Nazism") would reduce it to about half its present size; the "Political and religious issues" could be merged here, while "Early history of the theory" could be summarized in the IAM article." What is meant by a decent cleanout? --Rayfield 20:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is essential to the neutrality of WP that articles about historical theories espoused by different political groups be maintained equitably. That such a theory is under attack as representing the view of only a nationalist group, is all the more reason to support it. The article seems reasonably fair and adequately referenced. That this is not the mainstream theory held on a global basis is made clear. Any effort at suppression of any POV by technical arguments, or by detailed discussion of the weakness of prima fascia RSs, or by merging in such a way as to diminish the influence or the number of articles of the minority group in such matters is to be guarded against by resolving doubts by keeping the article. (And personally, I skip over discussions of the editors involved; I think most uninvolved people here would do so also, and so I do not see the purpose of such attacks.) DGG 23:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps Keep - I know little of this subject, but if it is to be kept, it needs to be expanded to provide context, or alternatively it should be merged with something else that does so. It is evident from the fact that is has had to be semi-protected that the subject must be controversial. If so, it must ensure that there is a neutral point of view, by ensuring that both sides of the argument are presented with their strengths and weaknesses exposed. Peterkingiron 00:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Most contents in the article can be found in the Out of India Theory and in the Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) articles. Insufficient notability and repeated content. Freedom skies| talk  01:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RF's nom. The article does not conform to a neutral point of view, nor is it a justifiable fork of the AIT and Hindutva articles. An encyclopedia is not meant to promote new interpretations - the views of Bryant and Sen deserve acknowledgment but within the main article. Rama's arrow 03:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dab, you said that this article was the equivalet of Hindutva and historical revisionism. I have no problems with your views being included on the article saying that "The theory is associated by some as Hindutva propaganda". But the fact that you believe this article is worthy of moving to Hindutva and historical revisionism means that it is just a POV-fork of Out of India theory where you can show everyone who Hindutvavaadis are evil historical revisionists while the 19th Western people that made the idea of a migration into India are learned and had no political motivations. — Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 06:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • if you would please read the article, you will note that this is not the case. "out of India" can be proposed without "indigenous Aryans" ideology (Schlegel; Elst at least claims to not follow this ideology. Funny tough he should write a dissertation on Hindutva (sympathetic), and then, for completely unrelated reasons, come up with a "out of India" suggestion), and "indigenous Aryans" can be proposed without any sort of "out of India" concepts (such as, by ideologues who ignore linguistics or reject Indo-European as a colonialist conspiracy). Neither article is a true sub-topic of the other. dab (𒁳) 14:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case can you demonstrate couple of things 1) How is this article different from AIT and why should it not be included as subsection there. AIT is better referenced article, more encyclopedic article for same content. 2) Why does the article not say upfront that this is about sentimennt that rejects linguistic relations and the only theory this can be compatible with is "Out of India". Bryant made this clear statment (2001 page 6), that I have explained to you number of times with exact words from Bryant. I also explained to you yesterday why joining 2 words and creating argument is OR, we need peer reviewed material [[10]]. Sbhushan 14:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, does a good job at discussing the connections and differences between the various strands of thinking involved. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that the issue is loaded with political implications is not a criterion for deletion (I know it's not cited as one, but it's obvious what's going on here). There's northing wrong with the article, it looks very referenced to me.--Domitius 20:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term is an inherent neologism, not being cited in any of the works explicitly.Bakaman 02:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : There is nothing wrong with this article and entire world agree for this fact. Afd proposed to achieve political agendas, discriminatory to millions of people in India, especially the minorities, 'Lower' castes. This theory is OR and had been debated thoroughly and rejected by academics and progressive political parties in India."world specialists on ancient India", voicing "mainstream academic opinion in India, Pakistan, the United States, Europe, Australia, Taiwan and Japan" on the issue, is now part of a concerted campaign encompassing well-known scholars and hundreds of teachers and parents against this 20th Century idea.John Paul 06:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Turn the pages of elementry school pages of any Indian school syllabus you will learn the truth, I believe those who are proposing Afd too know the truth. "If history was easy to change, Man would not have been using internet".Those who made efforts to change history are themself wiped off from history.
  • Keep. Apart from the article having it's merits and being well sourced, the proposer has since decided to retire from wikipedia on the same day as this afd. He Had also raised particpated in a rfc against the creator of this article, and taken sides with a person in dispute with the creator- the motive seems suspect. Haphar 08:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you please clarify who do you refer to when you mention "retire from Wikipedia". I initiated RfC against the creator of the article (after making effort for 4 months on different article to remove OR and explain basic policy like WP:ATT to an admin). The article only has some sources NOW since I kept pushing to include sources (look at the previous version to see how many citation you can find [[11]]). Dab is STILL misquoting the sources in the article (items ref in (3) and (7)). He refuses to provide correct citation for controversial statements in the article or to remove the statements. I have been working with a third party mediator to tackle one issue at a time. Dab refuses to participate in the mediation effort. The question is do we need 2 article on Wikipedia to discuss same content? AIT is long established article for same content that is better referenced than this article and includes efforts of lot more than 1 editor.Sbhushan 14:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I refer to user Rayfield, or RF as the User signs. I correct my above statement-RF had "particpated" in a rfc and taken a stance opposed to dab.- Haphar 15:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)- Also in light with the request for deletion, it is misplaced as in the same request a suggestion to "merge" is also made, merge has a seperate template than afd, and if merge was the objective than the appropriate tags and discussion should have been placed and made. If the content can be added to the other article, then deletion / redirection suggestions can be looked at, but I think that should precede a request for deletion.Haphar 15:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify Rayfield (RF) has neither "certified" or "endorsed" the RfC. On talk page of RfC he has provided some advice (which any fair person would have difficulty disagreeing with) to Dab [[12]]. It would definately make it easy to work with Dab if he followed WP:CIVIL policy. I made effort over 4 months to resolve this, how long can I keep clapping with one hand. I am still having difficulty understanding how enforcing WP:ATT on all editors evenly is not the best solution to this controversial problem. Don't allow anyone's POV.Sbhushan 15:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by RHaworth. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 19:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historymon

edit
Historymon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unclear or insufficient evidence of notability. Contested prod. Strangerer (Talk) 17:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep

Richard Vobes

edit
Richard Vobes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested WP:PROD, sending here for discussion. Original PROD rationale is here. Procedural nom, no opinion. Chick Bowen 17:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - all external links are to sites affiliated with Vobes; no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. Also possible issues with WP:COI as per prod rationale. Delete unless sourced by end of this AfD. Walton Vivat Regina! 18:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete , unsourced and unreferenced. If it changes by end of this AfD change to Keep AlfPhotoman 20:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The original PROD says that the article was created by Richard Vobes himself for commercial gain. This is clearly not the case as the article was not created by Richard. The article contains information about Richard's contribution to podcasting. This is further supported by his contribution to Podcast User Magazine. Besides, he is quite well known in the Podcasting industry. Hohohob 22:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I doubt the BBC is affiliated with Vobes and their profiling him as an example of UK podcasting is significant. However, I'd prefer more than one source. Nuttah68 10:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Richard has been an extremely influential member of the podcasting community, has won awards for his "soundseeing tours" in the vobes.com show and has been part of the "audio blog" genre, via the nakeenglishman.co.uk. He has inspired many other peiople to podcast (including myself) and provides uniqueu content, which is consumed worldwide. All in all Richard has created over 1,000 prodcasts, which is more than the "podfather" himself, Mr Adam Curry. To consider "deleting" Richard's contribution would be like proving George Orwell correct. Ignore the doublethink: Keep the Vobe!pcogle 09:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete This page does seem rather like a self serving promotion. Since the original Wiki article was created, he has strayed from his original show concept which endured a small (as claimed) but loyal following and he never discusses exact listener figures. It's not apparent how he has been any sort of pioneer in anything watershed; the show is still similar to '70's radio morning shows. Many, many others have inspired others to become podcasters -- not just Vobes. Judging from the same contributors emails being constantly read, apparently the listener base remains stagnant.To echo an earlier commenter, where are the references and sources? BIGGUY 22:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC) note - edited to remove subjective qualitative statements[reply]
  • Keep. Richard Vobes provides listeners a window into English versus American culture, and therefore provides a valuable cross-cultural exchange which trancends any debate as to his value as a broadcaster. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.134.164.37 (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC).Vobes is a pioneer in podcasting and audio blogging - deleting him is deleting history - do not let it happen[reply]
  • Keep. Richard Vobes can justifably be seen as notable in that he has created children's Television programmes and produced his long running, regular, podcast. Earlier versions of the Wiki were certainly self-publicising but this situation has since improved. Subjective opinion as to the quality of his work do not add to this discussion. PRichards14 11:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Miah

edit
Andy Miah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Autobiographical article with a big conflict of interest problem. Sources are primarily by the subject/primary editor of the article. Prod was contested (by the subject of the article}. RJASE1 Talk 18:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - long list of publications may make him notable, but no evidence of multiple coverage in independent sources to demonstrate notability per WP:BIO. Delete unless sourced by end of this AfD. Walton Vivat Regina! 18:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - tacky self-promotion. The book section is inflated with book reviews. But his one book has got attention in the outside world according to a google search. Bobanny 18:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article lacks non-trivial second party sources and references, therefore failing WP:V, if sources are added i.a.w. WP:BIO change to Keep AlfPhotoman 23:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, after being advised that there were in fact sources hidden in the article but not marked as such. Someone should clean it up AlfPhotoman 14:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - okay disclaimer: I have some professional connection with Miah (though I have never met him) and I would not comment if this were a less clear-cut case. The closing admin can take that into account and perhaps even discount my commnent. That said, he would be notable just for his book Genetically Modified Athletes, so I'm a bit puzzled as to why the article on him is up for deletion. Metamagician3000 23:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (I was the one who removed the prod, and also edited the article, removing a great deal of the over-extensive list of references, etc.) In addition to the book, most of the articles in the list are in high-quality journals, and an outside source is provided by the book reviews at least. But they should have exact references for the purpose. It is not unusual for people to nominate articles by clearly notable scientists on the basis they wrote much of the article. But the question is the quality of the article, not who wrote it, and at this point I don't think there's much COI left.DGG 23:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies article. --Loremaster 18:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Upon some detailed exploration, one can find that references are indeed tucked away in the article. The article has improved quite a bit since it was AfD'd and even more since it was prodded (see diff). My reading of the current version reveals no real COI issues, and a look at the edit history shows that they were removed over the past few days. -- Black Falcon 21:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 04:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of calculators

edit
List of calculators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Although I confess to accessing this page while looking for a list of casio calculators, WP:NOT a collection of links, or a directory. The page is almost useless, at least 95% of the links are redlinks, and few of the articles would ever contain any useful information without becoming instruction manuals, which WP:NOT. Most of the lists are in neither numerical or chronological order, and there is no consistency of style or content. It's unknown and difficult to determine whether the lists are current or comprehensive, as there are no references or cited sources. All in all, this list needs an enormous amount of work itself, and the effort needed to establish the hundreds of articles it links to is simply titanic. Without all those redlinks linking to functional articles, the list is useless, and even if the faries were to accomplish that, and remain within the confines of WP:NOT, what would we be have then? A glorified category which can't update itself. Useless. Happy-melon 18:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:29Z

Computer Concepts (USA)

edit
Computer Concepts (USA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:ComputerConceptsLogo.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Seems relatively non-notable (WP:N), and self-promotional (WP:Vanity). Rebroad 18:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete: fails WP:MUSIC, non notable. Also a copyvio of the band's homepage, so speedy delete as well. Fram 13:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ligion

edit
Ligion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The subject of the article does not meet any of the criteria for notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 18:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - I just did Google search and it seems slightly notable. Needs massive cleanup though--양복42 18:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's a press release, not an article. Notability is not established in the article; in fact, it asserts non-notability by pointing out they're unsigned. Sounds like band members spend a lot of time phoning in requests to the local radio station. Bobanny 18:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Band is not notable enough yet. May become so in the near future but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also this article fails WP:Advert at present as well. Therefore delete the article now and the creator or others may re-post it in the correct style if/when the band become notbale enough to warrant it. A1octopus 16:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The band is in fact signed, though what will become of them in the future is in fact unknown. The article does require a lot of clean up, and should be started from scratch - it appears that it was taken directly from the band's official site. Shinigami Niko 23:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria is the band has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels. Who is Maple Jam Records? -Nv8200p talk 01:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:32Z

Carlos Rivero

edit
Carlos Rivero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable

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

The result was Deleted. No assertion of notability, self-referential tone, conflict of interest (from both editors), borderline spam - overall, it has to go. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skylab exhibition

edit
Skylab exhibition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested speedy deletion... whatever this is, it needs to cite some published sources and explain its importance or it should be deleted. Article may be a conflict of interest autobiography. --W.marsh 19:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete: unsourced, unverifiable. Fram 13:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beep talking

edit
Beep talking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a non-notable phenomenon, consisting entirely of WP:OR, with serious WP:V issues. I've found nothing with a quick perusal on google: [13] and [14] Part Deux 19:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CAWs.ws

edit
CAWs.ws (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable forum and fansite. Was kept at the previous AfD without many !voters, but I don't feel it meets notability guidelines. The mention in Gamesmaster magazine is trivial coverage per WP:WEB, and states "Our favourite is www.caws.ws, which has CAWs so realistic they look like they've been photographed - and, um, some slightly less realistic ones. Check these out..." with a few pictures of images. The article fails WP:ATT as the entire article is written from the primary source, there is no non-trivial coverage in secondary sources from which an encyclopedic article can be created. One Night In Hackney303 19:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as original research and failing to establish notability by reference to on-trivial secondary independent sources. Guy (Help!) 19:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the website certainly is a notable one and should be kept. It is the largest fansite serving users of wrestling games with a CAW mode. Since the article was created, the site has tripled in size. As an example the main community areas have had more than 1.4 million messages posted to them in just under a year and the website as a whole has gone from 2m hits a month to more than 2m a day. Can be verified at johnb [at] caws.ws.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.143.11.253 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 3 March 2007.— 86.143.11.253 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete - This is not an argument for inclusion under WP:WEB. The number of user and messages posted does not apply for notability under WP:WEB. Unless you can find independent, reliable sources that assert and support notability this article should be deleted. --Haemo 00:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - This article may or may not be original research. Answers.com has pretty much the same information, but I'm betting that it was simply copied from Wikipedia. However, there is still little attribution and I don't see too much in the way of Notability. The only media coverage is a weak mention in a magazine. Kopf1988 16:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:27Z

Doc Marten Skins

edit
Doc Marten Skins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article does not assert that the subject meets any criteria for notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 19:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Deleted, copyvio. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific immortology

edit
Scientific immortology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Neologism and original research.  --LambiamTalk 19:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:27Z

Mohammad Yaghoobi

edit
Mohammad Yaghoobi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Yaghoobi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

There is no assertion of notability for the subject that meets the criteria of WP:BIO. Nv8200p talk 20:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete. The subject should be cited more by other professionals and needs more than a handful of minor awards to reach the notability threshold. Vassyana 10:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:23Z

Chemfluence

edit
Chemfluence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Upcoming festival with no real assertion of notability, no independent sources. 31 unique Ghits, and couldn't find any reliable sources among them. One Night In Hackney303 20:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:34Z

Michael Chaney (Australian businessman)

edit
Michael Chaney (Australian businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Reads like a resume, no sources cited, deleted once as CSD A7. Guy (Help!) 20:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slovio

edit
Slovio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A constructed language. No evidence of notability, seems to be part of a walled garden of articles relating to Mark Hucko, some of which are already deleted, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multi-level cosmology. Article is completely unsourced, presumably original research. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm a bit skeptical, but most of the googlehits are wikipedia and other similar sites. I get the impression that this might become more popular in the future, but right now I don't think it's notable. fraggle 22:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Actually, Slovio is one of the more well-known international auxiliary languages. I don't see why Slovio shouldn't have the right to have it's article, when much lesser known conlangs like Novial, Interlingue and Solresol may stay. I even came to the article to look up information on the language. It would be a loss for Wikipedia if it got deleted. — N-true 22:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Through a Google search, I found 2 (seemingly independent and reliable) sources that address the language non-trivially: [20] and [21]. Based on this, I would say the subject meets WP:N, even if only just. -- Black Falcon 00:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:N requires the sources be non-trivial. I'd argue the omniglot article is trivial, as it's nothing but a short overview, and is nothing but an internet website. A non-trivial source, by contrast, would be a mention in a published book or magazine. I haven't found any in a google books search. Also, "non-trivial" would mean saying more than just "here is a constructed language we found on the internet." In this case, though, if there is something like a medium (newspaper, even bulletin board system) where writers seriously USE Slovio, I can see that making this article notable. Basically, let's try to prove that someone other than Mark Hucko finds this language useful. Davidicke 21:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will readily admit that the article has/had notability concerns, but disagree with some of your statements above. Like you, I too prefer physically-published or publishable materials (books, journals, news) over websites. But, an internet website, as long as it reliable, is still a source. I believe the overview in the Omniglot page satisfies "non-triviality" because Slovio is the page's primary (nay, sole) focus. A trivial overview would be limited to: "Slovio is a constructed language invented by Mark Hucko.". It may be appropriate to merge this article into Mark Hucko, or vice versa, but I view that to be an editorial issue, which I would rather leave to those articles' talk pages and their editors (who are probably more specialised in matters related to constructed languages and their inventors). -- Black Falcon 21:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MADEUP. And from WP:N, "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Thus, I would like to see more than an Omniglot overview. But I agree with you that merge into Mark Hucko might work, if Mark Hucko is notable himself at all. Davidicke 18:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand, Omniglot also lists many alphabets for languages that were created by visitors to this site (an aspect of Omniglot, that I absolutely dislike) and still wouldn't qualify for Wikipedia; but Slovio does not belong to them, of course. — N-true 01:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete this article, reconsider if a full article is written. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:22Z

The Highway Beautiful

edit
The Highway Beautiful (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Band with only one album and very few informations about it. -Sucrine ( ><> talk) 20:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Beal (composer)

edit
John Beal (composer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tihs article was deleted once as an autobiography, created by User:Johnbeal. It was re-created by a new user, User:Bsteph1, who started editing after Johnbeal stopped. I believe they are one and the same. The article is pretty much completely unsourced. IMDB [22] shows Beal to be a jobbing composer of music for minor productions - "specializing in composition for theatrical marketing", i.e. writing advertising soundtracks. Check also the links to reeltime music, this person;s company. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Hi, I'm brand new at this. I did not know there was already an article about John Beal. Where is the article? I created this because I could not find one. I am not John Beal. I became a fan of his when he was the composer for the hit TV shows "Vega$" and "Eight is Enough." I have listed a few articles I found about him. I have tried to rewrite the facts and avoid plagiarism, but... Would someone like to help me edit this to make it okay? There are bios of him all over the internet. According to this bio you cited, he's scored 35 theatrical or television films and documentaries, 26 major network television series or specials, and has been music director for over 20 major network specials. If you look at his credits on the IMDb for the 70's and 80's they're almost all hit shows. That's hardly minor. Bsteph1 07:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I notice the rather short lengths of the relevant sections in the references, and commend the creator for his honesty in retaining such data..DGG 00:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep unless the Holywood Symphony Orchestra is also a hoax. But the article needs better referencing. NBeale 23:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the article needs some work, the subject is certainly notable. Vassyana 10:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete blatant hoax = vandalism ~ trialsanderrors 01:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neddia

edit
Neddia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Supposedly a hurricane that hit Tahiti aka Otaheite. No references: only reference is to page that doesn't exist. No google hits: searched for Neddia & hurricane. Possible WP:HOAX. Prod removed by only author. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 01:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zenzizenzizenzic

edit

Delete - dictionary definition. I hear tell of "transwiki" to Wictionary but I don't knwo how that works, but if this is not there already it probably should be. Otto4711 21:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This article is more than a dictionary definition. It is part of the history of mathematics and the way numbers were represented historically. Lumos3 22:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep per Lumos. Does seem to be more than a dictdef. Grutness...wha? 00:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. The external link says about this word, "It turns up from time to time as one of those weird words which is best known for being held up as an example of a weird word." The Oxford English Dictionary does include this word, but the only citation for this particular word comes from the mathematical work published in 1557 in which it was apparently coined, and which doesn't even use the same spelling; "zenzizenzizenzic" is how the word would be spelled if it had survived into modern English (as opposed to "Zenzizenzizenzikes"). The most recent OED cite for any of the "zenzi..." exponentials is from 1674. This word is most relevant as a word which should be in the dictionary, rather than as a mathematical concept which should be in the encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 02:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The graphic image alone makes this article encyclopedic. If you enlarge it, you can actually read two pages that were printed when Mary I was Queen of England and Queen of Ireland. Fascinating! DavidCBryant 12:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Lumos - it's part of the history of mathematics. It's also part of the history of writing - early efforts to find appropriate symbols for mathematical concepts. I do think it's too short to stand as an article in its own right, so really should be moved to a section on some more encyclopedic page. How would anyone ever find this page if they did not know the word to begin with? I don't agree with DavidCBryant, though. Simply having a fascinating image isn't enough to merit inclusion. If that were the case, every single Pharaonic papyrus fragment would have its own page, and so would each of the clay tablets from each of the ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia and surrounding areas. Cbdorsett 04:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • week keep more than a dict def. Some historical significance in the naming of mathematical concepts. --Salix alba (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - more than a dict def, referenced and notable. Gandalf61 19:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Otto, I know all about WP:NOTE - that's why I said "notable". Etymological study in Michael Quinion's World Wide Words here. Published references in Much Ado About English by Richard Watson Todd ISBN 978-1857883725 and Measure for Measure: The Story of Imperial, Metric, and Other Units by Alexius J. Hebra ISBN 978-0801870729. Gandalf61 14:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not having copies of the latter two references, I can only guess based on the titles but I have certain reservations that Zenzizenzizenzic was their sole subject or even a major subject. Otto4711 23:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not what I claimed. Zenzizenzizenzic is mentioned in both books in the context of Robert Recorde and his place in the history of mathematics and development of modern mathematical terminology and notation. So we have:
  1. Primary source.
  2. Secondary in-depth source (the Michael Quinion reference).
  3. Mentions in other multiple independent published secondary sources.
which, taken all together, support the argument that zenzizenzizenzic has a sufficently notable place in the history of mathematics and the English language to merit inclusion in Wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gandalf61 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I think it's plenty notable, but don't think it should be an article all on its lonesome. I also don't think it should be shunted off to the last page of Wiktionary. Its notability is not in its placement in the alphabet, but its role in history. It may not be a big role, but it's there. Salix alba (below) makes a good point - we need an article on the history of the development of mathematical notation, and this "word" belongs right in there. Has anyone run across a page which deals with this issue? I have a lot of info about it, but I'm not sure how extensive my references are. Cbdorsett 14:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Weirdword has an interesting paragraph discussing the problems of expressing the powers of numbers before our notation was invented. The adoption of the modern notation is quite a significant event in the history of mathematical notation, and Zenzizenzizenzic achieves its notability as a precursor to this notation. Now there is nowhere in wikipedia where we document this transition or even who invented the , this seems precisely the sort of thing which wikipedia should address. --Salix alba (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted as admitted hoax. gadfium 22:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tu Pounamu IV

edit

Appears to be a hoax. The following discussion about it appeared on the NZ Wikipedians' notice board:

Tu Pounamu IV does not ring true. Not one of the names mentioned on the page gets a google hit, the language is unusual for an article about a Māori leader (Aboriginal, prince), Ngāti Awa do not come from Gisborne, etc. This not only needs references, it needs verification of the references. (The book is real, according to National Library catalogue, but its subject matter does not appear relevant). dramatic 09:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Totally bogus. BTW the creator of the article has made a reference to Tu Pounamu IV in Aquinas College, Tauranga, giving Grey's Polynesian Mythology as a source for the family having converted from Ringatuism to Catholicism. Grey is purely and simply a collection of traditional stories, and makes no mention of Catholicism or Ringatuism - in fact Grey, first published around 1854, predates Ringatuism which was started AFAIK by Te Kooti who was much later in the 19th C. Kahuroa 14:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For these reasons I suggest deletion. Grutness...wha? 22:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless attribution of the claims made in the article is provided, and notability is further explained. Being third in line to chieftainship of an iwi does not appear to be enough. I can find no google hits for either '"Tu Pounamu IV"' or '"Jade Gray" "Ngati Awa"'-gadfium 00:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources can be made. Why does the picture appear so blurry as well? bibliomaniac15 05:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second the deletion request. Sir-George-Grey was a 19th century governor general several erras ago. I think the author is either severly mislead or misunderstood when it comes to accuracy and citations. Johannesemmanuelle 08:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been much debate amooung my peers at Otago as to the legitamacy of the scrutiny and investigation of wikipedia articles. This "hoax" was the created (by me and a collegue) for the purpous of the investigation of the reliability and to find out how much time it would take for wikipedian articles to be identified as hoaxes. Congradulations. it has taken a fortenight.Tu Pounamu IV is simply non existant. "Jade Gray" was a randomly selected student from the old school yearbook. Aquinas College was randomly selected as his "school". (mainly because I board in a bording house that shares the name).The picture was scanned from out of the local news paper and the image was picked because the character was the darkest most maori looking in it. (hence the blurr). so dont get your heckles up, atleast you managed to prove the reliability of wikipedia and change the minds of some of your harshest critics. GerradPier 08:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:20Z

Scott Long (Reality TV contestant)

edit
Scott Long (Reality TV contestant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - thre do not appear to be independent sources to establish notability. Should he actually appear in that "SAG film" the article hints at, in a substantial role, then perhaps he'll pass but for now he should go. Otto4711 23:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:19Z

UNIT dating controversy

edit
UNIT dating controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Consists by definition of fan speculation. Indiscriminate jumble of dates and contradictory "evidence." Compare to a similar, now-deleted article for The West Wing. Andrew Levine 23:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I confess WP:ILIKEIT, but perhaps this is material best suited for Wikia's Tardis. Quelle surprise! Unit dating controversy. Delete. --Dhartung | Talk 00:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just because an unrelated article on The West Wing (which has really no similarities to this one) was deleted on its third nomination, does not set a precedent that this must be. The UNIT dating controversy is a major element of discussion regarding Doctor Who and I believe was created in order to prevent the main article on UNIT becoming overlong. It's sourced, and it is not OR nor is it a fanon concept. I'd support renaming the article if people think the title is a bit too POV-ish. 23skidoo 01:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Your description of the article is very inaccurate, Andrew Levine. The page is not jumbled, as you say, and even if it was, that would be a reason to cleanup the article, not delete it. By you putting quotes around evidence, you presumably mean that most of this stuff is just made up, but in fact each and every fact as a direct link to an episode of Doctor Who or other spin-off media, confirming the fact's verifiability. I say the same for 'fan speculation', this article just states the facts as they appear. Unless a proper reason is seen for deletion, other than 'It happened somewhere else so it automatically happens here', you do not have a case for AfD. Smomo 01:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's not OR - the evidence is contradictory because it has to be; any attempts to reconcile it would be OR. I'd like to see the off-screen evidence section expanded, and the sources cleaned up a bit, but I don't see this a candidate for deletion. --Brian Olsen 01:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Information is detailed and relevant. The separate page is justified given its length and that of its parent page. I think that whether or not the details on this page are duplicated elsewhere online is largely irrelevant. --The Missing Hour 02:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — the West Wing page was deleted in part because of OR concerns. This page cites two published works which have dealt extensively with this controversy. The article could be reorganized to rely more heavily on the secondary sources (AHistory and About Time) and less heavily on the primary sources (the conflicting evidence from Doctor Who episodes, etc.), but that's an argument for improvement, not deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything useful into the United Nations Intelligence Taskforce article. The bulk of this article is trivia/speculation, and come on, is it really a "Controversy" that there is continuity errors across series of a long-running TV show? - fchd 08:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Just take a look at Star Trek: Enterprise... DrWho42 23:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep page is necessary per The Missing Hour and not OR per Josiah Rowe. Probably should be renamed to avoid "controversy", though. Percy Snoodle 11:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - cites reliable secondary sources, plenty of content to justify a page of its own. Matthew 11:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This has been written about in quite a number of secondary sources, plus several of the stories that contradict each other have tried to cover this on their own pages but it proved a mess that got out of sync. Even putting it on the UNIT page got out of hand and distorted an article that should be about the organisation. Timrollpickering 12:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with Comment Regarding the sources, above all else this article needs a footnote right at the end of the first sentence to verify that the controversy exists and is notable enough to warrant an article. I respect the references as published works on the overall subject of Doctor Who, and in and of themselves those references satisfy WP:V but a direct page citation regarding this specific subtopic is desperately needed for WP:N. Show me this is an ongoing controvery, don't tell me. -Markeer 17:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment FourSeven such footnotes have now been provided. Incidentally, I was considering the argument that "controversy" was too strong a term to use for this fan debate, but it turns out that it's pretty much what the two most significant sources use (see the footnotes). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is fancruft that is suitable for a fan website, but has no place in a serious encyclopedia. And anyway, this article is of the kind that would only be started by someone participating in the debate, and the same is true of all subsequent edits - this is just a small number of fans talking to themselves, and since they all are all participants in the debate we have CoI, so this article should go. WMMartin 13:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Erm, did you see the footnotes and references? It is true that this is a controversy limited to Doctor Who fans, but there are many reliable sources who discuss this. To my knowledge, none of the authors mentioned in the article have edited the page, so there is no conflict of interest. If this were an article about an obscure academic controversy, the number of individuals in the discussion might be even smaller. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment, I saw the references, but for the life of me I still can't see why this discussion about a series of continuity errors merits an article in a general-purpose encyclopedia. - fchd 17:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. "Arguments that the nature of the subject is unencyclopaedic (for example individual songs or episodes of a TV show) should also be avoided in the absence of clear policies or guidelines against articles on such subjects." —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment. I am content to rest on WP:IGNORE here. While this article may technically meet our guidelines, common sense tells me this has no place here, but would be better suited to a fan forum. Being an encyclopedia doesn't mean we have to cover everything in the universe that might be of interest to someone, somewhere. WMMartin 15:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are, after all, plenty of other places online where this sort of thing can be written about and / or debated. I'm not saying it shouldn't be here at all, but I think by far the best course of action would be to condense it and fold it back into United Nations Intelligence Taskforce, turning this page into a redirect there. Angmering 23:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Last itme that happened, that article got so over complex and confusing that this was article was created. This is just history repeating itself over and over, which is silly. Keep. Smomo 16:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn. No delete vote. PeaceNT 08:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Erdman

edit

Prodded on grounds of non-notable, no google hits, article fails WP:COI, WP:V and WP:SPAM all links on site are back to Mr. Erdman's own webpage. Richhoncho 23:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I fixed it up with external sources and removed things I couldn't verify (WP:V). I took out all links to his site except for one in external links (WP:SPAM). Also, how does this violate WP:COI. According to the first edit summary, the idea for the article came from WP:RA. There is nothing to suggest Erdman or a friend of his wrote it. And no Google hits? I got 15,600, and that was with his name in quotes. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:17Z

Left Behind (Lost)

edit
Left Behind (Lost) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
One of Us (Lost) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Catch 22 (Lost) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

All of the information in this article (except for it being a Kate flashback) is unofficial and has not been confirmed by the producers or stars of Lost or ABC. It is based upon rumour from Spoilerfix.com. SergeantBolt (t,c) 23:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [absolutely none of the information purported in the articles is official - none of it has been confirmed. Also, the title for episode sixteen, The Truth About Lying, was revealed by Carlton Cuse in a televised interview, yet the page One of Us (Lost), has been created even though The Truth About Lying was created days before.]:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:21Z

ECG, Inc.

edit
ECG, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I prodded this, prod removed on the grounds I did not notify the instigator of article. Reasons for listing include WP:COI, WP:SPAM , WP:NN and WP:CITE (not that I could find any independent sources, but somebody else might). Richhoncho 23:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted as copyvio (CSD G12). -- Merope 08:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East Brunswick, NJ Public Saftey

edit
East Brunswick, NJ Public Saftey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nom - Fails WP:N. Falls clearly under WP:NOT. Speedied once already. Rklawton 23:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:21Z

Tobacco Bad Kids

edit
Tobacco Bad Kids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable article Guroadrunner 00:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:17Z

Jan Cox (philosopher)

edit
Jan Cox (philosopher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

not a notable person and I can't find anything that says he was a philospher, anywhere outside of his own site. This bio has, though not currently, been a page full of debate. If you google this guy, you will note that only two places show up, his site and wikipedia. I went to the profile months ago to cool down the hostile debates and even after later posting on the Philosophy Wikproject, nothing[24]. I see no reason to keep an article that can't attract non-follower comments or even any reliable or verifiable sources. Addionally, most of the language was changed by me to remove the obvious POV, and I will not be offended to see it go. Additionally, I found that others agree here [25] --Maniwar (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete We are judging whether the subject is N. Obviously he wont be considered a philosopher by anyone else, but he might be considered N as a writer or a crank. However, I could not find any book review in Book Review Index for his book Dialogues of Gurdjieff,. DGG 22:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the article becomes properly refed with real evidence of notability. And if kept, rename since he doesn't seem to be a philosopher in any meaningful sense NBeale 23:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable non-trivial second party references are added by end of this AfD AlfPhotoman 23:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_3&oldid=1116722490"